Today, One News reported:
Thankfully we know what the question from Dotcoms' lawyer Paul Davison QC was:
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald then perjured himself by saying; "No there wasn't".
But they haven't released the transcript of the court case... What does that tell you?
Today, Q+A had a video of Grant Wormald saying exactly what had already been reported. Any speculative or selectivity doesn't necessarily make the reporting inaccurate. It's the media's job to report on people's opinion and selectively choose what information is newsworthy. A Detective Inspector misleading a court of law is obviously newsworthy.
It's a pretty far-fetched excuse by Peter Marshall, who's expecting the public to believe that reporters have intentionally misreported the facts of the matter and are therefore liable for a defamation case. Wormald hasn't laid a complaint with any media outlet though, nor undertaken legal action to protect his position, because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Today, Whaleoil reported:
In my opinion, Wormald wasn't just inconsistent; he clearly perjured himself in a court of law. He said to his knowledge there was no other agencies involved in the surveillance of Mr Dotcom, knowing full well that the GCSB was involved. In fact he attended a meeting on December 14 with GCSB operatives. For him to say he wasn't aware of their involvement is an obvious lie.
By "circumspect" Slater actually means the public shouldn't have been informed at all. However it's to late to brush it all under the carpet and thankfully reporters have a higher standard than the right wing fool!
Paul Davison QC has a duty to his client and the truth. The media rightfully reported on Wormald's perjury and the GCSB's involvement. It is their involvement that could ultimately let Dotcom off, because it was unlawful.
The Greens have a duty to represent the public's interests. It's not in the public's interest to have the GCSB illegally spying on New Zealand citizens and/or residents. It's not in the public's interest to have Detective Inspector Grant Wormald get away with perjury.
Of course the Green's are far more diplomatic than the Jackal, with Russel Norman saying:
Unfortunately it appears that the police are dealing with it by making pathetic excuses that are inconsistent with the facts of the matter. Instead of ensuring justice is done, the police are closing ranks to protect one of their own, no matter how unlawful the Detective Inspector has been.
This is entirely detrimental to the police force, which can only operate properly when people have confidence that justice is being served. Such blatantly obvious corruption also lowers police moral, with the damage caused to the organizations functionality not to be underestimated.
Compounding the problem further with more lies, which insults people's intelligence, is not a solution. But none of this concerns National propagandist Cameron Slater, who writes:
As I'm sure the ignoramus Slater knows, there is a transcript of the court case but it hasn't been made public. In fact all court cases in New Zealand are transcribed. We already know what was said because it was recorded and accurately published. In this instance, people should have confidence that what was reported is correct.
It's apparent that there's no omission of information by reporters that might let Wormald of the hook. The evidence is very clear... Grant Wormald knowingly perjured himself in a court of law. He should therefore resign or be sacked. In the very least, there needs to be a full and independent inquiry into the matter.
The police should also conduct an investigation... However, their objectivity is in question, and it's doubtful that any charges or a prosecution of Wormald would eventuate by simply leaving it up to them to deal with.
The dishonest Detective Inspector is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years for committing perjury, so it's no wonder they're trying to bullshit their way out... They take their cues from John Key after all.
When spoken to by the Sunday Star-Times, Wormald said the answer had been taken out of context, and rejected suggestions he had been lying. "I'm saying I told the truth."
However, a police source said Wormald has argued the answer to his question has been taken out of context. He said he was asked about "physical surveillance" and was not referring to the snooping of emails and phonecalls which GCSB is understood to have carried out.
Thankfully we know what the question from Dotcoms' lawyer Paul Davison QC was:
So apart from the surveillance which [the police surveillance team] might have been going to undertake on your behalf was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand to your knowledge?
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald then perjured himself by saying; "No there wasn't".
Wormald refused to go into the matter further because it was in front of the courts, but said a transcript of the hearing would provide context to what he said.
But they haven't released the transcript of the court case... What does that tell you?
Marshall backed that stance, saying it was "deeply concerning" there had been "considerable recent speculative, inaccurate and selective commentary" around the actions of police officers involved in the Dotcom investigation.
Today, Q+A had a video of Grant Wormald saying exactly what had already been reported. Any speculative or selectivity doesn't necessarily make the reporting inaccurate. It's the media's job to report on people's opinion and selectively choose what information is newsworthy. A Detective Inspector misleading a court of law is obviously newsworthy.
It's a pretty far-fetched excuse by Peter Marshall, who's expecting the public to believe that reporters have intentionally misreported the facts of the matter and are therefore liable for a defamation case. Wormald hasn't laid a complaint with any media outlet though, nor undertaken legal action to protect his position, because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Today, Whaleoil reported:
Campbell Live used selected quotes from a cop in court – DotCon’s lawyer continued the theme in court the next day (nice strategy) – and the rest of the media dutifully repeated this, saying the cop’s evidence was inconsistent.
In my opinion, Wormald wasn't just inconsistent; he clearly perjured himself in a court of law. He said to his knowledge there was no other agencies involved in the surveillance of Mr Dotcom, knowing full well that the GCSB was involved. In fact he attended a meeting on December 14 with GCSB operatives. For him to say he wasn't aware of their involvement is an obvious lie.
The defence lawyer is trying to get his client off, as you would expect – but shouldn’t the media have been more circumspect with its reporting?
By "circumspect" Slater actually means the public shouldn't have been informed at all. However it's to late to brush it all under the carpet and thankfully reporters have a higher standard than the right wing fool!
Paul Davison QC has a duty to his client and the truth. The media rightfully reported on Wormald's perjury and the GCSB's involvement. It is their involvement that could ultimately let Dotcom off, because it was unlawful.
Now the stupid Greens are trying to interfere, even though they will have no idea of what was and wasn’t said in court.
The Greens have a duty to represent the public's interests. It's not in the public's interest to have the GCSB illegally spying on New Zealand citizens and/or residents. It's not in the public's interest to have Detective Inspector Grant Wormald get away with perjury.
Of course the Green's are far more diplomatic than the Jackal, with Russel Norman saying:
This is one of their senior officers giving inconsistent evidence under oath - that's a pretty serious matter. In the first instance, let's see how the police deal with that, but clearly they do need to deal with it.
Unfortunately it appears that the police are dealing with it by making pathetic excuses that are inconsistent with the facts of the matter. Instead of ensuring justice is done, the police are closing ranks to protect one of their own, no matter how unlawful the Detective Inspector has been.
This is entirely detrimental to the police force, which can only operate properly when people have confidence that justice is being served. Such blatantly obvious corruption also lowers police moral, with the damage caused to the organizations functionality not to be underestimated.
Compounding the problem further with more lies, which insults people's intelligence, is not a solution. But none of this concerns National propagandist Cameron Slater, who writes:
So, my question to the media and everyone else out there – is there a transcript of what was said in court? Have you checked it? Are you confident the full facts of what was said have been reported? If not, are you at all concerned you might have got this very wrong? Are you concerned you might have prejudiced a court case?
As I'm sure the ignoramus Slater knows, there is a transcript of the court case but it hasn't been made public. In fact all court cases in New Zealand are transcribed. We already know what was said because it was recorded and accurately published. In this instance, people should have confidence that what was reported is correct.
It's apparent that there's no omission of information by reporters that might let Wormald of the hook. The evidence is very clear... Grant Wormald knowingly perjured himself in a court of law. He should therefore resign or be sacked. In the very least, there needs to be a full and independent inquiry into the matter.
The police should also conduct an investigation... However, their objectivity is in question, and it's doubtful that any charges or a prosecution of Wormald would eventuate by simply leaving it up to them to deal with.
The dishonest Detective Inspector is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years for committing perjury, so it's no wonder they're trying to bullshit their way out... They take their cues from John Key after all.
