13. Trapped by gossip
This chapter contains the 15 page document I have written, after studying the transcript of the Peter Liddy child abuse case. Since writing my findings I have also visited the State Library on North Terrace, Adelaide and compared what had been written about the previous day's proceedings in the newspaper.
If those who think that what they read in the press is what really went on the day before in the court, have to think again. I'm afraid to have to say this once again. Judge for yourself, if what I found matches up.
Approx. 15 months earlier I had found this also after attending the Royal Commission into the alleged hit-run accident by an alleged drunk driver. When on Friday May 20th, 05 the defence lawyer was changed, and was funded by the government, nothing was reported the next day in our one and only daily newspaper.
Studying the transcript of the Liddy case confirmed what I had suspected, Eugene McGee worked on the defence team for Peter Liddy.
Friends, if after reading this you doubt my findings, please search for yourself, if you are able to. In a free society any citizen should have the right to question what went on in a court case and what was released to the public later. If things don't add up, speak out - was one of my early slogans in my writing.
Where previously a dissenter like myself had to stand on a street corner with a placate around his neck, thanks to the Internet, now has a means of letting millions know, what they have found. And it's no different to the printed words in a newspaper. The reader will make up his mind, what to believe.
Nothing stops the truth from winning the battle with lies - with or without the mass media.
Here is what I wrote about the Liddy case. Right through the transcript, as if caused by supernatural powers, I found data, which reflected my strange Da Ninci code.
(The best example, of course is Lindy/Liddy. But there are others. Another good example - One witness, who testified for the accused, that he never saw any sexual misbehaviour, was a Mr. Ninnes.)
I have distributed many copies of the one-page version (as printed in Chapter 11), but fewer than a handful have received a copy of the detailed version below. I feel compelled to publish it, because the truth must be made known - God's truth prevails.
I am not at liberty to mention certain people's names, as this could be in breach of our law.
- - - - - - -
Review - Charges against Peter Michael Liddy
Ever since the accused, Peter Liddy (PL) has been jailed for 25 years in prison (18 years non-parole) I have expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the alleged offenses. At the time of writing (August 06) I have serious doubts that justice has taken place in this sad and tragic case.
From my own research, plus first hand information from a close confident of Peter Liddy, I have put together this document of the case, asking questions, which may never have been asked in the public arena.
If you are a journalist, politician, lawyer, clergyman or simply another concerned member of the public, who loves truth and justice, please help right this wrong! If you are not willing or unable to become involved, please pass this document to somebody, who may be in a position to do so. I am not a relative of the accused, but an ordinary South Australian, who wants to see justice done in our beautiful state. I am convinced that if this case had been carried out more thoroughly and impartially, Peter Liddy would not be in jail today.
Here are two scenarios of what occurred; only one can be correct. Please read with an open mind, forgetting everything you know about the case, or the man they described as a monster. Make up your own mind, which story is more likely to be the truth and which makes more sense.
The case against Peter Liddy:
Mr. Liddy worked in a voluntary capacity at the Brighton Life Surfing Club, south of Adelaide, and other community institutions, for a number of years. Starting in 1983 he allegedly recruited boys aged 9 or 10, gained their trust and then sexually abused them in the Clubhouse and during trips away.
The allegedly abused came forward 15+ years later and told horrific stories, describing their coach Liddy as a sick man and a sex-maniac. It is alleged there was open masturbation and ejaculation, while transporting the children in a van, anal penetration, allegedly using force on at least one occasion etc. Abuse supposedly occurred in various locations, such as the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club, in motel rooms and at the Glenelg Courthouse.
It is alleged that as soon as Mr. Liddy found out that one abused boy had gone to the police, Mr. Liddy offered a bribe to another alleged victim, in order to have him testify that nothing ever took place.
On September 7th, 2001, having been found guilty by the jury on 10 out of 15 charges, Peter Liddy was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, 18 years non-parole.
This alternative to me makes sense:
South Australia’s longest serving magistrate, a judge renowned for handing down harsh sentences, is heavily involved in community work. He has no wife or children. His weekends and social life centre around a Surf Life Saving Club, where he trains 1000’s of young people and spends lots of time, energy and money.
Not one young person ever says anything to anybody regarding sexual misbehaviour by the magistrate/surf lifesaver. Fifteen or so years later one boy comes forward, claiming he had been abused by PL. A little later another comes forward, then another. The magistrate’s world caves in. After the first allegation, he goes to a boy he had kept in contact with and regarded as a trusted friend. The accused asks for a statement from his friend to tell the truth - that nothing sexual ever took place.
The young man’s first reaction is agreement: “They are after your money”. In return for the favour the young man asks his ex-coach, if he could help him out with some money. He wants to get married to his girlfriend of nine years.
The magistrate obliges with $ 3000, then another $ 2000 two or three days later. However, the young man spends the money on other things and changes his plan to buy a ring and propose to his girlfriend. Instead, he asks for more money. This young man has a criminal record. Another accuser is described in court as a career criminal.
Now the magistrate realizes, his friend had turned into a blackmailer. He tells him: “Go to hell. You’re not receiving one more cent”.
The objective had been achieved. The scene was set to put the magistrate behind bars. The magistrate has fallen into the trap. More boys come forward with sex abuse charges against the magistrate, which makes the public more convinced there is some truth in it. The public, however, does not know the main accusers are criminals.
Rewarded for testifying against Liddy
The story of a senior long-serving magistrate charged with child abuse creates a media frenzy. To satisfy their insatiable appetite for sensational news the media reports the case in a very biased way, taking sides with the allegedly abused boys. It sounds like a case of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
They jury believes the abuse stories, despite the accusers having a track record of lying, stealing, drug abuse etc. One accuser, described as career criminal, is brought from Queensland, where he had signed a document that he was willing to testify against Liddy. In return he receives a reduction in his jail sentence. The jury fails to see the link between the sex abuse allegations and the boys, who turned into criminals.
There were other boys, who testified for PL. Those were the ones without a criminal record, saying they never saw any sexual improper behaviour by the defendant. (I never read this anywhere in the newspaper articles, unless I simply did not find it).
One of the detectives wrote in the Police Association Journal (July 73) that in the Liddy case they had to give that bit extra to ensure a 100 % conviction of the accused. I believe they went too far. I question, if in their zeal for child protection, they put an innocent man behind bars?
Inadmissible evidence - hidden truth
The following pages are the result of reading parts of the transcript of the court proceedings for approx.14 hours in total, plus personal correspondence I had with PL over a few months. I am not a legal expert, rather I have tried to apply logic and reason, as to who is likely telling the truth in this case.
Further I have been in contact with family members of PL, who assured me that none of PL’s wider family ever believed he was guilty. They were unable to stop the injustice from taking the tragic turn it did.
PL does not want a release on a technicality or lack of evidence. Nothing short of the whole truth will have to be told and made public for Peter Liddy to ever live a reasonably normal life again outside jail.
PL is in possession of a document, which should have convinced the jury that at least one of his accusers was lying about the abuse. This document was not admissible in court. It is a fair question to ask - why?
PL denied repeatedly and consistently that anything sexual had ever taken place. Some men, who were boys at the time, members of the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club (BSLSC), testified to that effect (F, V and M.). The accused had no prior criminal record (as a magistrate, you would think so). He was a respected member of the community.
Yet, the jury believed the improbable, horrific stories of angry young men; one was described by defense counsel as a career criminal. This accuser, named W., admitted to having been a drug addict. He said he was on a methadone program, during the trial.
How dumb could you get?
Likewise, I find it equally improbable that the accused, knowing the laws better than most, would knowingly commit multiple offences, each, if found out, would give him a life sentence. Likewise, the alleged attempt at offering a bribe to lie about the abuse, if true, would be one of the dumbest things an intelligent man could have undertaken.
Even, if Peter Liddy had succeeded in paying off one accuser (Accuser D. was the only one), did PL really think he could be paying off these men, one after another, for the rest of his life? Very, very dumb, if it were true.
Further, I find it very improbable that the accused would be so stupid and take photos, knowing they would be dynamite later for a jury to convict him. One accuser claims PL took photos with an instamatic camera, but (conveniently for the accuser), PL destroyed them by ripping them up and scattering them in sand dunes the next day.
"I love that boy"
(Please note: Numbers in brackets are the page numbers in the Transcript).
Prosecution claimed that there was no possibility of concoction by the victims. Defence Counsel refuted this (P. 66): “The accusers had 18 years to concoct the story”.
I received information from a trusted source, that the three main accusers all spent time together in Yatala jail. (I did not find a reference to this in the court transcript, however). I ask: Was this known to the jury? If not, would it not have illustrated that the probability of concoction is indeed very high. I agree with defence counsel, there would have been ample time and opportunity to conspire and plan a crime of this nature.
Why did the accusers wait until 1999, 15 or more years after the alleged abuse, before saying anything to anyone? I find it almost beyond comprehension that not one accuser was bursting to offload the burden to a friend, parent, peer, relative, teacher or police. One kept his secret of abuse for 9 years from his girlfriend!
PL and his defence claimed that the media, especially TV Channel ..., prejudiced the people of South Australia the way they presented the case. PL claimed it influenced the jury right from the beginning. A move by the defence team to lay charges against the Channel failed. I personally have witnessed the following blunt distortion, which was reported on TV on the evening News on Sept. 7th 2001 (the day of sentencing).
The reporter said: “There was uproar in the courtroom and spontaneous applause, when the verdict was handed down”
I know for a fact that there was nothing of that sort. There was stunned silence. Only one lady sobbed quietly behind me, leaning on the shoulder of the person beside her.
Evidence of the hysteria must have over spilled into other areas of the courtroom. The stenographer obviously made a mistake, because the transcript on page 1633 stated - PL said: “I love that boy” (Adam D.). Later the judge or somebody else, corrected the transcript and changed it to read: “I liked that boy.”
There is a vast difference between love and liked and between the present tense and past tense.
Editor's note: I find this extra-ordinary that the transcript had to be changed in blue ink. What else needs changing? Equally extra-ordinary, I find the fact that only one single copy (hard-copy) exists, so I was told, of the transcript of court-proceedings.
(Please note: This scan and text underneath was added 10/9/2010. I was able to obtain a copy of Page 1633 of the Liddy trial transcript!)
Take your pick! "I love him very much!" >>>>> "I liked him very much".
Questions: How many copies of the original transcript have circulated, which could be interpreted that Mr. Liddy admits to being in love with witness Adam D?" Little wonder, in the media the case created a frenzy.
No date is noted on the page. Was it corrected before the second trial, Mr. Liddy's appeal?
Did the jury have the correct copy, when they made their deliberations, before casting their guilty vote?
When I was a youth leader there were some boys I liked more than others. But I was never in love with any of them. Note, how the prosecution tries to infer that the accused and the alleged abused were lovers! For the stenographer to be typing: "I love him very much", created a completely false impression.
- - - - - - -
How did W. know there were only three?
Accuser W. stated that he had been a heroin addict since he was 16. At the time of the Liddy trial he was on a methadone program. His parents were divorced. He had previous convictions for stealing, dishonesty, assault, robbery, drug offences etc.
Born in 1974, W. was a member of the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club (BSLSC) for 3 seasons, 83/84, 84/85 and 85/86. He claimed that he was abused soon after joining when 9 or 10 years old.
I ask: Why rejoin for two more seasons, after being abused right from the start?
P. 770 W. alleged PL selected a group of 3 boys (to abuse):
“He (PL) found three boys and that was it”.
I ask: Did W. say, Liddy found 3 boys and that was it, because there were initially only 3 three accusers, he and two more? How could he state so definitely, word for word, that PL found 3 boys and that was it? How would he know, if there weren’t any others forthcoming?
I ask: Would it not make perfect sense that W. would say: 3 boys that was it, if the three of them had concocted the whole story? Didn't Act 1 of the conspiracy only include 3 boys?
Best mates, but what's his name?
Accuser W. said he did not know the real names of his mates at the BSLSC, only nicknames. Defence Counsel questions: Can one have a close friend for 3 years and never know their full, actual name? I add: Was there never a presentation of an award etc, where the full name was read out?
I ask: Was it more convenient to state, he did not know their real names, because this would minimize the opportunity of getting in contact with each other later?
P. 773: W mixed up Torrens Island and Torrens River. (Just a simple error?).
P. 780: PL was rubbing his (W’s) penis for two minutes. W. said, it wasn’t long.
In my opinion, having another man put his hands inside your swimwear and rubbing your private parts for even a few seconds is an eternity. I ask: How can W. say, it wasn’t long? Was W.’s judgement of length of time totally wrong? Was the incident of little consequence? Did the incident really happen or was it all a fantasy?
Editor's personal note: I remember when I was about 9 or 10 a man in a public baths’ shower block walked over to me and touched my penis on the outside for approx 1 second, then walked off, laughing. One second was long enough for me to remember and realize immediately that this (one off incident) was not appropriate behaviour. (I did not report it to anyone, it was too trivial and did not affect my life in any way).
P. 781: W claims, he did “not think, he did not know anything was wrong with it”.
I ask: Is this probable for a nine year old? Does a child that age, who never had anything sexual happen to him before, honestly not know that something was wrong? An adult places his hand inside his swimmers and rubs his private parts for a whole 2 minutes? I am convinced that even a 5 year-old would recognize this as most improper behaviour?
I ask: Is W. telling the truth here? I would accept W’s statement, if he had been subjected to abuse from a much earlier age, or perhaps grown up with it.
P. 814: W. mentioned the season 95/96. The person interviewing has to correct him - "You mean 85/86". (Was this just another simple error?)
Chauffeur-driven by detective
P ? : When W. was due to appear in court, he was picked up from his residence on the South Coast (1 1/2 hours from Adelaide) by Detective S. On the way they visited a spot, where an alleged abuse had taken place. By co-incident, the jury had visited this same location, as part of the trial, the day before.
I ask: Is it common practice for a prosecuting detective to provide transport (at public expense?) for a victim of the crime to the court? Was it appropriate to make a detour and visit the scene of the alleged offence, just prior to him testifying in court?
I ask: Was the detective taking this opportunity to talk to the accuser? What conversation, if any did they engage in? Did they talk about the trial? Could these discussions have influenced court proceedings? Were these discussions in any way to inform W. of prior court proceedings, which would prejudice his testimony in the witness box?
(When questioned, Detective S. said he had acted on orders from the Director of Public Prosecution, Paul Rofe. Mr. Rofe has since been replaced as DPP for South Australia).
P. 838 Defence Counsel pointed out that W. received a reduced sentence, for his crimes committed in Queensland. She hinted strongly that this may have been a reward for W. testifying against PL.
P. 842: W. admitted having told lies in court initially about his drug use.
Plus, while out on bail he stole a $ 17 000 motor vehicle and crashed it into a pole.
(Did anyone read this in the newspaper? I didn't).
P. 1574: The defence claims W. displayed dishonesty already as a 9 year old.
W. was regularly supplied with money from his mother to spend during outings etc. Instead of using this money to buy his lunches, he would lie to PL that he had no money. PL felt sorry and supplied him with money (or paid for lunches). This practice stopped after PL found out that the accuser stole money from the van. W. was no longer allowed to come on long trips.
I ask: Does this not clearly display a disposition to a life of crime? Does it not set the scene for this dishonest boy, who harbours resentment from years ago, to gladly join in or even start a conspiracy to get back at the accused 15 years later?
I noted that W’s mother’s boyfriend was a police officer.
Accuser D: "The truth is - I lied."
D. was 27-year-old when he appeared in court. He was asked when his brother was born. D. did not know.
P. 1173: D. claimed PL said, he would leave him everything!
I ask: Why a barely 40 year-old man would even talk about leaving an inheritance to a boy, 8 years old? Was it to create the impression, PL wanted to start a long, very long relationship?
P. 1185 D. described his first abuse. His detailed description of the location, the entrance of the Glenelg Courthouse, is 10 lines in the transcript. Yet in the same paragraph D. couldn’t remember, who was present at the time.
I ask: Is the description of the Glenelg courthouse in such detail, because it is one of the few true parts?
P. 1186 D. admitted to touching PL in his private parts. Liddy responds: “Don’t do that.” (It is interesting to note that the aspect of consent does not come into the picture. The law is such, the boys were too young for consent).
P. 1188 According to D. he and PL allegedly corroborated what to say to D’s parents. If this was a lie, does it not sound like a classic case of a liar engaging in this behaviour (creating a lie to get out of trouble), because this is what habitual liars do?
D. described unbelievable behaviour by PL. (The graphic detail is too awful to print here, it paints a picture of PL as a sex-maniac to the highest degree).
I ask: Was this a tactic to put a grizzly picture into the jurors minds? Did the accusers think, by shocking the jury, it would impregnate scenes into their minds, which some would find hard to digest, but still be able to remain impartial? (I have doubts about trials by jury, more in another chapter).
P. 1191 Defence Counsel claimed a photo-reconstruction by the prosecution, substituting Detective S. as PL, was inadmissible in court. When defence wanted to take another course of action, prosecution objected, saying: “We haven’t got time for that!” I ask: What was the urgency here? Was there a reason for wanting to rush through this case?
P. 1204 D.: “ I’m trying to remember when I gave my false statement.”
D. admits in court that he had lied to detectives. I ask: Why did the jury believe D. in the end, after he had openly admitted to having lied to police?
P. 1205: On June 27th (1999?) he denied that anything sexual happened while at the BSLSC. On June 30th he changed his story. By July 3rd his story again changed.
In a statement, March 6th (00?), D. mentioned nothing about abuse at Glenelg.
(I have already written in Chapter 11 what excuse D. gave for lying to detectives. According to the Advertiser Newspaper, his conscience took over - he loved the 3 & 5 year-old children of his brother so much, he wanted to protect them from predators like PL).
Best friend - worst foe
P. 1208: D. admits that PL approached him to make a true statement (that nothing sexual ever happened). PL apologizes, saying: “Sorry, I have to involve you in this.”
P. 1211: In return for the favour (the statement telling the truth) PL agreed to give money to D. so he could buy his girlfriend of 9 years an engagement ring. D. was planning to propose to her. D. took $3000 on Wednesday (or Tue?), but demanded another $ 2000 to be paid on the Friday. Between the two days, he had changed his mind about proposing to his girl, instead spent the money on other things. Admitted spending a lot on beer.
P. 1224 D. kept repeating: “I can’t remember, can’t recall, can't remember etc. I ask: Were the abuse claims true, or did this accuser have a selected memory?
(I previously wrote that I did not find anywhere in the transcript that the $ 5000 was handed over in one sum in one envelope. Yet, this is what was written in the Advertiser article about the alleged bribe money).
Naughty Porn Star Nic
P. 1226 D. had seen legal advise, before making abuse allegations, It is alleged he tried to find out, if a victim of crime is eligible for compensation, when and if an accused is found guilty. I ask: Was this the main game, a plan to gain $ 50 000 compensation by inventing abuse?
P. 1231 D. initially fails to mention that W. was part of the group PL chose to abuse.
P. 1236 D. claims to have viewed in 85/86 (while under PL's supervision) the porn movie ’Naughty Nicky’. Defence Counsel points out that the movie was not released until 1997. D. changed the story: Nicky was the name of a porn star in the movie. It was not the movie Naughty Nicky.
I ask: Did D. mention the first movie that came to his head? When confronted with the evidence, is he talking himself out of the lie, by saying the title was not Naughty Nicky, but Nicky was the name of the porn star in the movie?
P. 1237 Initially D. never mentioned any of PL’s sexual misbehaviour during the many trips in the van, while PL had been driving. Only after the others mentioned this part, just before PL’s committal hearing, did he remember and come out with this ugly part of the story.
P. 1239 D. describes him sitting in the front seat of the van, other boys were present in the back of the van. PL allegedly masturbated, while driving, then ejaculated.
I ask: Why did D. only tell this ugly story, after the other boys had mentioned it to Detectives? Why did D. wait to come out with this until PL’s committal hearing? Was this another one of those invented events to shock the jury? Would any man, no matter how perverse he might be, commit the full sex act, while driving along in a van full of boys, both in the front seats and in the back? To me this sounds very implausible, but it certainly sexed up this already sex-filled case.
P. 1247 Alleged sexual activity, including masturbation, happened openly in the room. There was no effort to hide it. I ask: How can this be so, if there were other boys, who testified they never saw or heard anything, suggesting sexual misbehaviour?
P. 1248 D. tells that his parents were nudists, often walking around the house nude. On one occasion at least, they did so, as PL dropped the accuser home. The parents apparently often answered the door in the nude. They also went on a houseboat trip with another nudist couple.
I ask: Was the accuser D. exposed to nudist activities from a very early age? How did he cope with it?
P. 1255 Defence Counsel claims that D. lied about being rostered on at work on the Friday, the day he collected another $ 2000 from PL. There is documentation to prove he was not rostered on. I ask: Why did the jury still not suspect this person could be lying?
P. 1297: On Feb 7th (2000) D. had made a statement to police: “I have no memories of anything improper happening, either at Glenelg or Victor Harbour. He later admitted this was a false statement.
Nothing took place. Why don't they believe me?
P. 977-995: V. was also a member of the BSLSC. His father was an airline pilot. They lived in Medindi, an upper class suburb, just north of Adelaide. His mum was rather friendly with PL. They chatted regularly while V was being picked up.
V. stated quite clearly (P. 993) that nothing sexual ever took place. Not even in conversations during the trips in the van etc.
- - - - - - -
(Photo Size 315x333)
The suburb in the background is Medindi, where one of the boys lived, who testified for Peter Liddy (that he never saw any sexual misbehaviour). His surname is similar to the German word 'echt' (genuine).
My guess is that fist is hinting as the word first - the boy's first name is Ben. (See Chapter 11).
But there's more - On August 12th I was cycling back from Port Adelaide. Working my way through the industrial suburb of Wingfield I saw a white piece of ... (it was a label) in the middle of the road. An uneasy feeling arouse inside me, I had to turn back and pick it up.
As it did, I looked at the names of two companies right there, side by side. Both were the surnames of boys, witnesses in the Liddy case. One had the same letters as Mr. Echt. The other was D, the same surname as the man, who was allegedly bribed by Liddy.
The date ordered was the day before I picked up above. The name of the salesperson and the address are most likely fictitious. Can you see the Da Ninci in the numbers 123 7?
What convinced me this was planted for me to pick up (in a street, where I don't think I had ever cycled before) was the Reference number - the date 12/08 + 1963.
Wecker in German means: Clock (as in alarm clock). Makes sense.
- - - - - - -
(Back to the Transcript )
Witnesses F. and M., young boys and members of the Club around the time of the alleged crimes, testified in court that nothing sexually improper ever took place, while they were present.
F. was wondering, why he had to repeat so often that nothing ever took place. He went as far as trying to contact Mr. Eugene McGee, PL’s lawyer, to testify on PL’s behalf.
I can not recall reading in the newspapers that three witnesses, all members of the same group as the accusers, but without criminal record, testified that they never saw anything of a sexual nature, not even in speech. Had this been made public, at least the people of Adelaide would have had an option as to who to believe.
(In 2003 Mr. Eugene McGee was to become the centre of an alleged hit/run drink driving case. He was convicted, but received only a light sentence. The uproar following lead to South Australia’s first Royal Commission in ten years. I personally contributed to this on 15th June 05, hinting that the two men may be linked. I was correct. However, the fact that McGee had been the lawyer, acting for Peter Liddy, was never openly mentioned in the Royal Commission).
Why a registration plate? (Victim impact statement W).
The first doubt that the accusers were telling the truth came to me in 2003. On the website of the ABC program ‘PM’ I read an extract of the transcript of the victim impact statement of accuser W.
W. claimed to have been fishing at the end of the Brighton Jetty one morning, about 4 years after the alleged abuse. He saw PL get out of a white van at the end of the Brighton jetty, outside the BSLSC. The accused wrestled with the boys on the grass. They sprayed him with water pistols. They got into the van and drove away.
W. in his impact statement said, he was shocked that PL was still taking boys in the van. He ran toward them, trying to warn the boys and screamed and yelled. He couldn’t remember what he was yelling. He could not get close enough to warn the boys, before the van drove off. Halfway along the jetty he stopped and remained frozen on the spot.
I ask: From the position at the end of the jetty, how could accuser W. see who got out of the van to collect the two boys? How could he be so sure, from such a great distance, that the boys played with water pistols?
The Clubhouse is one block south of the jetty, but in view of the jetty, which is 206 meters long. Was W. fabricating this story to highlight the length of time of PL’s alleged child abuse?
P. 446 Accuser W stated that as a result of the abuse, he didn’t know, if he was gay, straight, bi-sexual or just plain weird.
P. 447 W. said (on the Jetty incident): “I did not know what to do in the end, so I did nothing. Maybe, if I had gotten the van’s registration number, things would have been different. I was too scared to go to police. I could not even go to my parents”.
I ask: Where is W’s logic? Since he knew, who was the driver of the van, how could he say things had turned out differently, had he been able to get the registration plate? To report the incidence he did not need a registration plate - He had the driver's name.
I ask: Is W. contradicting himself? On the one hand he is playing the hero, running toward the offender to warn the children, on the other, he is too scared to even tell his parents.
Monster warning - monstrous lie?
This occasion would have been a perfect time for the 13 year old, who claimed that he was still very affected by the abuse, to go to another person, police, parent, teacher, friend. I ask: Why did W. wait for another 12 or so years before coming forward?
If this really was an attempt at warning other potential victims of ‘the Monster’ (the label given to PL by some alleged victims and relatives), why did he not follow on and approach another adult? I ask: Was W telling fibs, fabricating his victim impact statement from nothing?
W. is correct in saying: Had there been a registration number, things certainly would have turned out differently.
Would it not have been a more appropriate reaction of an abused child, to be scared of an abuser? Why did W not try and hide, run away from the evil man, rather run toward him? Even if it were true, why was accuser W. affected by PL embarking from a van, playing with children and driving them away? He was only assuming that abuse was still taking place.
I ask: Was the assumption of continuous abuse an attempt at influencing the jury into forming a negative opinion about the accused. I am surprised this speculative statement was allowed to be tabled in court.
"I hope he is put in jail for life" (D in his victim impact statement )
D. states in his victim impact statement that he turned to drugs to forget the pain (of the alleged abuse).
I ask: Would a person hurting not first go to another person to offload the pain? Had D. done that and was not listened to, then I would understand his turning to drugs.
Was D. blaming the alleged child abuse for his living a life of crime and drugs? In 1999, when abuse was first claimed, this man in his mid 20's had served already 6 1/2 years in jail.
In his victim impact statement accuser D, in my opinion, did not inform the court to what extent the alleged offense affected him, rather he (as did W.) used it to play on the emotions of an already shocked jury.
P. 448/449 D. states: “The impact of this trial is like going through it all again. Now I learn that there will be an appeal by the defendant. When will he finally leave me alone? How many times will I have to listen to him lie about me? One day I hope I will forget the defendant’s name. He can’t even look at me”.
P. 452: Here the accuser D does exactly the same in his statement as did W. He finishes his with a direct, emotional attack on the accused, which would have influenced the jury. It went as follows:
“I hope he (PL) is found guilty. He deserves it. He is a sick man … to gain access to young boy’s lives … and then abuses them … I hope he is put in goal for life”.
I ask: Did the accused, Peter Liddy, really receive a fair trial?
Defence Counsel summing up (M. S.)
Defence Counsel points to more claims, which did not make sense, or where the accusers mixed up their facts.
P. 1952 Accuser C. claimed that he and another boy had been abused by PL on the night of the Glenelg Riots in Jan. 1984. M.S pointed out that it is very unlikely that the accused would take two boys and abuse them at the same time and place, when the Glenelg police station was being pelted with rocks. Hundreds of people, dozens of police officers would have been in the immediate vicinity of the Police Station, where the abuse was to have taken place.
Accuser C.’s mother located a diary of her son about 12 months before the trial. There was no word in it about any abuse, or any mention of the Glenelg Riots, where C. claimed he had been abused.
At other times police were in and out of the police station. Parents often visited the police station, while the boys were staying there overnight.
Editor's note: Just prior to above PL sold a Beach House south of Adelaide and bought a property near Woodside in the Adelaide Hills. If the man wanted to set himself up to abuse children, the isolated Hills property would have been perfect.
Instead, after a few months he found it was not to his liking. He sold it again. A police station, right in the heart of a busy seaside tourist place, Glenelg, was certainly not a location for the sinister purposes the prosecution claimed PL had in mind.
Defence Counsel reminded the jury that two other boys - N(innes) and K - had also testified that PL had coached them, while they were in a basketball team.. He also spent money on them, but no sexual misconduct ever took place.
But there's more doubt
P. 1957: Brett F., while under PL at Brighton SLFC, nearly made it to the Olympic Team. In all the years he was there he saw nothing. He had to keep saying to the detectives more than once that he never saw any sexual misconduct by the defendant..
P. 1962: For the 9 years they were together, accuser Adam D. said to his girlfriend that PL is a fine man.
P. 1963: D. claimed to have his head placed in a white porcelain sink at the Glenelg Police Station (while being abused). There were no white porcelain sinks at Glenelg. (The shower block had in the meantime been demolished).
P. 1966: The fact that not one of the accusers said anything to anyone for all those years casts doubt on the validity of the abuse claims.
P. 1970: When first hearing of the abuse claims from PL, Adam D. replied: “You’re kidding. I bet he (co-accuser C.) is after money!”
P. 1980: D. demanded more money from PL. When PL told D. he’s not going to get another cent, D. replies: “There is an easier way to get it.”
I ask: Why did the jury not recognize that all pointed clearly to the true intentions by the accusers and to PL’s innocence? At least they could have granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Judge M. Ny.... (summing up)
Editor's note: Apart from Eugene McGee, the main players in the case were female: Defence (Marie S), the prosecution (Wendy A, who has since left the state and Trish K). The judge was M. Ny...
Judge Ny. told the jury that it was not a matter of deciding who told the better story. The jury must have no doubt as to the guilt in each charge.
P. 13 (Line 62): “I should make it clear to you that you must not go about your task by simply deciding, who is telling the truth or who is coming up with the best story.”
I ask: What else was this case all about, but to find out who is telling the truth? Either the abuse took place 18 years earlier or the abuse did not take place. What is more important here - If legal procedures are followed to the last letter of the law or the truth be uncovered?
Judge Ny. asked the jury to “not allow sympathy or prejudice for anyone to influence their deliberations. The jury must bring fair, detached and dispassionate minds to bear in their decisions.”
I ask: If the jury is supposed to stay dispassionate, why did she allow the accusers in their victim impact statements to play on the emotions of the jury?
If a court case is not about finding out the truth of a matter, or at least re-examine the whole story, as told to detectives, by both sides, what is it all about?
Let the monster rot in hell
On the evening News, after PL received a very long jail sentence (Sept. 7th 2001, the day of the hailstorm) I saw the accusers being interviewed on TV. One particular comment stood out, which I still remember, both what was said and the way it was said: “Well, he ruined our lives, now we ruined his, that’s fair, isn’t it?”
Another comment by one of the accuser’s parents was: “I hope this monster will never come out and rot in hell.” (or words similar).
The phrase, we ruined his life, made me think. If PL was guilty, he ruined his own life. He did not need those boys to ruin it. The way it was said sounded like an attempt at receiving sympathy. I ask: Was it a deliberate, pre-meditated act to destroying a person’s life?
The first part of the statement (he ruined our life) holds some truth. PL in his 25 years as magistrate was very strict in his sentencing. He has indeed spoiled the life of many criminals. There would have been a whole generation of criminals, who would have rejoiced over PL being put in jail.
There is a possible second group of people with a grudge against the magistrate. PL for 25 years was head of the Police Disciplinary Tribunal. How many times did he and the tribunal have to reprimand police officers, who may have felt an injustice had taken place?
Could this have been one of the reasons, why the detectives tried that extra bit harder to gain a guilty verdict? Could this be the reason, why no tape recordings were made of the initial interviews, when accusations against Liddy were first heard?
Without tape recordings at the time of their first abuse claims, it is impossible to prove, if the alleged victims were in any way ’led’ to find abuse which never took place. At least one witness (F) hinted that this had occurred.
Does not the fact that only those boys from the BSLSC who had been to jail, claimed abuse, whilst those without criminal record did not, seem co-incidental to the point of looking like an orchestrated plot?
Justice is crying out
After studying this case, I am convinced, any logically thinking person will agree that enough doubt existed to acquit the accused of the charges. The jury should have given this man the benefit of the doubt at the time. However, at this point, to live a normal life again, Peter Liddy needs to be totally vindicated, and cleared of all charges.
The reason the jury believed the criminals, and not the hard-working, blameless man, is a mystery. For the fact that the accusers had admitted to lying, should have been enough reason to make the jury doubt, if their testimony can be trusted enough to put a man behind bars for 25 years.
I trust and pray that this case will be reopened, carefully re-examined and the full truth revealed. If anyone is found to have erred, they must face up to their responsibility and correct the wrong. Anyone found to have deliberately misled the public, even if it was police itself, must be brought to trial and bear the consequences of their action.
www.dieterfischer.com Adelaide, 22nd August 2006
- - - - - - -
Readers may ask, how the above case had originally started? Searching the internet recently I came across a website, which made me understand the kind of thinking, which triggered the avalanche. Just reading it again makes me angry.
I came across an article in a Magazine called 'Clearing House', written by the Department for Child Protection. Two female University Professors, praised the media for prompt action after a newspaper had received a letter. It was sent anonymously to the Family Forum column. (Please note this is not the daily journal of The Family, Adelaide's rumoured circle of ...?).
(From the magazine of the Department of Child Protection Magazine, Clearing House. In their Winter 2002, Issue 16, ). What I read is not all clear.
Written anonymously the author of this letter correctly anticipated the power of the media to advocate on behalf of the victimised children. The actual letter could not be printed in the paper prior to the conviction. Nevertheless, the story (two years later) emanating from the fact that the letter had been sent to, and acted upon, by the newspaper reveals the sense of achievement the newspaper employees gained from being able to assist in bringing this man to justice. It also demonstrate the important role of the media as an instigator of political, social or legal action when other avenues may have proven unproductive.
What they wrote does not make sense. Firstly, I find it very disturbing that the newspaper acted without a name under the letter. I have written to the same newspaper many times, not only funny emails, but serious letters, about above case. I never had a reaction, if and what action they took. Should I perhaps have written without my name to get things moving?
Secondly, why should the newspaper get any credit? What bravery is there in passing on information, which may be nothing but a despicable, fabricated piece of gossip? Anyone can write, and I bet it has happened, an anonymous, angry letter, accusing a teacher, social worker, sports coach of child abuse years and years ago. This does not require help from the mass media.
But for University Professors to highlight how this is a good example of the important role the media played in the case, adds insult to injury. The newspaper, according to the same article above, on 7/6/01 printed their top-story headline - TRAPPED BY A LETTER.
So who wrote the letter in the first place? Has the public ever been told?
Friends, how frightening to think, in our civilized country, in the year 2001, one can get trapped by an anonymous letter sent to a newspaper?
- - - - - - -
heer madne - Driver blow even time legal limit
(orry about the miing S's)
During a haircut on the day of writing, my hairdresser told me, a policewoman told her: "Para Hills is a very low-crime suburb".
May I add: "But when they sin, they do it in style. The local newspaper Messenger reported above (sheer madness) on their front page. A driver was caught with a BAC* of 0.316 (seven times the legal limit) while driving on Hodge Road, Para Hills. (He God - the newspaper's date - 6/9, adds up OK).
*BAC stands for Blood Alcohol Concentration. This driver obviously listened to the police education campaigns on concentration while driving.
- - - - - - -
Let your mind travel back to a very early chapter in my writing. Book 1, Chapter 9. The time was April 25th 1999. One of my life's lowest points may turn out to have been one of my life's most historic moments. My mind had been in turmoil. What on earth was God putting me through, walking up the microphone during a church service and telling a few hundred people that there is Corruption in high places in Adelaide?
Exactly five days after my insane comment during that church service, above series of events started in earnest. The first alleged victim came forward about being abused by Peter Liddy. Accuser C. went to the police on April 30th 1999.
Perhaps my mad claim about the big C. was not crazy at all?
For this purpose was the son of God manifest, to destroy the works of the evil one.
1. John 3:8