What have the NZ Police done to stop/arrest the 'roast busters' rape club:
What have the NZ Police done to empower/encourage the 'roast busters' rape club:
Day 1: Sun 03/11/2013
TV3 exposes 'roast busters' gang on evening news.
No immediate police response.
Day 2: Mon 04/11/2013
: "a full and thorough investigation has been conducted, but in the absence of significant evidence such as formal statements, there is not enough evidence to prosecute the alleged offenders at this time."
This was latter corrected
because it was such an obvious lie."These enquiries have been ongoing for some two years and involve a group of boys allegedly involved in sexual activity with young teenage girls whilst grossly intoxicated.Detectives from the Waitemata Child Protection Team have been working on the case since 2011, when a teenage girl came forward to Police to informally report what had happened to her."
The semantic nonsense of "formal" v. "informal" is a tissue-thin basis to start off their superstructure of a cover-up.
"A full and thorough investigation was launched and the offenders and circumstances were identified. All identified and possible victims were contacted by Police and encouraged to give formal statements which would assist the enquiry.
Three teenage boys were formally interviewed by Police as suspects, but unfortunately made no admissions. A fourth boy refused to co-operate."
Unfortunately, eh. And they can just refuse to co-operate altogether and that's cool too. Where are these written statements and when were they made? They claim here this is ALL of them - I doubt that, these are the underage victims only, I suspect if they were 16 or over they were told because they are over the age of consent it would be too difficult to proceed - that's my initial thought.
"Police have spoken with all identified and possible victims and their friends, on a number of occasions"
- they are adamant this is everything: ALL. A "number of occasions" tells us these were multiple complainants involving multiple contacts. So many people and not a single arrest, not a single charge. And then this claim: "it is very frustrating for the enquiry team who have worked tirelessly for months on the case."
When did they start? how many staff involved? But this enquiry was not given a name so it could continue off-the-books.
: "one of the young men who previously declined to co-operate presented himself at a Police station early this afternoon. Another young man is also being interviewed by Police."
Note "decline to co-operate" as if this was normal and a valid reason not to pursue an offender. Det Insp Bruce Scott: "publicity around this case has enabled us to make further progress, and we hope to build on the work done by the enquiry team to potentially take us to the stage where we have enough evidence to build a case."
Is that the most far removed from an arrest as you can get... hope/potentially/build. Scott and Searle's other interviews make it plain that they expect nothing to come of this. What did they tell those offenders? Then one glaring admission:--"We're aware that questions have been raised about why we didn't act to shut down the Roastbusters Facebook page. The page was left open for operational and tactical reasons, and whilst we acknowledge it was upsetting for the victims, it was being monitored for information or evidence that would assist our investigation."
--So they now admit they were aware of it and they were "monitoring" it. They obviously think nothing appearing or being alluded to on that page to that point in time was criminal. Question is what contact did police have with the offenders during this period in particular - because it sounds as though the police had told the gang that as long as they didn't see anyone underage on it what they were doing was lawful and no action would be taken. Hales (the president of this rape club) had bragged several months ago on his ask.fm site that the police had spoken to him and they said what they were doing to these girls was legal. He was under the impression they had a police licence to rape, and unfortunately, so it appears were the police.
Day 3: Tue 05/11/2013
RNZ: (or was this Monday?) Supt. Searle (or Scott?) says victims lack "courage" not to give statements and are not "brave." This sounds indistinguishable from intimidation.
: Supt Searle admits "the involvement of a Police Officer's son." [...] "Two of the young men spoke with Police yesterday afternoon and that information is now being assessed by the enquiry team. A Senior Detective who is independent from the investigation has been brought in from outside the Waitemata District to provide extra support."
And Supt Searle warns against vigilantism due to the inaction.
Day 4: Wed 06/11/2013
Police threaten to charge
The Daily Blog editor (and Tumeke blogger emeritus) Martyn Bradbury over a parody rape recruitment ad
for the NZ Police, seemingly on the basis that people would think it was true.
6pm TV3 interview 13 year old "first victim" (now aged 15). She said the police re-victimised her by their interrogation technique, said the police involved were atrocious - and said it had been videoed.
: Says can "confirm a complaint was received in December 2011. An investigation was launched and the complaint was thoroughly investigated.[...]Out of respect for the victim and her family Police are unable to discuss the specific details of this particular situation any further."
Refusing to provide information like this is really out of respect for the offenders.
Day 5: Thu 07/11/2013
Statement at 8:26am
regarding number of victims. The back-tracking on the police's initial dismissive bravado begins. In full:--Roastbusters - Clarification
There are four girls that have been identified as victims, and of those four, one has made a formal complaint.
Three of the girls were in contact with Police in 2011.
Another girl began discussions with Police in late 2012.
Of the total four girls, one has gone through the process of making her complaint formal, where an official statement was made by way of an evidential video interview.
--The spurious clouding of formal and informal is an utterly bogus tactic. Once Supt Searle saw the previous night's TV3 story where the victim said the interview was videoed he had to change his story as he thought all of them had been dissuaded from making a written
statement... he must have forgot the video. Comm. Marshall was on radio at some point thereafter claiming that case had reached a "natural" conclusion (which sounds to me like a set-up for saying the video and other evidence had been destroyed because the case was closed... despite the official line it was a two year investigation) - that was my initial thought.
Comm. Marshall's statement
: Supt Searle "reviewing aspects of how the investigation was handled.
" Marshall claims: "now satisfied that her [first victim] complaint was very thoroughly investigated".
And mentions: "[...] when we become aware of the sort of activity which this group has engaged in, which we also find abhorrent and disturbing [...]"
but does not say it was criminal despite being aware the victims were aged 13 - 15 years of age. Ending thus: "In the meantime, we welcome any IPCA investigation that may take place, and will act on any learnings it may identify."
- so Marshall takes the wet bus ticket slap for precisely what it is - a lengthy non-response to the initial lengthy non-response. Parliamentary question time 2pm: To astonishment of the House, Police Minister Anne Tolley says police "enthusiastically" investigating. Minister can't see that her complaint lodged with IPCA means she cannot possibly have confidence in the Commissioner and that this position is untenable.
Statement at 3:40pm
regarding a call to Newstalk ZB they thought was worth mentioning so they can deny a link with the case, then adds: "The Officer in charge of the case has been in regular contact with the victims families."
Regular contact meaning a pattern of intimidation from the overall context.
Day 6: Fri 08/11/2013
[7:30pm Neighbour reports anon blue saloon car visit to rural address of blogger (me) just before sunset.]
Day 7: Sat 09/11/2013
Commissioner Marshall interviewed on Q+A: NZHerald: Police have been criticised about the questions asked of the complainant, now aged 15, including about what clothes she had been wearing.
Mr Marshall told Q+A the girl had been interviewed by a specially trained female interviewer.
Was it a woman - he seems to know a lot about the specifics.
Day 8: Sun 10/11/2013
Comm. Marshall personally telephones home number
of blogger commenter 'Kracklite'
who has been critical of NZ Police.
Day 9: Mon 11/11/2013
declared open. Confused and contradictory brief: says Det Insp Karyn Malthus "to lead a multi-agency investigation team"
then says later "Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock will retain overall oversight of the investigation."
This does not make sense - my interpretation is the woman will deal with victims as an alternative
to police (like ACC, counselling etc.) whereas the actual duty to apprehend the offenders still lies with others, ie. the same policemen
as before. "Retain" indicates Lovelock has had this gig all along (not that he has been hitherto mentioned on any official police statement). Confusing and murky enough, but what of Searle and Scot's responsibilities - are they still on this case? As part of the suppression they need to have their computers seized and to be investigated themselves, but no chance with the current Commissioner digging in like it was the Western Front. The end statement tells us there was really no investigation at all: "The Police investigation is known as Operation Clover and will be referred to by this name from now on."
Begging the obvious question: what was the name of the operation beforehand - and when was it launched? Police refuse to answer specifics of victims/suspects following announcement.
Day 10: Tue 12/11/2013
[3pm After a heavy bout of tweeting MPs etc. to rally support my phone weirded out like it never has before, ever, and was disconnected. My conclusion is, naturally, the worst, but not enough I realise now for any certainty.]
Day 11: Wed 13/11/2013
... when will this anarchy end?
When the NZ Police attempt to intimidate their critics, when random citizens with internet connections have done more (at least in intention) in the last dozen days than the entire NZ police force put together to break this gang then reasonable people will inevitably conclude what the facts are and who is and who is not doing their duty. Since the Commissioner of Police refuses to do his duty he should be replaced with someone who will. Day 11 and this rape gang - all of them - are at-large on the authority of the NZ Police.
This is a state of terror created by the NZ Police upon the victims and would-be prey of this gang and that terror is now spreading to critics of police. And all to defend the good name and freedom of the son of a policeman who does not even deny being part of the gang. Is he at the Police College or something? - is his Dad mates with the Commissioner or something? Or is this the immunity that any cop's son can expect? And is this the vulnerability everyone else is expected to live with - their daughters, grand-daughters and sisters being fresh meat for a police-sanctioned rape gang? This gang are the sons of the controlling class exploiting and terrorising the daughters of the subject class. Who wants to live in such a society?
Sadly the politicians are incredibly, negligently weak - across all parties. There weren't even any questions to the Police Minister yesterday in parliament despite all the contradictions and inadequacy of her and her department's (in)actions. The questions to expose the conspiracy are there, and no politician has the balls to ask them - this is a monumental failure of the political class of this country. Is New Zealand a constabulocracy or a democracy?
Today - not a single question
to the Police Minister. It is like all 121 MPs are acquiescing in this collective abuse.
Of all the West Auckland MPs I have contacted (via Twitter), Tau Henare gave a sarcastic endorsement of vigilantism and Phil Twyford more constructively had written a letter expressing 'disappointment' and will have a meeting with local police on Friday (Day 13). Zip from the rest. If they do not express their no confidence in the Commissioner over this case - this on-going rape crisis - then it must be inferred they support this monstrous and untenable situation. People must speak up and stand up. Where is the leadership?