Social 🎧 Finding Heidi podcast

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
Bruce said:
I must listen to that. I knew Tamihere, he was a genuine psychopath. When the Police heard he was in the ranges when the Swedes disappeared he was on the radar immediately.
Click to expand...
You knew him personally Bruce?

The podcast does a great job of reviewing and redirecting the case, I think it’s well worth a listen
 
It’s clear from the other crimes he admitted that Tamihere was a violent rapist.

It also looks a lot like key elements of the police evidence in this case was very suspect and factually wrong, and that they were murdered on the other side of the Coromandel.

Even though he’s already served his sentence Tamihere has an appeal to coming up to overturn the conviction. The new evidence in this podcast will likely be relevant.
 
Fonzie said:
It’s clear from the other crimes he admitted that Tamihere was a violent rapist.

It also looks a lot like key elements of the police evidence in this case was very suspect and factually wrong, and that they were murdered on the other side of the Coromandel.

Even though he’s already served his sentence Tamihere has an appeal to coming up to overturn the conviction. The new evidence in this podcast will likely be relevant.
Click to expand...
I can't remember if it was covered in the podcast - but one of the detectives was known to plant evidence / fix cases to stitch up suspects most famously in Crewe Murders / Arthur Allen Thomas case.

This podcast definitely has blown the case much wider.
 
Fonzie said:
It’s clear from the other crimes he admitted that Tamihere was a violent rapist.

It also looks a lot like key elements of the police evidence in this case was very suspect and factually wrong, and that they were murdered on the other side of the Coromandel.

Even though he’s already served his sentence Tamihere has an appeal to coming up to overturn the conviction. The new evidence in this podcast will likely be relevant.
Click to expand...
I will listen to the podcast. I followed the case closely back then because of my involvement. The police case has been proven to be wrong regarding where they thought the bodies where.
I believed at the time and still do that Tamihere is guilty.
Detective Hughes who ran the case was a very hard man. I had a few meetings with him and talked to some of the other witnesses after we had given evidence. We all felt very uncomfortable in Tamihere's presence.
In my job I was used to being around some pretty tough guys and sometimes they tried to intimidate me, Tamihere didn't try, he just did.
 
Tragic said:
So did John believe his brother was innocent?
Because he spent a hell of a lot of time and energy trying to convince a lot of people for a long time before went quiet on it.
Click to expand...
I was interested in the way John handled the media in those days, I was studying some criminology papers.

He never tried to convince people that his brother was innocent, It just came across that way.

John's argument which he argued so strongly was that his brother was presumed innocent, as per anyones right to fair process, and he (John) insisted that from what he was made aware of - that his brother was not being given a fair trial.

When asked directly whether he thought his brother was innocent, he refused to answer yes or no.

I did feel sorry for John in those days, being dragged down by the whole spectacle, not his fault his brother was a toe rag - nor anything he could do about his own position as a lawyer.

I am related to the family in an extended sense, never met either brother which is kinda odd given we all were in the criminal justic circle in one way or another.
 
Last edited:
wizard of Tauranga said:
I can never understand crimes like this. Why not just pay for sex if that’s what it’s all about?

Or is it a power thing?

Beyond my understanding…
Click to expand...

If you watch any acurate profiling show you will get a clear understanding of the motivations of violent offenders.

Profilers like John Douglas and others that break down the motivations of offenders in building a profiile are the proof that the motivations are well understood.

One woman in South Auckland stopped an attack by saying to Joseph Thompson 'Jesus loves you". One phrase stopped the terror. Someone asked me why would that stop him? did I think he was a Christian? did I think he had a conscience?

I tend to avoid committing to those conversations because Pandora's box is somewhere I don't like to go looking around in, plus some things are too disturbing to share without doing harm to family and freinds in your life.

The story about Jesus loves you stopping one of the worst serial rapists ever was reported in the media, so it is not a breach of confidentiality to bring it up.

It is likely those words disrupted the power and violence dynamic in the same way that women who try to pretend they want to comply with serial sadists/rapists/killers 'spoil' the power over dynamic in the perpetrators psyche.

These animals effect thousands of people who are touched by their poisonous web.

Just look at how many people in this thead on a random league site were touched by this Heidi case in one way or another.

One place I was on shift, I was not allowed to go upstairs because I was a Maori male and there was a victim of a his crimes up stairs who couldn't cope with the sight of men of my demographic.

Being told that by your work mates hurts. You spend your time trying to hide away feeling dirty. But my troubles were nothing compared to the person who was really suffering, still...like I say....the poison spreads far.

I believe in the death penatly for serial offenders. Work made that very clear to me, there are people who are inhuman and need removing because all they are ever going to do is spread harm.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did. First was the depositions where the evidence was presented to the Judge to ascertain if there was enough to go to trial, thats how I understood it at the time. Then, quite a few months later the trial. I gave evidence at both.
I was cross examined by the defence at depositions. It went like this.
' Please look at the written statement in front of you" Okay

' Is that your signature at the bottom of the second page' Yes

Is the person mentioned in your statement in the courtroom today' Yes

Please describe to the Court what that person is wearing. I described DT's attire

With your right index finger, please point to that person ' I did and DT winked at me.

Detective Hughes said that was just for the defence to see if a witness may be nervous so that later on if it went to trial, those that appeared nervous could be grilled and become unsure of their testimony.
At trial I was not questioned and DT did not even look at me.

I know you have seen the worst of humanity, frankly I don't know how those in your profession cope with going home and trying to switch to a normal enviroment.
 
dean said:
Yes I did. First was the depositions where the evidence was presented to the Judge to ascertain if there was enough to go to trial, thats how I understood it at the time. Then, quite a few months later the trial. I gave evidence at both.
I was cross examined by the defence at depositions. It went like this.
' Please look at the written statement in front of you" Okay

' Is that your signature at the bottom of the second page' Yes

Is the person mentioned in your statement in the courtroom today' Yes

Please describe to the Court what that person is wearing. I described DT's attire

With your right index finger, please point to that person ' I did and DT winked at me.

Detective Hughes said that was just for the defence to see if a witness may be nervous so that later on if it went to trial, those that appeared nervous could be grilled and become unsure of their testimony.
At trial I was not questioned and DT did not even look at me.

I know you have seen the worst of humanity, frankly I don't know how those in your profession cope with going home and trying to switch to a normal environment.
Click to expand...
I knew his brother (not John), and met his father once. I was a kid.

His brother I knew as a very nice guy, they seemed to be well raised. I don't know John but he doesn't seem a psycho.

David is one of the most cold blooded killers I know of. A very nasty bastard, and has no remorse at all.

I am talking about a homicide he committed in 1971.

The victim was a young, slightly built prostitute, just a harmless girl. Those here who know Tamihere will know he is not a slight guy.

He beat her to death, I think with a rifle butt. I think I have the weapon right.

The fecker managed to get off with manslaughter FFS.

I cannot guess what went on in the jury room, but 50 years ago sex workers were considered less than trash. That is the only thing I can think of.

His lawyer, Kevin Ryan, did an excellent job in his defence, but ladies and jellybeans was so concerned at the lack of remorse Tamihere showed he quietly took steps to bring the matter before the authorities.

He was not popular in Paremoremo either. Those on here who know that place will know exactly what I mean.

30 years ago there were not many bastards around with that level of psychopathy, so when a young attractive couple go missing in a remote bush area, and you know for sure there was a connection to David Tamihere, it sure makes him a strong suspect.

Now I will go further on this.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz

This is an article about Tamihere, comparing his case to that of Arthur Allan Thomas. the article features the late Pat Booth.

Booth was a crusading journalist, quite at home looking for stories about men biting dogs. I knew him personally and had no time for the guy

In the Thomas case there is little doubt the Police planted a bullet. However, he was convicted by two juries and only got off with a pardon because the crazy Prime Minister Muldoon pushed it through cabinet, without any legal authority.

So how did he get convicted?

The bullet evidence didn't matter, there was another piece of evidence, a half stub axle found under the bodies in the river, that had to have come from Thomas's farm.

So the question for the jury, was, did he do it or not? The answer was yes.

So he was convicted. Pat Booth wanted to rave on about the bullet though.

So I have yet to hear the full podcast, and so far I am pissed off with all the farking delay, just get to the point man.

I do worry about any reliance on that jailhouse confession to Robert Harris. However I don't know how any jury could believe anything he said anyway.

Let us see.

It may well be there was another dangerous psycho running around back then.

To be continued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom