July 2, 2011

Breaking the Silence

Five years after the murder of baby Kahui twins no one has so much as had a smack on the hand let alone been sent to jail. The father, Chris Kahui, had been arrested, tried, and released without charge. So, it wasn't him, right? 

As the general public, not privy to details of the case or the methods of interrogation the Police may or may not have used, we're left with the process of elimination to justify our disgust at this crime and all fingers are now pointing at the mother - she must have done it and now, after all that's been said and done, here she is writing about it, profiteering from her own babies' death. 

Well that was the 1+1=5 conclusion I came up with when the news of this book hit the headlines and groups started appearing all over Facebook requesting/demanding shops refuse to stock it - groups such as Re-open-the-Kahui-Case and Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book . 

The latter has over 47,000 members so it was real easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and jump I did. From what little I learned from the Media at the time (and in there, lies the problem), I saw a mother who'd spent the last 12 months figuring out what lies to record on paper to help influence the general public during her current inquest trial. I must say, the timing was impeccable. 

But something just didn't sit right.

I couldn't figure out what I was pissed off about the most - whether it was the loathsome marketing of this book (cashing in on the current inquest in order to boost sales) or the fact that Ian Wishart, a highly respected investigative journalist, was involved, or.. god forbid, she was as innocent as the book claims and I'd have to return to that void of never knowing what on earth happened to those two little boys. 

Like anyone, I imagine, we all want answers. Someone killed those babies and someone knows who. The temptation to line up the entire whanau (family) in some sick torture chamber till someone confesses is as strong now as it was five years ago but I do think, in my haste for answers (any answers) I was as guilty as the 47,000 others who concluded Ms King killed her babies, and I did that without even looking inside the book to hear what she had to say.

Now that in itself, is ironic to me because my frustration in this case comes from the silence the family have kept for five years and yet, here we are, presented with streams of information, an insight to one person's perspective of events, and we're calling for a book ban, a gag order? 

Don't get me wrong, I was livid to learn, after all these years of silence, that Ms King was practically given a microphone to the world, and my knee jerk reaction was to agree with the book banning. That was until I learned that it was not actually Ms King who wrote the book and that, aside from three slices of pizza during an interview with Ian Wishart, she'd not received any endorcements or payments for her story - unlike Chris Kahui, who sold his snippet to a magazine for $10,000.

So if it's not profiteering that she's getting out of this and I'm still left with a feeling of disgust, then what is it about this woman that I find so... unforgiving?

Maybe it's because she's a mother, just like me, and I have serious doubts about any mother who would know her baby boys had historical fractured rips or bruises all over their small bodies? I mean, didn't she notice anything? What about when she had to bath them, what then? Nothing? Ian Wishart answers this with a transcript played on RadioLive - both babies were taken to hospital and had regular check ups with the Plunket Association and even those professionals didn't pick up on any "historical injuries".

My first question is this... why are we so focused on a mother's ability to see her child's  injuries? Women don't have innate powers of observation. What about the father, isn't he just as questionable?

I won't be buying the book because the only reason I would, would be to find out who did it, and if the answers were really that simple as reading a 'novel' then I'd like to think the Police would have been tipped off on that by now. Do I want to read the book just to get an insight into domestic violence and how easy it can be for a family to fall into the abyss of murder? No, not really. I have my own memories of that and for those that don't, just watch 'Once Were Warriors.'  I do believe this book would be interesting, however, if you were a Government Policy Maker cause maybe they could look at the trends within Society that make for events like this to happen - gee, and do something about it. Now there's a 'novel' idea.

For now, I believe the more you delve into this story to find answers, the more questions arise. 






June 24, 2011

Peter Jansen - Caught Telling Porkies

Sorry it's been a while but I've been trolling through my ACC file - you know, the one that Denise Cosgrove insisted would only be sent to a private box number if I collected and signed for it? Yeah that one - the same one that turned up at my workplace so poorly addressed that the manager opened it to see what on earth it was. 

So yeah, that was shock, horror, gasp moment number one. The second was looking at the list (4 pages long) of just who accessed my file in the last year - an alarming amount of people both inside and outside of ACC and all after my file had been closed - unbeknownst to me. Gee, I really hope that sensitive claims people aren't inadvertently providing just some free child porn literature service here cause a lot of people seem to be "getting off" on reading the graphic details for their own personal use in my view.

Interestingly, an email I openly admitted sending to ACC and which I posted here on my blog ('A letter to the World' May 19th, 2010) was removed from my file. It's a desperate sounding email. A last ditched attempt to get someone in that organisation to just tell me what the hell was going on. Apparently the contents are too sensitive for even me and I was the one who wrote it! ACC call that "Litigation Privilege" whatever on earth that means.   

However, a day later, May 20 2010, an ACC Project Administrator (name blacked out) sent the following email to Dr Peter Jansen:
"Hi Peter - I have just shown this email to [name blanked out] and he just wanted to check you are aware that this is currently a client of [name blacked out]"
Correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I aren't) but didn't Peter Jansen say he "never knew I was an ACC SCU Claimant" and would, therefore, have never attempted to sue me for $250,000? Yep, I've just checked with all the news reports, radio stations, Dr Nick Smith's statements and gee, even Jansen's own press statement the day he dropped his pathetic  legal action against me... 
"As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog." 
So how do we explain this little porkie pie then Jansen?

There are some very serious questions here about the standard of confidentiality within ACC and moreover, accountability for when someone, like Jansen, uses client information for their own personal gain and then goes on to lie about it to not only me but NZ as a whole and to all those other sensitive claimants out there. 

My pole last month asking whether Jansen should get fired says it all - people are rightfully concerned about having a blatant liar in control of their counselling, their ability to 'get well,' or in most cases, being at the mercy of someone like Jansen who can stop your counselling altogether, and if you don't like it and question him - he'll just sue your pants off. Time to leave Jansen. 
    

June 11, 2011

What comes from the heart, goes to the heart

This beautifully talented woman, Maisey Rika, has released ond of the most heart-felt albums I have heard in a long time. My all time favorite is her song 'Nia,' dedicated to Nia Glassie (aged 3) who was systematically abused and beaten to death by her 'whanau.'

A truly inspirational piece of Art.

May 30, 2011

I can see you Jansen...

Over a week ago, an email was sent to Dr Peter Jansen, asking him some very pertinent questions about information he may have shared on my file in order to serve me with a $250,000 defamation law case, which he subsequently dropped the day I filed my rather insightful defense. 

One question asked straight out, whether he accessed my private and personal information in order to serve legal papers. 

It's a fair enough question, considering I am "suppose" to be at a confidential address, not on any Election role, credit databases, IRD have confirmed no one accessed/shared information and even WINZ were kind enough to report back the same when I inquired - you know, just the usual handful of Government agencies that do share information. 

The only one left to respond is... (drum role)...ACC - well that is, if you excuse the wee explanation given to me by Denise Cosgrove, which basically says. " I can't tell you how I know or what I did in order to find out but I don't think he accessed your file." 

Oh right-o-then. 

So why would Dr Peter Jansen open the email sent to him more than 30 times, at least a few times today, forward it to three other email addresses and still not think to respond?

Short of being "inside" Dr Peter Jansen's very own computer, there is this rather useful tool I found on the Internet the other day. It tracks your email. It reports back when it has been read, how often it's been read, and where he was sent/forwarded to... yes, a very useful tool indeed. 

For all ACC claimants out there, may I suggest you download this resourceful tool, you know, for those days when you feel you're going nuts cause you've emailed these guys a dozen times and no one replies and moreover, when they claim they never received your email or even saw it.


http://www.readnotify.com/

May 19, 2011

Bullshit and fucking Jellybeans!


DENSIS COSGROVE - ACC

Thanks for your further emails.
We’ve got your claim file ready but due to its size we’ve discovered that we can’t post it to a PO Box.  Bearing in mind you don’t want to pick it up at a Branch, perhaps we can courier it to a person of your choice (GP, JP, friend or relative)? We’d much prefer this to ensure your information remains private.
You also asked for a copy of the report into whether Dr Jansen accessed your claim file.  Your request was made under the Official Information Act and so a formal response is required by law, and that response is attached to this email.
I’m sorry to say that we’ve had to turn down your request and I know that will be disappointing but there is a good reason.  Because it was prepared for internal ACC use, the report contains a lot of information about how we carried out the investigation and we need to keep that confidential.  If we let that information out it could prejudice our ability to carry out future investigations. 
But we can provide you with the Report’s conclusion, which states that:
“Based on the system access records investigated, we can confirm that the particular staff member has not accessed the claimant’s personal information through ACC system applications.
We can also confirm that the particular staff member did not access the specific claim physical file in the Sensitive Claims Unit …”

While I know you wanted the full report, I’m hoping its conclusion is a first step towards you regaining faith in ACC’s management of your personal information.
XXX, you’ve got my phone number and I’m willing to discuss things with you at any time.  

Kind regards