I knew that when the 'stand by your man' article came out that police must be close to laying charges.
Turns out I was right and actually quite relieved. This matter is finally being dealt with in a court rather than through the gossip section of the Sunday papers.
18 comments:
Hmmm. Interesting that the charges include more than the widely reported allegation of back-fracturing assault in 2006 in Auckland. It includes earlier incidents over a few years & in more places than Auckland.
And, yes. I agree it's good that both sides of the issues will get their airing in court.
My first response when told about this was "that's got to be the worst $150K he's ever spent!"
On a more serious note the fact that there is obviously more than one incident involved raises a serious question mark over the concept that this was a matter of somebody getting angry and lashing out, rather than a pattern of abuse. And correct me if I'm wrong, but was his relationship with the abused partner of lesser duration than four years? Meaning that there's potentially more victims out there?
I find this horrifying. I don't don't particularly care if Kristin Dunne-Powell was a stalker. I care even less that the Veitch's lovely wedding was affected by the stress. I can understand (sort of) that Mrs Veitch wants to support her husband, but she should be able to do this without a) implicitly defending his actions or b) having a go at his victim.
There was a suggestion in one article I read (from an interview with TV's wife) that other of his previous partners have been spoken to by Police.
If she wants to support her husband, I think shouting him some counselling and applying some tough love "eg, no sex until you accept what you did was wrong" would be the way to go.
But if you think about it, either she knew what he did and is thus complicit in the cover up, or only just found out about it with all the rest of us - and thus should be seriously re-assessing whether she and her kids should still be living with Senor Veitch.
Veitch said somewhere quite early in the piece that he'd been candid with his wife about the 'incident' from the beginning of their relationship.
What I just can't understand is why he just didn't fall on his sword on the outset, if not out of genuine remorse, then out of public relations savvy. If he had admitted that he was unequivocally and completely wrong and had stepped down from his job, he might have deserved a bit of respect. As it is, he's made a bunch of excuses for his violence - and now it seems like he's getting his wife to make the excuses for him, in the hope that this will be more palatable to the public. It's about as appealing as Clint Rickards' memoirs, quite frankly.
I totally agree with you Anna, it's so hard to say what I would do in the same situ, but I would've thought telling the truth and going to the police voluntarily as soon as the shiz hit the public fan would be wisest from a self-respect/career prospects perspective. If nowt else.
I recall all those apologists in the blogosphere estimating how soon it would be before we heard from Kristin in the women's mags. Interesting that the only side of the story we have heard from any of the horses involved has been from Team Veitch. Talk about media savvy, I watched his red eyes tonight on the news and thought "shit, he's gonna get away with this." It's so pessimistic and cyncial, I know. But, he really seems to know how to work it.
Mrs Veitch nearly vomits when overhearing a police officer's comment about Tony's cheery answerphone machine voice. I nearly vomit when I see a woman slate the reputation, marriage and character of another woman - particularly when she barely knows her, and what she does know is only through the subjective connection of her new husband.
Well, I think Veitch should be given the opportunity to defend himself, and 'innocent until proven guilty' etc.
But, he and his lawyer's public statements don't add up. When the allegations first were published, Veitch didn't issue any denial. Then he made his (inadequate) apology for "lashing out" and doing something that he will regret until he dies. And it was done in such a way as to indicate guilt.
Now he and his lawyers say he wants to 'clear his name' and to vigorously defend himself against the charges.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. Having an ex wife & now an expensive lawyer, I now know the extent some ex spouses go to to extract their revenge.
Hugh - You seem to have a naive belief in the absolute goodness of women.
Dave, you're right that divorces don't bring out the nicest in people. But Veitch has admitted to assaulting his partner. He may well dispute some of the charges as is his right, but he's admitted to having done serious harm to his ex-partner. Whatever is the other side of the story - no matter if she was pestering him or whatever - you just can't go around breaking people's backs.
Dave, I simply recognise that when intergender abuse occurs, 99.99% of the time women are the victims, not the perpetrators.
hugh - recent studies indicate you are talking with a hole in your head.
The 99.99% was just a fag figure that you made up. Lift your game you bias twit.
D4J, you're sailing dangerously close to the wind with that last comment - please phrase your comments without personal abuse. I'm not sure what you meant by a 'fag figure', but if it's intended to be a homophobic comment it is likewise unwelcome.
Excuse me, but are you the same d4j who spends so much time on Kiwiblog railing against academics and policy analysts? And if so, where do these studies you're referring to come from?
Hugh - from my own experience and from talking to and observing friends relationships I have come to the view that women are just as likely to be abusive to men, as men are to be abusive to women.
Unfortunately relationship breakups bring out the worst in people even the nicest of people (females too!) can be guilty of abhorrent verbal or physical abuse, women also have a habit of making up stories to make their former partner look bad.
Anna mcm - I believe that the broken back story is speculation not proven fact. I too have "lashed" out at my ex wife, she suffered a broken wrist and severe brusing when I disarmed her after she slashed me with a kitchen knife.
Of course men and women can both behave badly during relationship breakups. But according to figures I'm aware of, violence continues to be inflicted primarily by men against other family members.
I'm pretty sure that if Tony Veitch had been acting in self-defence, he would have said so. He's admitted to assaulting his ex-partner, remember. And even if he was, I can't see how leaving someone unconscious on the ground for some hours could constitute self-defence.
So far, Veitch's defence of his actions seems to be a) he was under stress, and b) his ex-partner was being annoying. Being annoying doesn't warrant assaulting someone.
Well Dave first of all let me say I'm sorry your divorce was so rough. However, unless you feel that there's an absolute tidal wave of unreported female-on-male violence out there, crime reporting does not seem to support your hypothesis.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that when Veitch talks about 'clearing his name' he intends to plead guilty to some charges but not to some others. He might maintain that some of the assaults he is charged with are genuine and some aren't. So while I remain sceptical about his proclaimed innocence, his intent to contest charges in court and his public admission of violence and (qualified) regret are not entirely inconsistent.
Post a Comment