• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gail Maney?

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,322
I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys.

I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys.

The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability.

To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands.

The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product.

As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused.

I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Anyone taking an interest in this one?
 
The Atheist said:
I see the latest innocence project is developing around this crazy Westie and her conviction for ordering the hit on Deane Fuller-Sandys.

I was on the periphery of that group at the time and knew enough to stay well out of their way - Stephen Stone is a psychopath and I am quite sure he killed Leah Stevens, and he had no motive to kill her unless she saw him whack Deane Fuller-Sandys.

The link to Gail Maney is a little tenuous, and I find it hard to believe she'd want a bloke murdered because he stole a few hundred bucks worth of dope. Beaten up would have been a lot more likely - she was no king-pin. Mad, but not that mad is my assessment - a killing gained her nothing; people with half a brain knew not to mess with her anyway and a murder was unnecessary and a distinct liability.

To me, it seems more likely that Stone played the part of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" and took it into his own hands.

The whole thing is complicated a bit by the cops having an enormous hard-on for Stone, as they believed he was already guilty of murder, and therefore cutting deals with two active participants to the murder/s. Both of those snitches could have been charged with first-degree murder, but the cops dropped those charges to get at Stone, and got Maney as a by-product.

As I understood it, Stone forced all present to unload a couple of bullets into Fuller-Sandys' body, so nobody could be sure who fired the fatal shot and that all were therefore equally guilty. There's no doubt the other guys would have gone along no matter what, because they would have rightly felt that Stone would off them in a heartbeat if they refused.

I always thought the evidence to convict Maney was light, and it could well be a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Anyone taking an interest in this one?
Click to expand...
Someone will know, I always consider claims of innocence important.
 
The Atheist said:
I don't.

However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103925669/gone-fishing-what-did-the-key-witness-really-see

How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?
Click to expand...
I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.
Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.
 
Mate, it's just as well you're not a judge - people's own claims aren't worth knowing, let alone deciding guilt.
 
Samson said:
I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.
Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.
Click to expand...

Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.
 
Kid Eager said:
Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.
Click to expand...
It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found.

The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty.
There are few complete mysteries out there.
 
Kid Eager said:
Being a skeptic site, I would expect such an assertion/anecdote would be supported by evidence/research: is there evidence that anybody believes that *all* people claim innocence irrespective of guilt?

Also, is there any data on the percentage of *guilty* people that claim innocence:
1. before evidence is presented establishing likely guilt;
2. before the case has been tried in court; and
3. after having been found guilty and incarcerated.
Click to expand...

Samson said:
It seems that guilty are likely to claim innocence when the body is not found.

The case of David Gilroy is a good example, thread here. So Gail Mainey sits in this category. I always believed that the evidence in the David Bain could be unlocked to deliver total proof, and of course it turns out he is innocent, but in New Zealand that is not much help, polls show half the people think he is guilty.
There are few complete mysteries out there.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask what "it seems" to be to you. I'm asking whether there's any substance to your claim:
I do. It is a myth that people all claim innocence.Damien Echolls watched a score of fellow inmates executed, not one of them claimed to be innocent, yet he did because he was.
Jeremy Bamber is alone as LWP in England claiming innocence. He is innocent. I always take an interest when an inmate claims complete innocence, it is an important indicator to look closer.
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes.

I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty.

Whether that relates to murders, I don't know.

Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence.

It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders!

On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder."

Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm going to take a stab at it being something there isn't any hard evidence on, so we're left with anecdotes.

I found this, which says that 95% of convicted felons pleaded guilty.

Whether that relates to murders, I don't know.

Obviously, most cases of murder carry very little doubt and there's nothing to be gained by claiming innocence.

It certainly gives me pause that almost all of the "whodunnit" murders in this country since 1960 appear to have been false convictions, and all of them pleaded innocence. Christ, at this rate, they'll be pardoning Jorgy postumously for the Basset Rd murders!

On the flip side of the coin, a mate of mine got out of NZ's Max prison two years ago after serving 6 years for drug dealing. Because he had gang convictions prior, he was in the bad boys block with a large number of murderers and they were all happily admitting their guilt. Seems most of them wear it as a badge of honour, as in "**** with me at your peril, I'm already doing life for murder."

Also, there are advantages to accepting guilt in terms of opening up programs to gain earlier parole, so there isn't a lot of incentive to claim innocence inside.
Click to expand...
This is the answer Kid Eagle seeks, I have posts here and there but god knows where documenting this.
 
The Atheist said:
I don't.

However, if it's evidence you're looking for, the key witness to the burglary couldn't have seen it!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103925669/gone-fishing-what-did-the-key-witness-really-see

How the hell did the defence miss that at the time?
Click to expand...

(just finished listening to the podcast series)

It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it)

It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker.

Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids.
 
Last edited:
Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way:

Hard Cheese said:
It's flabbergasting. Not only was her house uninhabitable, wasn't it that the other supposed witness (Tania Wilson) hadn't even moved in to Larnoch Rd at the end of August? What surprised me is how much the private investigator found out that the police didn't (or did, but kept quiet about it)
Click to expand...

The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury.

Hard Cheese said:
It's amazing what a tissue-thin case the Police put forward - no body, no forensic evidence, and everything based on the dubious word of two accessories to murder offered immunity in reward for their testimony. Not only did the defence not tear it to shreds, the jury bought it hook, line and sinker.

Just goes to show you, you never want to be in front of a jury in this country for quids.
Click to expand...

Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries:

Superannuitants
Beneficiaries
Gov't employees
White collar workers

When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool.
 
The Atheist said:
Bit of a delay responding, but bang on all the way:



The question I ask is why judges can't say something in that case? It's evidence which is completely false, and known to be false by all parties, except the jury.



Again, 100% correct, and the direct result of what you get on juries:

Superannuitants
Beneficiaries
Gov't employees
White collar workers

When you make jury service financially untenable for most employees, you're removing a fairly important part of the gene pool.
Click to expand...
The stupidity of juries is surpassed at the next level by the bad intent of appeal court judges.
 
Things are moving, so are glaciers.

Police were aware the retracting witness had come forward over their evidence, and their allegation they provided information under duress.
"These matters will be the subject of assessment as will any other new information relevant to the death of Deane Fuller-Sandys in 1989." a spokeswoman said.

She would not comment on what steps they might take over the matter.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12246773
 
Dirty cops, faked evidence...

This one just gets worse and worse: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...d-says-he-was-impersonated-for-false-evidence

"At 15.23 hrs today I received a phone call from a Prison Officer Dave Kupunga (sic) who advised that the two are currently in cells next door to each other," [Detective] Searle's affidavit says.

The affidavit says the prison was supposed to keep the women separate, so he filled out a security breach form.

But Kupenga said it wasn't him. "I never, ever rang the police help line. It's not something I would have done. It's not something I would have known how to do actually. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a police help line."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom