Craig versus MacGregor today

Colin Craig will cross examine Rachel MacGregor today in the Craig v Slater defamation case. It seems odd that Craig, who MacGregor still claims sexualy harassed her, gets to question her in person in court, but according to ‘Whaleoil Staff’

Whaleoil understands Mr Craig has been handed a strict set of rules issued by the court, and if he does not stick to them, then the court will step in.

Things didn’t seem to go well for Craig in court yesterday when MacGregor gave evidence. Especially (as reported by Stuff):

Rachel MacGregor has told a court that Colin Craig threatened her by saying he’d set aside $1 million to “destroy” her.

Craig’s former press secretary claims the threat was made during a confidential Human Rights Commission mediation after she brought a sexual harassment complaint against him.

Cameron Slater’s wife Juana atkins (SB) has posted Best day in court ever! but expressing herself with a depiction of violence against Craig doesn’t seem a wise thing to do during a court case.

SBvCraig.jpg

x

36 Comments

  1. High Flying Duck

     /  May 24, 2017

    I think she was inferring that McGregor was the one who smacked down Craig…As far as I know SB is not part of these proceedings in any way.

  2. duperez

     /  May 24, 2017

    I disagree with Atkins’ post not being a wise thing to do during a court case. Or at any time.
    It is perfect.

    It simply and clearly shows a level of arrogance that would be breathtaking if it weren’t unexpected. Another petulant demonstration of a total lack of class.

    • Sally

       /  May 24, 2017

      I wonder if the Judge is following?

  3. Bill Brown

     /  May 24, 2017

    Yesterday just proved that when you thought Colin Craig could not go any lower, he is still able to actually fall even further

    Also, given his sexual predator type behaviour I doubt he’s a suitable candidate to adopt a child. And I’m picking the adoption was a media ruse to deflect from his wider issues

    • MaureenW

       /  May 24, 2017

      No fan of Colin Craig, but I wouldn’t describe his behaviour as that of a sexual predator, more of an awkward crush with a few other crossed-strings attached within the Employer/Employee relationship

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 24, 2017

        More like a sexual embarrassment, M. I really pity his wife having to endure this horrendous lunacy in futile pursuit of a damaged ego.

        • Loki

           /  May 24, 2017

          I agree, however. Where is the condemnation of McGregor who seems to have milked a Christian version of Mr Bean and then blabbed about a confidential settlement to the boy child Jordan Williams who then blabbed to the lunatic Slater?
          None of this would have occurred if she had abided by her confidential settlement.
          I think he has grounds to try and go her for the money back.
          And no, not an apologist for craig.
          Like all religious nut jobs he is deserving of nothing more than our pity.

          • Bill Brown

             /  May 24, 2017

            He’s not even deserving of pity

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 24, 2017

            Didn’t she speak to Williams only after Craig had broken the agreement because she needed advice?

            • Sally

               /  May 24, 2017

              Why would you go to a skinny weirdo who has links to Slater and is know to attempt sexual relations with everyone woman in politics under the sun? She’s smarter than that she did it for a reason.

        • MaureenW

           /  May 24, 2017

          Not just a sexual embarrassment – he appears to lack some self awareness and placing himself within appropriate social norms. Thinking of that photo shoot for the election he was running in – they were totally weird photos. I’m amazed they were ever published.

      • I do regard his treatment as harassment. Personally, I don’t see him as sexual anything, more asexual – like an amoeba. However, when one party threatens another, as is alleged, or indeed, uses his money to loan to another party – there’s an imbalance. I’m not talking poor wee girlie and tough, testosterone-fueled man, I’m talking wealthy person v. salary-earning employee.

        • MaureenW

           /  May 24, 2017

          I think you underestimate McGregor somewhat

          • Not at all. She’s one tough gal. However, she was at a disadvantage when she needs money and he had it. I’ve done a fair bit of lending over my life, less borrowing TG. It’s interesting dynamic methinks 🙂

            • Sally

               /  May 24, 2017

              I think she trapped him. Kept all this correspondence for years and waited for it to blow up. She’s proving today she’s no shrinking violet and kicking him hard in the slats.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 24, 2017

          Yes I feel for McGregor, she seemed to be put into a position where she couldn’t leave and was financially dependent on CC.
          It is a very tough situation when your employer will not agree rates and then offers advances and loans – you never know where you stand.
          Not sure where the animosity has come from as McGregor has done no speaking on this other than on the stand and has kept to her agreement while he has not.

          • No sympathy for horny, yet caught, Craig. He did his thinking a metre away from the usual place, like many before him and many to come. Thought he could cake and eat it, but as usual he got pants ankled and would he let it go away and get on with his life? No, his ego wouldn’t let him. I hope he gets stung in the pocket when his wife comes to her sense and runs off with the window cleaner.

            • Blazer

               /  May 24, 2017

              bit harsh ,he never even got to …2nd base.

          • duperez

             /  May 24, 2017

            According to other reports Rachel MacGregor kept to (some of) the confidentiality agreements made.

            Is it reasonable to say she has ‘done no speaking’ when there are also various accounts of her talking to Jordan Williams? Not saying she broke any agreements but implying that she kept everything private?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 24, 2017

              I can’t recall for certain, but I think the conversations with Williams were before the confidentiality agreement was in place and were partly for advice.
              McGregor certainly has not done anything to bring any publicity to this issue.

            • Sally

               /  May 24, 2017

              Mentioning your confidenital matter to Jordan we now know that means Whaleoil will know too.

  4. Pete Kane

     /  May 24, 2017
    • Tipene

       /  May 24, 2017

      According to this report, MacGregor was up out of her seat, trying to tell the Judge what evidence he can and can’t accept.

      And when it became clear that Craig’s evidence was legitimate for submission, she “started to cry”.

      Looks like the “mutual” aspect of the relationship between MacGregor & Craig is FINALLY seeing the light of day (although Justice Katz covered this aspect off very well in the Williams vs Craig trial.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 24, 2017

        So texts recovered ‘forensically’ by a person convicted (among other things) of preparing a false summary of facts for the court, and which only included incriminating texts from RM and none of CC’s texts is solid evidence?
        And as soon as the job was done the tablet they were on was “accidentally destroyed” so nothing more could be extracted and the extracted information could not be corroborated?

        Sounds plausible i must admit.

        • Tipene

           /  May 24, 2017

          @Highflyingduck:

          I’ll show you what’s plausible – the conclusions of another high court Judge pertaining to the nature of the relationship between Craig & MacGregor:

          J Katz in CIV-2015-404-1845 [2016] NZHC 2496 (19/10/2016), presided over three weeks of evidence in the Craig vs Williams trial (including hearing extensive testimony given by MacGregor) concluded that there was no evidence of sexual harassment by Mr Colin Craig against Rachel (quoted from the actual judgment, which is in the public domain) here:

          https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/williams-v-craig/@@images/fileDecision

          Specifically:

          “Mr Williams then contacted Brian Dobbs, the Conservative Party Board Chairman, and told him (amongst other things) that Mr Craig had been sending sexually explicit texts (“sexts”) to Ms MacGregor and, in particular, one that referred to lying between her naked legs. This was not true, as there is no evidence (from Mr Craig, Ms MacGregor, or the documents produced in evidence) that such a text ever existed. Mr Williams acknowledged at trial that he had never seen such a text. Whether Mr Williams genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that such a text existed, or was deliberately untruthful, was in dispute at trial. For present purposes, I simply note that there is no evidence that Mr Craig ever sent the alleged text, or any other sexually explicit text, or indeed any letters or cards containing sexually explicit material. Nor, apart from a relatively minor and fleeting incident on election eve 2011, is there any evidence to suggest that there was ever any physical contact between Mr Craig and Ms MacGregor that was overtly sexual in nature (29)

          And:

          “In March 2015, Mr Craig’s lawyers (Chapman Tripp) sent a detailed letter to Ms Macgregor’s lawyers regarding her allegations of sexual harassment. Chapman Tripp’s letter set out, in some detail, the reasons why Ms Macgregor’s claim of sexual harassment was rejected. The relationship between Mr Craig and Ms MacGregor was essentially characterised as an emotionally close and intense friendship, which was mutual. Copies of correspondence from Ms MacGregor to Mr Craig were annexed to Chapman Tripp’s letter in support of that characterisation of the relationship. Without setting out details of the relevant correspondence, it is fair to say that it tends to support the view that the relationship was one of mutual admiration and deep affection, particularly in the first year or two. This conclusion is also broadly supported by the text messages adduced in evidence at trial. Although the exchange of more personal (but not sexual) text messages appears to have declined over time, the text message evidence was consistent with an ongoing close friendship as well as a working relationship. Indeed, this appears to have still been the case only a week or so before Ms MacGregor resigned, when Ms MacGregor confided in Mr Craig the reasons (which were of a highly personal nature) that she was feeling down at that time (31).

          i will defer to Katz J’s perspective – it;s pretty conclusive.

          • MaureenW

             /  May 24, 2017

            I think that assessment is probably closer to the actual situation.

          • Mungo Jerry

             /  May 24, 2017

            I’ll give it to you Tipene, you are loyal to a fault for your pal Colin Craig, but the evidence coming out isn’t what you’ve been told. It’s getting worse and worse for dear Colin.

            So far there has been nothing to support your ongoing contentions that the evidence coming out will show it will all turn out fine for Colin.

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/331495/former-staffer-says-craig-tried-to-pressure-her-into-sex

            That articles show the claims of that fool Slater were right…including disgusting text messages.

            • MaureenW

               /  May 24, 2017

              The article you have linked to isn’t evidence. I don’t know that anyone cares all that much for one side or the other, they’re all tainted.
              What is your evidence MJ?

            • Mungo Jerry

               /  May 24, 2017

              MaureenW, sorry to correct you, but it is evidence, it is sworn testimony from the witness box…that is evidence.

            • Tipene

               /  May 24, 2017

              @mungo jerry: I’m loyal to the truth of the matter at hand, and a smarter brain than mine (Katz J) has weighed and measured the evidence of MacGregor on her claims, and has found MacGregors claims wanting.

              MJ, what one chooses to believe most often depends on WHY they are choosing to believe it.

            • MaureenW

               /  May 24, 2017

              Yeah, they’re her submissions to the court for consideration. Her evidence I suppose. There has not been a judgement on either side’s submission of their individual evidence. Ie her version of events

            • Mungo Jerry

               /  May 24, 2017

              Tipene, would you consider Her Honour Judge Hinton of the District court to be smarter than you?

          • The texts are disputed on both sides. All we are left with is the balance of probabilities as to who may be telling the truth in that regard. Which way does that swing? Well the ridiculous poetry, the source of Craig’s texts, and the nature of his character pretty conclusively swing it in one direction if you ask me. You’d have to be mad or blind to conclude differently.

        • I’m on her side in this bollocks. That evidence should be thrown out

  5. What a horrible mess this case has become. I trust the judge can sort things out and come up with an appropriate decision out of it.

    • Gezza

       /  May 24, 2017

      Wouldn’t be completely surprised if the poor learned fellow just goes home every night & drinks until he forgets.