Letter
delivered by hand to Parliament House, Adelaide, by Dieter Fischer,
Para Hills 5096 - 5/6/09
The
Hon. Michael Atkinson MP, Attorney-General
Parliament
of
South Australia, North Terrace
Adelaide
SA 5000
Re:
A fair go for Mr. Liddy
Dear
Mr. Atkinson,
I
have not received any reply from you regarding my doubts in the case of
Mr. Peter Michael Liddy. The gentleman is serving a 25-year jail term in
Yatala Labour Prison - innocently! Over the last few years I have written
to all SA State MPs, at least twice, pointing to irregularities and asking
question regarding the original investigation.
My
last contact with you, which was ignored, as had all previous letters and
emails, was a letter, backed by a statutory declaration. The mother of the
initial accuser, Mr. Jon. C, had told me on the telephone that her son was
only an onlooker. You obviously did not think that this was sufficient
grounds to ask the same question I did: Why would Jon C. go to police,
after 15 years since the alleged abuse, when he had not even been abused?
Unless
you are doing something which I have not heard about, you obviously think
there is no reason to re-open this case. I find this disappointing,
especially since the same unit, (headed by Mr. Conte) who put Mr. Liddy
behind bars, recently demonstrated total incompetence in investigating
another case, that of carer Tom Easling.
The media, who filmed Mr. Easling’s arrest, and printed the news before
it had even happened, must also take major blame for this fiasco. Mr.
Liddy also experienced a most biased treatment by the media. Back in 2001
he had asked his lawyers to take the media to court over their false
reporting. This never happened – why not?
Mr.
Liddy has evidence, proving that one of his victims, Mr. W. had been
telling a family court years before the Liddy fiasco, that he had never
been abused as a child. Surely, this proves he told lies about being
abused by Liddy as a 10 year old. Why was this evidence not allowed in
Peter Liddy’s High Court appeal? One must earnestly consider the
possibility of a conspiracy against the man. I ask, is it still going on
today?
This
question is the main reason for this letter. I have uncovered evidence
that the court reporter of the Adelaide Advertiser, on May 15/5/01,
misreported this fact: “The court heard that Mr. Liddy handed an
envelope with $ 5000 to a witness (as alleged bribe).
Yet,
reading the transcript of the proceedings of May 14th, 2001,
there never was a mention of one sum (one envelope with $ 5000) being paid
by Mr. Liddy. Rather, the transcripts show that the money was handed over
in two sums, $ 3000 at first; the rest a few days later.
- page 2 -
To
ensure I was not mistaken in what I had read in the transcripts, I
requested access to the Liddy trial, to double-check what had occurred on
May 14, 2001 in the court-room.
On
May 4, 2009 I was handed papers of the trial to view, pages
1133 – 1240 of the court-transcripts. The clerk told me they were the
originals of the 2001 trial. Since I had been told previously that only
one copy exists, I was surprised to see clean white papers (e.g. fresh
photocopies) without holes punched, only black round spots, which looked
like the punch holes (of the original document?)
Before
I even started to read, I had my doubts that I was reading the original
transcripts. It should not have come as a surprise that nowhere among the
108 pages, did I find a reference to the money being paid in two
instalments!
The
only logical conclusion I can draw from this - the documents handed to me
for viewing were changed, so it would correspond with the newspaper
article!
If
I am mistaken, how would I have known, and written about (in my
autobiography dieterfischer.com, Book 5, Chapter 13), the alleged bribe
money paid was $ 3000 on a Tuesday or Wednesday, another $ 2000 handed
over on the Friday of the same week?
Mr.
Atkinson, I am alleging a most serious case of perverting the course of
justice, which happened right inside our court system. From the above
evidence I can only conclude that various instrumentalities, including the
court reporter, who falsely reported court proceedings, conspired to
conceal the true facts. These payments by Mr. Liddy were made in good
faith, thinking he was helping this young man to marry his girlfriend of 9
years.
The
public of
South Australia
has never been told that this witness, and three other alleged victims,
all had a criminal record. One was described in court by lawyer Margaret
Shaw as a career criminal. He was promised a reduction in the jail term he
was serving in a
Queensland
prison, in return for testifying against Mr. Liddy. While in
Adelaide
, this ‘gentleman’, Mr. W, stole and crashed a $ 17 000 motor vehicle.
Had
the people of
South Australia
been told of these matters, they could make up their own mind, who is
telling the truth? But they knew only what was printed in the papers or
broadcast on TV and radio, the official version, which painted Mr. Liddy
as a monster. Why has the unfortunate magistrate never been allowed to
tell his side of the story?
The
latest state of affairs, as I understand it is this: Mr. Liddy was to face
fresh charges, dating back to 1969. However, on May 11, 09 he had been
found unfit to stand trial after medical advice. His elderly mother writes
to her son every day. She informs me that he is not ill; devastated
perhaps, at the injustice done, but not mentally ill.
In
a hearing in late February 09 it was reported that fresh evidence had come
to light and Mr. Liddy was considering an appeal. The media had not
reported any more, if this is going ahead. In the light of the Easling
case, I urge you, Mr. Atkinson, to do your utmost, to reopen this case and
grant Mr. Liddy a fair trial. This injustice must be put right.
Yours
sincerely,
Dieter
Fischer
Adelaide,
June 4th 2009
Back
to Book 7, Chapter 25