Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?

from the seems-sketchy dept

As lots of publications are reporting, over in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom took the stand to testify about how the police treated him during the raid on his home as part of the international effort to seize and shut down everything related to Dotcom and Megaupload. I have no idea if the claims he makes of being kicked and punched and the like are accurate. I'm sure his detractors will question how trustworthy the testimony is. Frankly, I have no idea how accurate it is.

But here's the thing that I find most interesting. Buried all the way at the end of the Stuff article linked above is the following line:
The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.
To me, that seems like a point that should be made up top. If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case? The fact that they're trying to suppress that very evidence certainly lends credence to his claims, and (at the same time) calls into serious question the conduct of law enforcement during the raid.

Filed Under: details, evidence, kim dotcom, new zealand, prosecution, raid, suppression, video

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Beech, 7 Aug 2012 @ 5:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, by "prejudicial" my meaning was that it may make the jury feel sympathetic to Dotcom while having nothing to do with the case against him. It would be straight up appeal to emotion. Kim giving unauthorized 1's and 0's away has nothing to do with how he was arrested for allegedly doing such. If I get caught jaywalking by a CCTV, then the cops borrow some tanks from the army to surround my house and air drop in from black helicopters and beat me viciously, it doesn't really change the fact that I jaywalked. It's totally abominable, unjustifiable, repugnant, and would probably earn me some serious change in a civil suit, but has noting to do with the original charge.

    The only real reason I could think of to show the footage is to show that there was interference from a foreign (US) presence. An MPAA stooge being there would go a long way to showing a prejudice by the cops. An MPAA stooge touching a computer could be proof of tampering with the evidence. Same points go for US law enforcement types as well.

    However, if Dotcom wanted to file suit against the police, I could see the footage being highly relevant.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.