One of New Zealand’s most disturbing real-life crime stories is to be transformed into a Drama for TV ONE’s Sunday Theatre slot.
“Until Proven Innocent”, the story of David Dougherty and the three strangers who fought to get him a pardon for a crime he didn’t commit, is to be made into a feature length film by Lippy Pictures Ltd with a New Zealand on Air grant of $1.35 million.
David Dougherty was found guilty and jailed in 1992 for the abduction, sexual violation and rape of an 11 year old girl.
Three people who had never met him became convinced of his innocence – journalist Donna Chisholm, lawyer Murray Gibson, and scientist Arie Geursen – and began a crusade to overturn his conviction.
The drama will recount their four year battle, through two trials, two high court appeals and a petition to the Governor General, to get him pardoned.
Their efforts were vindicated in 2002 when another man, Nicholas Reekie, was convicted of the crime.
The David Dougherty case is sometimes referred to as ‘the other Arthur Alan Thomas’ because in many ways it mirrors that earlier wrongful conviction.
“Until Proven Innocent” is written and produced by Donna Malane and Paula Boock, who worked together as producer and writer respectively of the highly-rated New Zealand dramas “Insiders Guide to Happiness” and “Insiders Guide to Love”.
The drama is expected to go to air on Sunday Theatre in the first half of 2009.
Hello Brad,
Just a correction to dates.
Dougherty was convicted in 1993.
pardoned??? He was found “Not Guilty” in 1997 after being bailed from Rangipo in 1996,August.
Reekie was convicted in 2003.
We have had another reader who let us know:
I have noticed that dates quoted in NZ Crime Drama about David Dougherty article are incorrect.
Dougherty was convicted in 1993 for the 1992 rape.
He was released from Rangipo 21 August 1996 to await trial to clear him in 1997.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FalseAllegations/2001-0713_Herald_DavidDoughertyLockedUpInANightmare.htm
Reekie was found guilty in 2003 not 2002
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3504996
Hopefully the film will portray fact not fiction as Donna Chisholm reported in the Sunday Star-Times (25 Oct 1998, A1-2)
I also notice that some facts relating to DNA have been muddled and mis-reported in the past.
Brad has anyone thought how dragging all this up again could hurt Dougherty?
What does he think about it? What does Joann Atutolu think about it?
Or doesn’t it matter as long as Chisholm,Gibson & Geursen get their spot of glory ………again!
I have been corresponding with Lippy and have informed them of the correct dates.
They have today rewritten their Media Statement, but are still publishing incorrect details.
Is it always so difficult to get media people to portray the truth?
Or are the lies so ingrained they find the truth hard to print.
For those interested in Lippy Pictures Media Statement please go to Lippy Pictures Media Statement
Chisholm,Gibson & Geursen were such a great help in getting my brother out of jail they are the reason he is out and cleared of these charges today, and i would say that they deserve to be praised for this.
REF:”Three people who had never met him became convinced of his innocence – journalist Donna Chisholm, lawyer Murray Gibson, and scientist Arie Geursen – and began a crusade to overturn his conviction.”
I remain very concerned that two of the people named above stooped so low under the cover of “Cosa” to denegrate and lie about the child who was raped in the “Dougherty case”
To lie about medical information and other information remains a dispicable, nasty deed.
The information below has recently been taken off the web, obviously so reputations will not be tarnished.
Editorial
Young women crying ‘wolf’
Over the past few years the COSA newsletter has documented numerous cases of young women (often teenagers) making false claims that they have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. In the Court Section of this issue, we outline a few of the most recent examples of what appears to be a growing trend. Many other such cases can be found in COSA back issues.
Now comes the astonishing news that police review of the David Dougherty case (wrongly convicted of abducting an 11 year old girl via her bedroom window, gagging and binding her and raping her) indicates that she is likely to have been lying about the whole event. For the past 18 months police have been re-investigating the case (after DNA testing proved that the semen on the girl’s underpants did not come from Dougherty). Donna Chisholm reports in the Sunday Star-Times (25 Oct 1998, A1-2) that it seems that the girl made the false rape complaint to cover for having sex with someone she knew.
It has been established that the girl did leave her bedroom that night and engage in sexual activity with a man. Evidence suggests however that she may have let the man in herself by unlocking a ranch-slider; that the alcohol she claimed he made her drink at the rape scene was actually from her own miniature display collection and was consumed in her bedroom; and that she voluntarily accompanied him to the vacant section across the road where the sexual activity occurred. Her claims that the intruder came to her room armed with a knife (to threaten her); shoelaces (to tie her up); a pair of socks (to stuff in her mouth); a T-shirt (to blindfold her); a bag (to carry the alcohol) and the alcohol itself (to later make her drink) seem improbable. Medical examination did not support her claim of a serrated knife being held against her throat, or of her having been tightly bound or punched. She claims she ran across the road to the section where she was raped, but this is inconsistent with being tightly bound and blindfolded.
The police suspect her nomination of Dougherty as her ‘rapist’ was greatly influenced by disputes between their neighbouring families occurring in the two weeks before the October 1992 incident. The complainant’s brother had been bitten by Dougherty’s dog and her family had called the ranger, who apparently had put the dog down without informing Dougherty. Also police had been called to a domestic incident at the Dougherty house which had led to increased hostility between the two families.
The complainant refuses to be reinterviewed by the police and still claims that Dougherty raped her, even though the DNA evidence has cleared him.
The evidence revealed by this re-investigation is not ‘new’. Police investigation would have uncovered these details at the time of the initial complaint. However with the complainant adamantly claiming that Dougherty was her assailant, evidence which did not support Dougherty as the suspect would have been downplayed or ignored by the police. They believed that Dougherty was their man, and therefore they sought only evidence to confirm that belief. What is different with the re-investigation is that the same evidence has been examined through a different lens, not coloured by the presumption of Dougherty’s guilt.” ………