looking for a royal commission into their case that followed them being prosecuted for a the collapse of a bridge leading their King Country property, built by the NZ Army, killing beekeeper Ken Richards in 1994.
The legal costs of the battle saw them lose their farm and in November 2009 they accepted a 'take it or leave it' offer of $150,000 which a spokesman for Attorney General Chris Finlayson was an 'act of compassion.'
I seem to remember that an ex NZ Police Association president acted as the Berryman's lawyer and was able to expose through engineers reports that the bridge had never been built to required standards. It was a protracted battle of 15 years. Keith Berryman has some choice discriptions of the way he and his wife were treated pointing out that he and his wife 'were blamed for a crime we (they) never committed.'
It would be difficult to imagine that the settlement figure was not full and final as in the normal course of such events, however things like this have a way of resurfacing and at least on the surface the 'take it or leave it' offer would appear to exempt of compassion by those very words if true as reported. Other factors emerge, being the cost of a farm as only $150,000 - potential mortgages aside when over a 16 year period a farm would probably naturally increase by that value or more. Of course then is the personal aspect of what Keith describes of being blamed for a crime they never committed. What a bloody nightmare, then all the covering up before blame was finally accepted in a petulant 'take it or leave it' fashion.
Things go even deeper I suspect. Was the offer fair? Did the offer look only at the situation the Berryman's were in and what amount they might accept while in a situation compounded by 16 years of stress and worry, I think so. Was the offer itemised so that the Berrymans could note how much was allowed for being subject to coverups, faulty investigations and reporting, the suffering they'd endured, what they lost etc etc and moreover why an offer made in 'compassion' had qualifiers with it that still rankle the family 2 years later.
Ah, I remember. Rob Moodie, the kaftan wearing ex police officer and lawyer represented the Berryman's in at least part of their ordeal. No other country in the world might know more so than NZ that mistreatments of miscarriages of justice and so forth bear only poisoned fruit. It must be seen we have a poor record of settling grievances and a institutionalised mindset of grinding out to the bitter end rather than quickly looking to remedy Government and Government department failures. What could take only days or weeks to destroy might take a life time or more to remedy - how did such a beast grow inside our system of democracy?
The story with berryman has many points not available to the public
ReplyDelete1. The whole reason why the bridge collapsed was the transom wood was the wrong timber . Why ? Berryman tricked the army into using the oregan wood instead of pine because it was cheaper. Berryman claims there was no pine the right size available but ask any mill , any size is available , it was only because berryman wanted it cheaper and it was the armys fault that the lutenant was not fast enough for berrymanns trickery.
2. Berryman was going to lose his farm anyway. Look into has past with his last farms and check has book keeping with the returuke farm
3. I guess his wife smoking 3 packets of cigarretes per day has nothing to do with getting cancer
4. Most of all anyone that knows berryman knows that he is a cronic lier and blamer and idiot.
Ask any shearing contractor , fencer , farmworkers , neighbours or any one that had anything to do with berryman before the bridge collapsed.Nobody would go near his farm.
5. The biggest injustice of all was it should have been berryman who fell through the bridge. Then the truth would have come out what really happened.
Good on you for having the guts to report the truth. A few corrections. Berryman didn't have the funds at the time to buy the specified tanalised pine and aquired second hand. douglas fir (oregan) from a demo yard in Whanganui. Even then he didn't pay for it. The bridge was built by the Fijian army as a joint exercise and when they arrived to build it they found that the wrong materials had been provided. They built it but made Berryman sign a disclaimer in front of a JP. Berryman was also advised that this suspect material should be replaced within five years. He was also well aware that the bridge soon become suspect and had severely limited his families use of it well before the disastrous day. He should have been charged with manslaughter , unfortunately this happened in the period when OSH was in infancy. They completely botched the investigation. How do I know all this? I was there from day one of the build, I was the first civilian outside of the family on the scene when the accident happened.. there is no conjecture... these are the facts.
DeleteI take it by what you say, that the army engineers could have been 'tricked' into building the bridge from balsa wood or even plasticine.
ReplyDeleteGood work!
What I meaned by tricked was the army had arrived and set up and the complete job was completely organised before berryman pulled out his cheap wood.
ReplyDeleteThe armys fault I guess was the young luitenants first big job and was under pressure to complete the project when he should of packed up and left.
I see what you mean.
ReplyDeleteOregan however is an established weight-loaded construction material in NZ over a long period of time.
Of course the Army shouldn't have built a bridge using inferior materials and excuses that they were somehow 'tricked' doesn't work.
for sure the army is partly blame as they in the end built the bridge when they shouldnt have , but at the beggining the whole idea was berrymans to swap the material. 2 years before the bridge fell down berryman himself told me how proud he was that he got the labour for free from the army and got the material for way under normal price since he swapped it at the last moment.
ReplyDeleteThat was the reason why he used the Oregan wood , not because the treated timber was not available, but the oregan was way cheaper.
Berryman has lied the entire time.
When the beekeeper first died berryman claimed that he told the beekeeper at breakfast time 20 times to drive slowly across the bridge. He then claimed that the beekeeper sped across the bridge and went through the side rails.He continually claimed this over the first year.
At this time this was the first OSH test case.
All of the farmers in NZ were afraid of this as OSH insisted that all dangerous things must have warning signs or have a verbal warning from the landowner.
So all of the farmers were behind berryman because they thought that when berryman gave the beekeeper a verbal warning and he was still killed that they themselves are open to liability on there own farms from OSH investigated accidents.
It took 1 year before the photos came out of the accident and it was evedent that the beeekeeper went through the floor of the bridge , not through the rails , berrymans lie was out.
Then OSH changed direction as to warnings were not adequate but structures themselves must be safe.
In court they said if berryman claimed to have warned the beekeeoer 20 times at breakfast to drive slowly over the bridge then he must have knowen the bridge was unsafe.
To this berryman said he Did not say that at all , his lawyer said this and must have got it wrong.Another lie.
Berryman is a fool and a lier . Before the bridge incident I know of many times berryman blatantly lied to cover up the foolish tings he did.
I you beleive in berryman then you should look into his past before the days of ' The poor Berrymans bridge fell down '
People are only judging him from the day the bridge fell down and beleiving his lies
If you agree that the Army is partly to blame then you can see why the Berryman's remain feeling victimised by the whole incident. The Army were never charged, only the Berrymans. The Army lost nothing only the Berrymans and of course the unfortunate beekeeper. This in itself is reason for them to feel aggrieved in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHow Keith may have reacted afterwards is of little consequence to the core ingredients of this case, as is what his reputation might have been because he simply did not construct the bridge which I think you would agree with having reached the decision that the Army engineers were 'partly' to blame.
Anyway, thanks for your comments and feel free to make more. They've brought a raw side of things that give me, and any readers I hope, a nuts and bolts picture of this piece of history.
Cheers.
The 'beast' that has grown inside our system of democracy inside Government and Government Departments thats institutionalised this grinding out to the bitter end mentality rather than promptly look at remedying the Govt departmental failures, is called the 'Stockholm Syndrome', deny delay defer....same beast raised it's ugly head in Canterbury following the earthquake sequence of events 2010 2011, Earthquake Commission being run by a bunch of, you guessed it, ex-cops with little to no building expertise, treating homeowners like criminals as opposed to victims.....yes it's a nasty beast alright when the old-boy network gets involved.........usually led by public servants with no skin in the game!...it's shocking behaviour and sooner or later we will get some honest politicians hopefully who will see an end to this sort of crap.......or am I hoping a bit too much...I certainly hope not!...can the new MMP coalition lot do something for the Berrymans?...any honest politicians out there who want to see some real justice for these poor souls?
ReplyDeleteJust rereading this after many years it appears to have been wrong for the Army to build something that had according to the Army a limited safe life. It doesn't appear to be fair to have put the Berryman's in that situation so maybe this is something for the new Government to look at - it would probably need someone like Arthur Taylor to forward the submission. I am sure there could be others willing to help him put it together if he would be kind enough to undertake the project and he would certainly need to hear from the family. I could pass the information onto him.
Delete