Creative Colin exposed in Mr X fiasco

As I wrote earlier, yesterday in court was excruciating.

Yvonne Tahana from TVNZ gets right to the bottom of the Mr X fiasco.

Mr McKnight was blunt to Mr Craig about the pamphlet which took a question and answer form with himself: “This is you just making something up?”

“I’ve based it on conversations and thoughts of other people,” Craig answered.

Mr McKnight is working systematically through major sentences in the pamphlet.

He asked Craig to read where Mr X denies any sexual harassment against Craig’s former press secretary Rachel MacGregor and a “second victim”.

The line was “I don’t see why that matters … just that it gets reported [laughs].”  

Mr McKnight: “Who is laughing there?”

Craig: “I don’t actually recall this one.”

Craig couldn’t also recall who was making the full comment.

Repeatedly under questioning Mr Craig held fast to his viewpoint that everything in the pamphlet was a paraphrase of conversations he’d had with people.

Some of those conversations were with himself and some were with people he’d never spoken too including Mr Slater, he said.

But Craig also admitted repeatedly that he couldn’t recall some of the people he’d had conversations with.

Interviewing yourself, paraphrasing things other people told you that you can’t recall and stating it as fact and can not prove is called what?

Mr. Craig’s lawyers spent days cross-examining Jordan Williams about the exact wording of a text. It transpired that the wording was slightly different. In this case though Colin Craig just basically made everything up. Worse he purportedly used my own words against me…and pretended it was someone else saying it when it was Creative Colin all along.

I don’t think this case is going to end the way Colin Craig thinks it is going to end.



  • The Veteran

    Possum and headlights comes to mind.

  • Jude

    I hope it does end badly for Colin Craig. He is a walking disaster and for it to get to this stage , and in Court, shows how delusional he is.
    I would think he would, after this experience , try to settle other defamation cases out of Court?

    • My personal assessment: He won’t settle. His aim is to hurt people by keeping them in court. He can afford it, they can’t.

      • Jude

        That is where he is completely mad. He is only hurting himself. The fact he is prepared to have this information aired again in Court and for his wife to be humiliated all over again, just beggars belief.

        • This is indeed the case. He is not acting in his own self-interest. He is a game player, and he doesn’t like to lose. So one way not to lose is to never let the game come to an end.

          • To add: He’s facing having to do all this again FOUR more times.

            He is suing Stringer and Cam and they are suing him back. These are all distinct cases.

          • Jude

            That I guess is why he is a narcissist, he is unable to feel humiliated by this process.
            I feel sorry for his wife.
            Maybe she has similar qualities to her husband and feels no humiliation either.

          • Odd Ball

            That may be so about never letting the game end, but will anyone care?

          • The people he isn’t letting off the hook I guess.

        • GoingRight

          I would say for his wife to be still standing beside him may indicate she is a victim and has been living with a narcissist bully and she is now showing signs similar to a battered woman where she does as he says and believes every one of his weezely words

          • My personal observation is that she is no victim. She had a number of times to draw a line, and instead chose to continue. Her name is on the brochure as an author too.

            I have reason to believe a number of attempts have been made to reach her and offer some kind of deal where she is let off the hook, but she’s indeed chosen to remain with Colin and choose to take a position that apart from Colin being a silly man, everything else is completely fabricated by the people they are taking to court.

          • GoingRight

            It may still be possible that she is being crushed by her husband – such is the way with domestic abuse. I may be wrong but just a view I wanted to express as those in abusive relationships end up powerless even though those of us outside these relationship end up tearing our hair out wondering why they can’t just up and leave or at least stand up to these nasty creatures.

          • I wouldn’t want to be on public record suggesting Mrs Craig is a victim of her husband’s domestic abuse. I would word that a lot smarter. Mr Craig is a very litigious person.

          • GoingRight


          • I’ve warned people before that Mr Craig and/or helpers scan blogs and social media and he has a court case against one person for a COMMENT made on Facebook.

            I’m not kidding when I warn people to take care with the wording of things. State ‘alleged’ frequently and leave speculation at the door.

            This, of course, is the chilling effect Mr Craig is expecting to result from taking legal action relatively easily.

          • Mags

            There is a psychological condition called “follie à deux.” From memory this is where two people share the same delusion, one being the stronger of the two. Who knows, truth seems to be stranger than fiction here.
            Ed: you never know what happens in persons marriage, evening marriages that are long lasting have their idiosyncrasies.

      • Embeeare

        So, (Pete or someone with direct knowledge), what is his personal wealth? Some time (and I presume that will be after he loses the case) common sense has to set in because the cost x 5 is way more than just damages. No matter your personal fortune at some point surely his advisors/wife/Mr. X are going to tell him to stop the bleeding?

        • One thing that is relatively clear through testimony and observation is that Mr Craig does not take advice. Mr Craig instructs.

      • Mags

        I’m reminded of the saying “A fool and his money are easily parted.”

  • George Carter


  • iera

    Craig’s reported 1.6 million mail-out booklet carries at the back an EDITORIAL STATEMENT: There are a number of contributors to this publication. They have chosen to remain anonymous partly due to privacy and partly due to the potential risk of retaliation.

    The statement does not admit one, Mr X, is anonymous because he is a made-up ‘literary’ device, nor that the ‘Interviewer’ is another of Craig’s mental figments.
    Both are dishonestly represented in the Interview introduction as real people, even with the ‘authorative’ qualification that “a lot of expletives have been deleted from this dialogue”.

    So these two, Mr X and the Interviewer, rather than real, are indeed fabricated false witnesses, in denial of the booklet’s introductory Biblical Quote, bottom of page 2 –
    Thou shalt not bear false witness. – the Ninth Commandment.

    Naughty, Colin. You should have used Matthew 7:20

    • Dan

      Or my favourite… Worth quoting…

      1TI 6:3-5 If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, HE IS CONCEITED AND UNDERSTAND NOTHING, BUT HAS AN UNHEALTHY INTEREST IN CONTROVERSIES AND VERBAL DISPUTES. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, WHO SUPPOSE THAT GODLINESS IS A WAY OF MAKING A PROFIT.

  • Boondecker

    Even before this case went to court it appeared that for Craig, or Mr X or whatever else he likes to call himself in his love letters, his political aspirations were all but finished. Now, with all that has been revealed in this case so far, it is just certain.

    • Isherman

      Oh I definately wouldn’t assume that he’s come to that conclusion or realisation himself just yet.

  • shykiwibloke

    It seems to me that CC is angling toward a defence based on opinion not being defamation. Without discussing this particular case, can any of our legal experts clarify how the law tests opinion vs stated fact? My bush-lawyerness would assume any statement has to be treated as fact if it is not attributed as opinion from a specific person?

    • shykiwibloke

      And I would also assume opinion is not always a defence. If I publically stated that “in my opinion abc is a rapist” – I would expect that to be libellous even though I have stated it as an opinion.

      • It has to be an honestly held one. That means that YOU genuinely believe so based on information you collected.

        • shykiwibloke

          One of the things I love about WO is the ability to increase ones knowledge. Sadly a rare thing with MSM which is more akin to a sugar hit than protein based sustenance.

    • Second time around

      Even if you form opinions based on facts that someone else, a real person, has put in the public domain, you could still be at risk of appearing to republish the original libel.

    • You can rely on honest held opinion.


      The booklet was published without first checking the assertions with the people they are about.

      Whereas Mr Craig is complaining that media inquiring after certain information about the party and him personally to confirm the veracity (they were false, and not published), caused his downfall.

      So he doesn’t have to fact check. And media fact checking is malicious.

      Don’t try to make sense of it. Those are his positions.

  • Intrigued

    Is there an insanity defence to defamation? I’m beginning to wonder if that is where CC is going.

    • It all makes sense to Mr Craig. Once you understand that, everything else falls into place.

      • Intrigued

        I guess – but the rest of us are living in the real worl and not some fantasy land inside his head! It’s incredible this case has got this far!

        • Anyone can start a civil proceeding.

          Ask Mr McCready.

  • Big_Al

    As i see it, our dear old Colin has not only dug himself a big hole, but he continues to keep digging. It does make me wonder about his state of mind.

    • Dan

      Knowing his track record he will probably keep digging by suing his lawyer if unsuccessful.

    • rantykiwi

      He has a mind? From the court reports of the last few days I feel he hardly qualifies as a sentient being.

  • Kiwikea

    Funny how things work out, if he had stuck to campaigning every 3 years for the Auckland mayoralty he probably would have been in a good position to assume power in October. Instead he’s dead in the water…

  • Dan

    So he cannot recall who said those paraphrssed marks but presents them as facts. Heresay, chinese whispers and inuendo never make for good evidence. But such thing thrive amongst gossipers

    Bonus Daily Proverb: Pro 26:20 Where there is no wood, a fire goes out, and where there is no gossip, contention ceases.