Colin Jack Mitchell is the man who abducted, wounded and assaulted a 23-year-old woman at a West Auckland quarry, intending to sexually violate her - threatening to kill her.
A jury decided that yesterday after deliberating for six hours following a 12-day trial in the High Court at Auckland.
That jury also found Mitchell guilty of raping a woman in May 1992 - a crime that he was tried for after DNA evidence found in the quarry attack linked him to a historic sex crime.
But the Herald has not been able to report on that until today.
Suppression orders prevented the details of the 1992 attack from being published.
The orders also prevented the Herald from revealing that Mitchell has a previous conviction from the 1980s for rape.
Today, we can finally tell you everything about Mitchell - a seemingly nondescript Onehunga truck driver by day and a prowling, violent rapist by night.
Soon after Mitchell appeared in court charged with the Riverhead quarry attack police were contacted by another Auckland woman.
She said Mitchell had raped her in 1992.
She had reported the rape to the police, but always felt they didn't believe her.
Her case went effectively uninvestigated and remained unsolved.
Until she saw a photograph of Mitchell in the news.
Mitchell's DNA was found on and in a glove at the Riverhead scene, and when police ran that through the national database they got a hit.
His DNA was also found on the body and clothing of a woman who was raped in 1992.
Police charged Mitchell in relation to the rape and successfully sought to have that set of charges tried alongside the Riverhead attack charges in the High Court at Auckland.
Mitchell pleaded not guilty to six charges - three relating to Riverhead and three relating to the 1992 rape.
Despite his denial of the offending, the jury found him guilty on all counts.
The attacks were significant in their similarities - from where Mitchell took his victims, to what he said during the violations and how he reacted when the women refused to comply with his disgusting demands.
The Crown was also able to call "propensity evidence" - meaning they could tell the jury about Mitchell's prior conviction.
WHAT IS PROPENSITY EVIDENCE? CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.
Jurors are not usually given information about the previous criminal offending of a person on trial, but in Mitchell's case the Crown argued it was necessary, that it showed his propensity to act in a particular way.
Until today, publication of any of this information has been prohibited.
So, while the Herald reported on the Riverhead quarry charges the jury were hearing so much more about Colin Jack Mitchell.
"Most of the time Mr Mitchell is a law-abiding citizen," Crown prosecutor Kirsten Lummis told the jury on the first day of the trial.
He was the president of the Onehunga RSA, a truck driver who'd worked for the same company for 20 years.
"But Mr Mitchell also has a dark sinister side, a side that only comes out in the dark of night," Lummis said.
"At night, Mr Mitchell turns into a prowler, picking up women - young women - on their own late at night."
1992: 'He was just horrible'
"You're hearing about this as the case has significant similarities," Lummis told the Mitchell jury before she detailed the 1992 attack.
It was May 30 - a Saturday - and a 25-year-old West Auckland mother made her way into Ponsonby.
Her destination was the Gluepot Tavern at the Three Lamps intersection - a popular venue for gigs and the launch pad for some of New Zealand's finest rock and pop musicians.
In its day, it also hosted public and private performances by some top international acts visiting the country, including the Rolling Stones.
The woman was excited to see a Blues Brothers cover band, so much so that when her friends dropped out one by one, she decided to go alone.
Besides, she had a babysitter organised, it would have been a waste not to go.
She bussed into the central city and then up to Ponsonby and, as expected, had a blast at the Gluepot.
She had one drink, no more.
The woman planned to get a taxi home and had put $20 in her jacket for that purpose, but when she went to leave the cash was gone, lost.
She decided to walk home.
It was an almost 13km hike and the night was cold - but she had no choice, and she reasoned that she probably needed the exercise.
She walked along Ponsonby Rd, then down Great North Rd past Western Springs and towards Point Chevalier.
A man pulled over and offered her a ride but she turned him down
"He seemed a little bit rough around the edges, I just didn't think I wanted to take the ride, didn't feel comfortable with it," she told the jury while giving evidence in person during Mitchell's trial.
Soon after, another man pulled over and offered a ride.
This time, she accepted.
"He looked very harmless, and it was cold," she explained.
"I remember he looked like he was in his 30s to 40s, kind of dishevelled, but not grubby- very nondescript really, very, very average and I thought he looked safe.
"He told me he could drop me off on Rosebank Rd and I thought that's a good part of my walk cut off."
She chatted to the driver along the way, talking about the show, and when they got to Rosebank Rd he dropped her off.
"I kept walking, I was very cold, tired and my feet hurt a lot," she said.
"I took off my boots at some stage, walked with pantyhose."
A few minutes later as she neared a factory on Great North Rd, she saw a man emerge from behind a tree.
"Then I blinked and he wasn't there, I thought it was my mind being over reactive," she said.
"I kept walking … and then he was there again, and he punched me in the face and in the head.
"He hit me when my brain was just comprehending that he was there … it was quick and very surreal.
"He hit me on the head and in the face, they were enough to stun me but not to drop me, they were very hard hits."
The man put his stunned victim in a headlock and walked her up a long driveway into the factory area.
She told him to let her go, to f**k off, and she bit him.
She could feel the soft fullness of his belly under her head, the plastic, rubbery feel of his clothing - wet weather gear - and a soft jumper beneath it.
She could feel he had gloves on his hands.
"He told me to shut up, I think I started crying," she said.
"I think I did try and bite him and he punched me again, I shut up after that, more or less … that one just made me quiet, I thought I'm just going to keep on walking now.
"I didn't want to die."
Raped, bound and left in the dark
Once they got to a spot where it was likely no one would see or hear them, the man demanded she take off her clothes.
He told her "turn around, get down on your knees".
"I did what he told me to do," she said in court.
"I was terrified, I was wondering whether I was going to get home or not? Whether that was the day I was going to die …
"I was thinking about my children, I was talking about my children, I just wanted to go home."
He stripped off her jackets - two of them owing to the cold night - and demanded she take off her jeans.
He yanked her body suit up and wrapped it and her jackets around her head, covering her face so she could not see him.
"(I was) trussed up quite nicely," she said.
The man demanded oral sex, then told his victim to lie down on the ground.
There, he raped her, quickly but pathetically and leaving his DNA on her clothing and body.
"I don't know if i was actually feeling anything, I think my mind had taken a bit of a holiday - I was in shock, I couldn't believe this was happening to me," she said.
"It was very confusing … He was just horrible."
After the rape, he apologised to the woman, then went through her handbag.
"He got me to roll over onto my stomach and tied my hands together behind my back with my pantyhose," she sad.
"Then he put something in my mouth and … he said to me to stay there for 20 minutes."
He told the violated woman "don't scream, don't make a noise, if you do I will find you".
He said he knew his way around the area "very well" and that he would throw the woman into a dumpster if she didn't do what I was told.
She heard him walk away and she lay petrified for a few minutes.
Then she managed to uncover her head, untie herself and roll a cigarette.
She was stressed, frightened he would come back - she had just been beaten and raped and the cigarette helped her to calm down, to think.
After what she thought was 20 minutes she got up, made her way cautiously back to the road, walked until she found a phone box and called 111.
"I've been raped," she told the operator.
Consensual sex? Hell no
The woman was taken to the police station, interviewed and sent for a medical assessment.
Unfortunately, things did not go well for her with the police.
She felt that they did not believe her, that they were not interested in her complaint - that they didn't want to help her.
So, she lied.
She wanted to get out of there, to get home to her kids, so she told police that the person who gave her a ride to Rosebank Rd was a woman.
She didn't tell the truth about the man because at that stage, she did not think he was the same person that had raped her.
"I was scared, I think i was in shock a little bit, I was incredibly embarrassed," she explained to the jury.
"I was embarrassed because I was a victim and I had never, ever been a victim.
"I was used to going where I wanted, doing what I wanted, walking where I wanted and it being okay - and all of a sudden it wasn't.
"To be honest the police weren't very sympathetic, they weren't very accommodating - I had the feeling that they weren't believing what I was telling them, that I had done something stupid and had therefore paid the price.
"I wasn't happy with being there, I really just wanted to go home ... I just didn't want any more judging."
Had she believed the man who picked her up was her attacker, she would have told police everything, she said.
After that night at the police station her complaint never progressed.
Her rapist was never caught and she moved on with her life.
Then in March 2017 she saw a face in the news that would take her right back to that day in 1992.
A terrifying blast from the past
When she saw images of Colin Jack Mitchell in the dock at the Auckland District Court, charged with the Riverhead quarry attack, she knew immediately who he was.
He was the man who had picked her up all those years ago.
She had never, in 25 years, told the police about her lie, that it wasn't a woman who picked her up.
But in March 2017 she contacted them and told them everything.
By then police had DNA matching Mitchell's from a glove found at the Riverhead crime scene.
It matched DNA taken from the woman in 1992.
Mitchell was charged with her rape. Finally.
In court he did not deny giving the woman a ride that night, did not deny sexual contact with her.
He met her at the Gluepot and offered to drive her home.
On the way they stopped behind a building on Rosebank Rd and had sex - consensual sex.
Afterwards, Mitchell drove away and left the woman there, which annoyed her.
She couldn't be bothered walking home and called the police to accuse him of rape, in part to spite him and in part to get a free ride to her house.
When this was put to the woman in court by defence lawyer Mark Ryan, who accused her repeatedly of lying to the police and the jury about her encounter with Mitchell, her answer was simple and clear.
"I lied to police because I was incredibly uncomfortable, being made to feel like I was an incredibly stupid girl … they weren't very nice, they were treating me like I was a criminal, like I was the person to blame," she said.
"It was definitely not consensual, most definitely not."
After hearing the Crown case against Mitchell, and his defence of consent and lies from the victim, the jury of eight women and four men made their decision.
He was guilty.
Guilty of kidnapping the woman with intent to have sexual intercourse with her.
Guilty of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Guilty of sexual violation by rape.
1984: Rape in the rail yard
Guilty is a word Mitchell knows well.
The Herald can now also reveal that when he was 27 he was jailed for five years after he was convicted of rape, sodomy and indecent assault.
He was jailed on July 13, 1985 - almost a year to the day after the vicious attack.
The jury in this month's trial were told about the historic conviction, the Crown saying the similarities between that offending, the quarry attack and the 1992 incident were significant and showed a terrifying and dangerous pattern.
July 23, 1984 was an ordinary Monday night at work for a 18-year-old prostitute - until she crossed paths with Mitchell.
He pulled up on Queen St and the woman got into his car, believing he was a client.
They discussed what sexual services she offered and agreed on activities short of full intercourse.
He drove her to a secluded spot at a Mount Eden railway yard, stopped the car, and turned on her.
He became violent, grabbed her by the throat and forced her to strip off her clothes and perform oral sex.
He raped her.
He sodomised her.
He went through her bag, then threatened her and then drove off into the night - leaving her alone, injured and traumatised in the dark, cold yard.
At sentencing the presiding Justice said that alongside the offending, Mitchell's choice of victim was a concern.
"The victim had been easily approachable and a person who could be thought to be reluctant to complain, so lessening the risk of an offender being apprehended," he said.
Fast forward to 2018 and Crown prosecutor Kirsten Lummis echoed that when explaining the historic crime to the jury.
"All three offences happened in early hours morning, all three victims were young women unknown to Mitchell," she said.
"They were taken to secluded spots, told to take off their clothes, (two were) raped.
"All were threatened.
"That demonstrates that Mitchell has a tendency to treat young women who have been out on the streets at night in a particular way."
When Mitchell took the stand he too spoke about the 1984 attack, albeit briefly.
"You approached a prostitute?" defence counsel Mark Ryan asked his client.
"I'm not too sure the date but yeah," Mitchell said.
"You agreed on price for sexual activity?" Ryan continued.
"Took the complainant in car and then you had sexual relations with her without her consent?
"Without consent, you drove off leaving her in the yard you had taken her to?
"In 1985 you were convicted on the charges of rape, sodomy and indecent assault against that complainant.
Mitchell responded to each question with two words: "That's correct".
During the 12-day trial at the High Court at Auckland Mitchell repeatedly denied raping the woman in 1992.
When grilled by Lummis, who called his defence fanciful, implausible and "a pack of lies", he maintained his position.
"I was stupid in 1984, I've learnt my lesson," he said.
"I was trying to go straight."
But straight, it seems, is not a route travelled by Colin Jack Mitchell - now a serial sex offender with a raft of convictions to his name.
At sentencing in May the Crown will seek preventive detention - an indeterminate prison sentence where even if offenders are released on parole, they remain managed by Corrections for the rest of their life and can be recalled to prison at any time.
Lummis will likely argue that the public need to be protected from Mitchell as much and for as long as possible that his sinister and repetitive history of prowling the streets late at night for lone women, abducting, overpowering, dominating, controlling and violating them means he should be locked up indefinitely.
A 'fanciful' defence
Likely to go in the Crown's favour at sentencing, aside from his previous sex offending, is Mitchell's denial of his crimes.
He mounted a defence labelled implausible and "a pack of lies" by Lummis throughout the trial.
The Riverhead attack, he said, simply was not him.
While his silver Ford Mondeo was virtually identical to the vehicle sought by police after the attack - down to the mobility parking card in the front windscreen - he denied being anywhere near the area.
He was at his flat in Onehunga watching a Garfield movie, then he drove to the nearby waterfront to bathe his sore legs, injured in an accident some years ago.
He then drove to Avondale and spent time "relaxing" in several parks.
At night. Alone.
Cellphone polling data placed Mitchell in Mount Eden and Riverhead when the victim was last seen and when she called 111.
That data, his defence bleated, was simply unreliable.
Police, they said had the wrong man.
It was his explanation for a glove found at the scene, laden with his DNA, that raised the most eyebrows in court.
Yes, he had tried on an identical glove at The Warehouse prior to the attack.
But he did not buy it, it wasn't what he was after and he left it there on the shelf.
The "real" offender must have purchased it and left it at the bloody scene.
It was sheer coincidence, he claimed.
Lummis told the jury that if Mitchell was to be believed, he "had to be one of the unluckiest men in Auckland".
"The one pair of gloves that he happened to try on, happened to be the one pair of gloves that ended up bang in the middle of a crime scene," she said.
She branded his defence as "shaky" and "a moveable feast".
"You might think that Mr Mitchell has tried to fabricate his evidence to fit with information gathered along the way," she said.
And then, there was the defence of the 1992 crime.
"It was consensual," he told the court.
"Because we talked about it and she agreed.
"I did not rape her."
When the jury came to deliberate there was only one version of events the believed -
Once again, the rapist had raped.
Sexual violence - do you need help?
If you are the victim of sexual violence or you are concerned about another person, help is available.
The New Zealand Police website has helpful information about reporting sex crimes and other services victims can turn to for support and advice.
Click here to visit the site.