Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Controversial NZ criminal cases as 2016 closes..

Here is a list of the status of particular high profile cases, many going back decades which have featured prominently this year.

In no particular order, and only my opinions of course.

Scott Watson: This has been a interesting though another frustrating year in the Watson case. I had the chance to learn more about the case and in particular about the Watson family courtesy of a book published by Ian Wishart titled 'Elementary.' Ian, possibly inadvertently, gave weight to Watson's innocence and wasn't happy when I put the case for that in this blog:

Ian amply pointed out enough facts which showed Watson's innocence in a remarkable way even though as the title of his book suggests that wasn't his purpose. I 'got' Ian's facts but not his interpretation of them.

Aside from that I remain frustrated that the Watson case is back in the Courts for the wrong reasons, the right to be interviewed and to meet Gerald Hope the father of Amelia Hope. His Court cases should be challenges to the bull crap reasons his application for The Royal Prerogative of Mercy was dismissed. He's fought the wrong fights as far as I can see.

Teina Pora; This case has been important for many reasons, yet like other miscarriages of Justice the Government of the day have not been able to settle all the matters fairly and dispassionately. It isn't only that there is now a Judicial Review lodged over the Government failing to pay, without good and equitable cause, inflation for the years during which Teina was falsely imprisoned.

There is also the fact that the probable killer of Susan Burdett was not only a gang member but an active police informant, one who was let go at a time when he should have been being investigated for the murder of Susan Burdett. Malcom Rewa is imprisoned for charges that occured after he allegedly killed Susan Burdett, there is evidence that police that police let Rewa off the suspect list after which he went on to commit rapes for which he is now convicted. That lies open to be observed by the Government for the women involved, they should not be left to fight for compensation and apology - they should instead by reached out to by this Government and their agencies. It is known, and shouldn't need to wait until one, some, or all of the women succeed in some legal action against the system that let them down by error, perhaps deliberate error.

Arthur Thomas: Support of Watson, adds to his support of Bain and adds to his public statement some years ago that he understood what a tough time his imprisonment was for his late first wife, Vivian. For a man to endure what he had to suffer and able to put a true perspective to his lost first marriage takes remarkable character, and Arthur has that in spades.

Mark Lundy: A case which I have deliberately left to last for a particular reason. Namely, it's fairly accepted that retrials are often less than fair. But Lundy got the worse retrial in living history in my opinion. The Crown not only dropped aspects of the original prosecution because they were disproved but changed aspects to diagrammatically opposite claims made in the first trial and held onto bitterly for 15 years. But most of all despite international forensics having entered a phase of accepting that samples submitted with from a known or suspect known source revealed to testers, no longer being acceptable, the Crown used exactly the same unapproved for forensic testing and giving the evidence to the same in America Doctor Miller. When for all intents and purposes the retrial evidence had to be right they went back to the same pathetic tester and not one of thousand of approved labs in the world where origins of samples were not known to first testers, or indeed 2nd or 3rd parallel testers.s

I was fortunate to have the co-operation of a leading and many times published forensic scientist on this matter and his opinion, from his in depth and up to date knowledge of the Lundy case, was that ML is proven innocent by scene evidence.

I understand much is happening in the Lundy case and I am very supportive of it's chances to be corrected and ML freed. If ever a case needed a crystal clear narrative to put it in order this one case cries out for shape.

David Bain: What happened in the Bain case was plain to see this year for anybody with either 2 eyes or 1. The culmination was simple, what Binnie found by using Bayesian testing was DB's innocence on the balance of probabilities. What the Aussie retired Judge, Callinan, found by totally ignoring Bayes testing was a $400,000 pay cheque. The Government then paid off Bain to go away. Justice? Who knows, but at least it was Bain's prerogative to walk away on his own terms - found innocent by a Jury.

Allan Hall: Under the radar as always, just the way the Justice Department like it. A  middle aged white man of modest intelligence and size fitted up for a murder said to have been committed by witnesses who fought the attacker and said he was polynesian, youthful and large.

David Tamihere: Somewhat a late arrival in cases of interest to me. I always appreciated that Tamihere had been framed, of course that doesn't he was not guilty. I felt for his son and the hand that had been cruelly dealt to him when the late Detective John Hughes, who features poorly in a number of case of wrongful imprisonment, planted the watch in the young Tamihere's bedroom. In recent months I was able to watch an old video of DT's wife and late(?) father which was revealing of what his family was put through. DT's wife is a terrific woman, not in the least the way police tried to portray the Tamihere family.

The whole case has taken on a new perspective with my old mate, the formidable legal beagle, Arthur Taylor on the case. It's hard to think of anyone more capable of showing how Tamihere was stitched up by Hughes and his paid informers. Whether that can result, as it should in a retrial at least, is going to be a watching point for 2017.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

3 Strike legislation misses the mark?

Possibly the most controversial Criminal Justice System Laws of the past decade have been the knee jerk reaction to the Weatherston  case in Christchurch where the Law was changed to close a 'loop hole' that was seen by Law makers regarding the defence of Weatherston in using provocation. A defence that the Jury rejected after finding Clayton Weatherston guilty anyway of the murder of one of his ex students Sophie Elliot.

The second would be the 3 Strikes Legislation, a improvised Law taken from the States and applied here in NZ. It was ostensibly going to punish the worst of the worst. It went onto became a hot political subject and would never be far from controversy and historically may be remembered for the most unusual reason that it's patron David Garrett, was forced to resign from Parliament for not having come clean about a checkered past. That past has never deterred him from voicing opinions of others, primarily anyone that doesn't agree with his often one-eyed opinions and apparent lack of insight. Somehow he thought Parliamentary Law did not apply to him by reason that he was a soldier of Law and order. He has written publicly about his desire as a youth to track down and kill gang members a statement which undermines his claim that he stole the identity of a deceased child as a 'joke.' He said he got the idea from reading the book 'The Jackal' about an assassin such are the contradictions of the man, he has never been able to explain what the joke was and certainly nobody else has. In the past  has also written about his admiration for Britain's hangman Pierrepoint in a manner that shows more of his vindictive nature that his apparent care for the Law. He is indeed a Lawyer who was stopped from practising for a time, has had unsuccessful marriages, neighbours speak out against him and his manner. He claims to have fallen on hard times and if there is any affection for anything in his life other than himself, and booze, then in must be 'his law' the 3 Strikes Legislation.

It's clear that the seldom used defence of provocation soon settled in the public mind as a non event although the legislation to ban it remains an awkward outpost in the fairness of a defendant not having available to them the opportunity to prove they were suffering enduring abuse, or physical harm and finally cracked - something that at least has the tone of reality of real life situations attending its cause. Many will, in my opinion, sympathise with those driven to striking out against physical abuse in a marriage, partnership or some other form of partnership that has gone wrong. Of course such situations will seldom result in death or serious harm to the perpetrator but there may be rare exceptions. Weatherston was not married to his victim, nor had they been in a long term relationship. She was simply moving on with her life and after killing her he claimed that she had provoked him, a claim that was rejected by a Jury.

In the following link there is a blog by Andrew Geddis which sets out his views on 3 Strikes and the predictions of Auckland Law Professor Warren Brookbanks who contemplated that the Law would actually throw up ambiguities and not capture the anticipated big fish Garrett promised. The Law Professor looks to be right as the first person to be 'captured' by the new Law was not the violent and dangerous type of offender that the public were told would be incarcerated for serious offences, and on their third strike serve the maximum sentence the law allowed without parole subject to the discretion of the sentencing Judge.

I have no intention to attempt to downplay that the man involved in fact frightened his victim, a female prison officer who he touched on the bottom for 1 to 2 seconds. But I think by any account it would never have made the newspapers, and also hasn't  struck satisfaction to the public who brought the idea that dangerous criminals were about to be thrown in prison and have the key thrown away. Instead it was a Clayton's moment, the bottom fondler received 7 years (with the chance of parole) for an inappropriate touch. After 6 or so years in the making, potentially millions of dollars spent and the public get a fizzer no matter how much die hards say 'good job.' The result is not the resounding triumph predicted. How much they must have hoped for a 'big name' a trophy instead they got a 25 year old who some would call a kid without any record of any type of sexual offence. One who according to the sentencing notes not only admitted the offence, but apologised, Even the prison officer, who was unnamed was reported, as saying that a long sentence was not warranted.

Where these points meet is a interesting place, a defendant who acknowledges guilt for a crime that he may not have been convicted of had he not pleaded guilty, a man who speaks apparently honestly of his remorse, a victim who doesn't want the door closed on the convicted man and a Judge who acknowledges that he had no alternative but to impose the maximum sentence which to his mind may have only attracted a maximum sentence of 12 months. In other words 3 parties reasonably in agreement about an out of kilter sentence that had to be imposed anyway because it is the Law. It's important to reflect that this man was not a 3 time robber or violent offender, he also was not a serial sex offender. As written above he had no convictions of a sexual nature. There could be other more appropriate situations where a 3 Striker might be shown to at least be fitting into the concept on which it became Law. Regardless, this one does not, and the 3S legislation (as Garrett fondly calls the Law when he speaks about it at every chance) has been years in the making only to prove it didn't fly. The prisoner was a teen at the times of the campaigning for this Law, blissfully unaware that one day he would have the less than enviable distinction to be the first 3 striker sentenced. However, what we don't know from the Judgement, as I recall, is if the prisoner even knew he was committing a 3rd strike offence when he touched the prison officer's butt. If he didn't, the labyrinth of understanding required of the Law would not appear to be reside in the very group the law targets.

I don't think that is the only short coming the first 3S sentence has revealed. Frankly not knowing all the details of the Law which does appear fairly complex, arguably far too complex for those intended to absorb the possible consequences of falling foul of the Law - I am left with the impression of another flaw, that a person on 2 strikes for offences of the same type can actually be dealing with that type of offending only to be tripped up for some other type of offence on the 3S calendar not committed before by he or she, even of a type which is arguably minor compared to potential more serious assaults.

If, as it appears, the Law is itself in fact an ass, only time will tell. 6 years or so on some will feel it is, others will not. This will take many more years before that becomes clear and opponents will always have the opportunity to point out its failure here. In the meantime perhaps the message has resonated not to touch the bottoms of other people. The Sensible Sentencing Trust, who pushed for the Law in a deal with the Act party have been silent about the small fish their net harvested. The Act Party leader on the other hand has said that it was a good job (the third strike sentence). David Garrett, the adopter of the idea from America who presented the Law to the NZ Parliament during his time as an MP has understandably defended the Law and marked it in someway as a credit to himself. It appears David Garrett may have possibly found favour among some groups who formerly opposed him for his manner, there were many speaking out with horror as to what bottom touching represents in the modern world. Who knows it may represent a chance to become a spokesperson for women in the future, after all there must be other crazy Laws somewhere out there looking for a new home.


Saturday, October 8, 2016

Arthur Taylor asks why me?

I don't know if that was exactly verbatim. But I have been told Arthur Taylor's most forceful question to the Court in his recent appearance to lift the name of secret witness 'C' was to ask why it was him, and not police, bringing charges against witness C, who I shall refer to as the hipster, so not to confuse him with other letters of the alphabet used to hide the names of other such witnesses relevant to the proceedings as they will unfold in the Hipster's forthcoming trial

What a poignant question that reveals how much the Justice System is upside down when it comes to secret witnesses. They can absolutely appear to lie and never be charged. Never has a secret witness been charged in NZ before over any matter relating to their evidence or the deal they did with police for money, favours or freedom. The Hipster would not have been the exception if not for Taylor so I believe his question should be answered.

How is that Hipster gave evidence in such a convincing way that some Jury's members in the Tamihere double murder trial were reduced to tears? Justice Fogarty had to deal with that results of that question which arose from the Hipster giving convincing evidence that was all lies. He told of Tamihere confessing to raping and killing the couple before dumping them at sea, he gave sordid details that understandably upset some Jurors in their shocking detail. Later one of the bodies would be recovered on land with different injuries from that which the Hipster had explained in detail, also the bodies were found miles away from where police and Hipster said the assaults and murders took place.

The story of the Hipster began almost 20 years earlier, or at least the police practice of planting evidence as recorded as generally becoming first noted in the Thomas case. A case which was also a double murder for which Thomas was eventually pardoned. Later, in the report from a Royal Commission that followed the pardon, it was concluded that evidence had been planted in order to convict Thomas, and that police had brought secret witnesses to the Royal Commission to 'prove' Thomas was in fact guilty. That didn't work because the Commission decided the witnesses, both prison inmates at some time, were lying - just as Taylor says the Hipster lied. Those were definitely not the first 2 prison inmates that had sung for their supper but from simple deduction in time it could be seen that police were willing to enlist the help of lying inmates.

So there would be little surprise that one of the younger detectives working on the Thomas case would some 20 or so years later, when in charge of the Tamihere inquiry, find not 2, but 3 inmates, lining up to say that Tamihere confessed a double murder to them, such was the reward for lying appreciated by prison narks and their enablers like John Hughes. It appears that Hughes helped the Hipster get early parole from a life sentence for 2 murders which he had pleaded guilty to, although he reoffended and continues to serve a life sentence. It was Hughes that found a watch in the family home of David Tamihere. He was also responsible for what was obviously harassment of Tamihere's wife and children. That watch linked Tamihere to the murders, was identified as being the same or similar to that of the missing Urban Hoglin by his family. It was around about then, I suspect, that many NZers paying attention to the trial became convinced of Tamihere's guilt. Around 2 years later when Urban's body was found in bush some 64ks from where the Hipster said he had been sexually assaulted and buried, not only did the body revealed different injuries that the Hipster had so gruesomely detailed but also the missing watch was still attached to the body.

What was revealed then were not only the lies of the Hipster but the total callousness in which the Hughes led inquiry treated David Tamihere's family. It struck me then as cruel and was brought home exactly how much the mistreatment had extended when I recently watched a video where David Tamihere's father, wife and son were interviewed. As far as I know they have never been apologised to, which sits just the same as Arthur Thomas, his family and his late ex wife Vivian who was accused of feeding the baby Rochelle after the totally fictitious claim that Arthur had killed her parents because her mother Jeanette had never opened a gift from Arthur when they were younger. How Arthur would know that gift was never opened has never been clear, what was clear is that the Thomas family were falsely besmirched by the same police who planted evidence against Arthur.

At the hearing for the application to lift the name supression of the Hipster there was a case mentioned as precedent, that of Travis Burns who was paid $30,000 to provide evidence against a long term friend of his, Chris Lewis, for the murder of Tania Furlan. Lewis committed suicide and Burns went onto kill Joanne McCartney in what many commentators have said was an identical crime to that Burns alleged of Lewis who had maintained his innocence before killing himself. If that is correct then that was another double murder in this deepening quagmire, but in the Burn/Lewis case around 2 years apart between the deaths. One man rewarded and going on to be convicted of a second murder of the same type he laid blame against Lewis for. Following Burns conviction police responded with an internal inquiry  from which they concluded that although the crimes were similar they were not both committed by 'their man' Burns. Arthur Taylor may have been busy robbing banks around that time, however I wonder what he would have made of the similarities in the 2 files police said didn't match.

Of course the progression of these double murder links with secret witness were not of concern to Fogarty J hearing the application to lift name suppression of the Hipster. So he would presumably not have been mindful of a fourth such case, that of Scott Watson. Watson was also convicted, in part, by the testimony of 3 secret witnesses. Or the fifth that happened just last year in the case of Mark Lundy who was retried following a decree by the Privy Council that he had suffered a Miscarriage of Justice and had his conviction from the early 2000s quashed. When he was retried last year suddenly a secret witness emerged claiming, as in Watson, Tamihere, Lewis and Thomas - yes a confession. There seem to be so many confessions being given to secret witnesses from prison that authorities could be considering confessionals.

So the depth of Arthur's question as to why it should be him bringing alleged perjurers to the Court and not police is evidenced in not 1 case but at least 5 is revealed. That's because police didn't charge the perjurers whose evidence was rejected by the Thomas Royal Commission,  they didn't charge the Hipster, didn't charge Burns, didn't charge any of the witnesses in Watson - despite one recanting, something which the police chose to ignore to keep their convictions against Watson safe, and didn't charge the witness in Lundy who heard 'his' confession from Lundy in the sentenced prisoners yard before Lundy was even sentenced. Why would police bat an eyelid, afterall they have been allowing their special witnesses to get away with perjury for years, since the 1960s if a starting point begins with the Thomas false convictions.

Justice Fogarty wrestled with this tiger and decided, most would agree rightly, that he would continue the suppression of the Hipster's name and that if the Hipster was convicted, as Burns was for another murder, that he couldn't blame on his own mate Lewis, then the Hipsters name might well be revealed just as Burn's name was. I say rightly because it is a tool for police to use informers whether I or others like it or not. But with that tool has come corruption of the highest order, not least that police have never once charged a lying secret witness. They don't want to charge them for fear others may not provide evidence in the future. In fact, in practice, police provide lying secret witnesses with immunity even though they don't have the power to do so, they do this by omission of their duty to uphold the Law. In ignore their sworn duty in such way is breaking the integrity of the Law in another. The message is out and has been for 40 years, do a deal with the cops, lie if necessary, even be encouraged to lie and nothing but good will happen for you if you have no conscience.

How far Taylor maybe able to lift the lid on this dark world where the good and bad guys play each other's roles is debatable. However, from some inference and information discussed in the Auckland High Court 2 weeks ago, the lid could blow right off the pot under it's own pressure. Maybe then Arthur will have his answer and the public for the first time have the opportunity to look into a very dark world kept secret by police, Courts and special witnesses.

I am of course am interested in what impact this may have on the administration of Justice in NZ, it cries out to be remedied. In the 1990s and early 2000s our Court of Appeal whitewashed the Tamihere case when the Hipster's lies were revealed. They said that his evidence not being truthful (or perhaps accurate) didn't matter. That isn't the function of a COA  that is the function of a Jury. No Judge or Judges are able to tell what impact was, or is, made on Juries by witnesses so persuasive, as in Tamihere and Watson, at least, capable of being able to make a Jury cry with absolute lies. The pattern of the lies began in Tamihere as far as I know where police feed details, or the witnesses pick them up from the news media and provide compelling testimony garnered with despicable gross acts difficult for any Juror, any person, to divorce from their mind. Particularly a Juror, how can a Court measure the depth of false testimony - it is an Injustice that they deem even to be able to do so.

In conclusion I will answer at least part of Arthur's question of 'why is  it me that has to bring the prosecution' - with the answer that it is because it is he (Taylor) who has taught himself respect of the Law and the sanctity of the truth before it. The same person taken away from his family for wagging school over 4 decades ago when Arthur Thomas was first put into the dungeons of Mt Eden based on lies.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Scott Watson innocent in Kiwi language.

The biggest surprise for me watching the TV1 show Doubt on Scott Watson last night were the yachties. Like everyone with  an interest in the case I had heard all the controversy about the Ketch that Guy Wallace dropped Olivia Hope and Ben Smart off  for the night. I had heard about the 'stepping up' rather than 'stepping down' across as it would have been had the group been alighting to Scott Watson's yacht The Blade.

But I had never heard Guy Wallace give his account with all the small detail which gave him credibility, nor had I understood fully the police attitude to him for not 'changing his story.' Nor heard from Scott's father and sister as to their experiences during the inquiry but mostly the explanations about the alleged cleaning of The Blade allegedly after Olivia and Ben's disappearance where it was revealed Scott and his sister had cleaned The Blade before the night the couple went missing. I had read about the claims that Scott had painted his boat after the disappearances but not that it was painted the with a stripe, the same or similar colour to that of the mystery ketch - both important facts that Ian Wishart omitted in his recent book Elementary.

Suddenly Guy Wallace and Roz McNally became real people with a measure of their personalities, honesty and indeed decency being displayed - the very same 2 witnesses used and coerced by police before they spoke out after the trial and said there identifications of SW had been incorrect, that they had either been misled or duped by police causing them to be mistaken. Both honest people whom it would be possibly easier for them to lie now rather than be tormented by something out of their control - but that is the people they are, average Kiwis with a sense of right and telling the truth.

However the TV1 show Doubt introduced by Chris Gallivan had more cats to let out of the bag which to me were an even more shocking than the character attacks against Guy and Roz if only by sheer size of the numbers from the New Zealand yachting fraternity. New Zealand is a group of isolated islands populated for less than a 1000 years, everything about New Zealand relates to the sea it bought our first inhabitants, it was and remains our passage to the world of commerce and livelihoods. New Zealanders are water people possibly second to none. New Zealand is a leading yachting nation, if not the leading yachting nation. New Zealanders excel in all sports related to boats, kayaks, yachts, etc designing and building. Generations of New Zealanders grow up with associations with the water, love to look at boats or any activity on the water as though doing so releases something inside of them, something like an affinity not just to the water and boats but the passage of the water and the sea that leads to a sense 'of community in isolation.'

When on the water New Zealanders change, it almost as though a clock turns back, respect for the water and it's dangers are foremost, secondly, would surely be for others sharing the water - New Zealanders naturally look out for one another when it comes to water. On the water there is no distinction, a person one meets might be a freezing worker or a doctor, an observer would be hard pressed to tell. Worker or doctor act or dress no differently to one another, both look out for others on the water and are ready to lend a hand without hesitation - meet an implied duty, watch out, and always wave. There is no hiding on the water or attempts to hide, no chance that help will not be offered or warnings given, all responsibilities are shared, often forcefully if required - each life on the water is precious. Of course there are exceptions and I am waxing lyrical somewhat but the sense of what I am writing about is real.

Just as the shock at hearing the many New Zealanders seen on the show Doubt were real as they were sharply brought into focus. These were people remaining upset 17 years after going to police in response to a call for help to find a double masted ketch. These were people that would, even with fear, help rescue others on the water, people who looked at passing vessels with keen interest, at every detail - they were salt of the earth boaties and yachties, some that wore clothes with paint marks on them and old sandshoes, others that wore the latest style of sunglasses and cut fine figures of fashion all treating one another the same just as the sea treats them with calmness and wild weather equally. Whilst I truly felt sorry for the Watson family, for the witnesses such McNally and Wallace who told the truth, the neighbour of the Watsons who refused to spy on them for police - I felt overwhelmingly sorry for those witnesses who did what was required of them as people who shared the water, who responded in a crisis and who were rubbished, not believed, told that they were either lying or mistaken.

I suppose that got to me as it caused me to remember as a child my father helping an Uncle build a boat, when for the first time I got the feeling of how New Zealanders committed to one another with boats and the water. Recalled how I later saw conversations on the water between boaties about where the fish were, or changes of weather, often talk about details of  a launch or yacht, discovered that it was normal to wave out even to people you didn't know. The same people you would help, or who would help you in a heartbeat despite that you may never see them again or had not seen them before. Those people that saw a Ketch weren't lying and weren't mistaken. How can I know that? Simple, there were too many of them, they were too knowledgeable and they had no reason to be poking their noses above the stockades, they knew too much informed detail - they had seen something they could never forget, they backed up Guy Wallace's critical account as to where he dropped off the couple. They also, most unfortunately, were rubbish by police after having been asked to come forward. After watching Doubt we know this coincided with Rob Pope taking over the inquiry into the missing couple. Many will feel, like me, that as a helmsman for the truth he sucks.

Moving on to the end of the show I was disappointed Chris Gallivan, who had presented the show so well.  who is also a Law Professor, specialising in criminal law - I think I heard him say, was without any ideas where the Watson case might now go. This after he so eloquently described the pre-conditioning the public and potential jurors got from Rob Pope which most certainly appears likely to have influenced the jury even if subconsciously.  When after the show a commentator on a blog site wrote that the Jury would not have been influenced by the secret witnesses who claimed that Watson confessed to them. No one can know that. Explanations that the Jury would have been warned about accepting the evidence also don't cut the mustard, one of them has recanted that is what is important and that a Jury never heard that or had the opportunity to hear what Roz and Guy now say that they never identified Watson, that they were tricked by police or bullied. Scott Watson was never given a fair trial, nor was he given a fair hearing of his Application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, neither situations stand up under the NZ Bill of Rights, the Watson case is a travesty of Justice - those yachties were never heard from, not one of them (from what I know) because Rob Pope knew they were mistaken,  despite that is actually not his decision to make that is a decision for a Jury to listen and observe from their own experiences.

The programme touched on the critical evidence of the 2 hairs said to have been found on a blanket taken off The Blade by police. There was an admission by the scientist that there was a possibility of contamination, something well known to a lot of New Zealanders and to the Jury, who also heard that the extremely long blond hairs were missed by police searching The Blade and also by the scientist who carefully searched the blanket and who only them found after a subsequent search, just like happened in 2 other cases of Miscarriages of Justice were evidence was found after first searches - Thomas and Bain. The show did not mention that the same day the hairs were 'found' police had brought a hair brush to the science lab which the sisters had used.

Also what the show didn't reveal was that the 2 hairs could have belonged to Olivia's sister as well and been the subject of innocent transfer, or indeed been planted like the Thomas shell case was and like the Bain glass lens was. The show didn't disclose what would have been unknown to the producers and writers - the following:

The document states that “microscopic hair comparison has been demonstrated to be a valid and reliable scientific methodology,” while noting that “microscopic hair comparisons alone cannot lead to personal identification and it is crucial that this limitation be conveyed both in the written report and in testimony.” In support of its conclusion that hair examination is valid and reliable, however, the document discusses only a handful of studies of human hair comparison, from the 1970s and 1980s. The supporting documents fail to note that subsequent studies found substantial flaws in the methodology and results of the key papers. PCAST’s own review of the cited papers finds that these studies do not establish the foundational validity and reliability of hair analysis.
The DOJ’s supporting document also cites a 2002 FBI study that used mitochondrial DNA analysis to re-examine 170 samples from previous cases in which the FBI Laboratory had performed microscopic hair examination. But that study’s key conclusion does not support the conclusion that hair analysis is a “valid and reliable scientific methodology.” The FBI authors actually found that, in 9 of 80 cases (11 percent) the FBI Laboratory had found the hairs to be microscopically indistinguishable, the DNA analysis showed that the hairs actually came from different individuals.

So first of all there is the chance that the 2 hairs might have been transferred accidentally from either sister or a donor they may have come into contact with that busy night. The chances that the hairs arrived on the blanket after the scientist's research are unknown to me statistically at this stage but I shall endeavour to find out. There are questions over the 'validity and reliable scientific methodology' both with the blanket handling and searches, and the 'sampling sources' there is also an '11% chance, possibly higher with other variables confirmed' that the hairs if not accidentally transferred did not belong to either sister. All of this and the 19 or so creditable sightings of a Ketch should have been before a Jury that had never possibly been influenced by Pope's media campaign of  the alleged guilt of Watson before his trial.

.Scott Watson deserves a retrial. This Government has the power to recommend  by way of the Governor General a referral to the Court of Appeal. Let's hear from the voice of science about the probability of those 2 hairs being sufficient for a guilty verdict balanced against the word or McNally and Wallace and all those people out on the water who saw a ketch.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Teina Pora book In Dark Places compelling.

I thought I knew a reasonable amount about the dynamics of the Pora case however some of the detail from Michael Bennett's important to read book 'In Dark Places' were still shocking. Having finished the book I realise that there were always gaps in what the public knew of the fine detail in the Pora case. It was plainly obvious to this reader that Pora's second trial was as unfair as his first, that he was actually framed a second time. I had drawn a wide brush over this because it was clear police set Pora up a second time by having witnesses lie that Pora and the serial rapist Rewa, who undoubtedly to most people was the killer of Susan Burdett, wittingly put the 2 together in a complete and utter fabrication.

There was nothing different in paying witnesses who lied in order to put Pora and Rewa together than for the Officer in Charge of this case, the now retired Rutherford, to have genuinely ever been able to believe Pora did not remember which home he had allegedly taken part in Susan Burdette's murder even when taken to the street and been spoken to right outside the house. Rutherford had to tell Pora which has it was, and reflect that Pora was unable to even describe the late Susan Burdett. As Michael Bennett wrote In Dark Places Rutherford should have pointed out the wrong house, and when, as he surely would have, Pora agreed then the lie would have been in plain sight. But Rutherford didn't want that outcome, the pressure was on him for an arrest. The youth Pora, who had already been cleared on being involved, would do and he was on a string, a promise, a corrupt lie, and illegal inducement that Rutherford knew would never be honoured - immunity from prosecution and a reward that would help Pora establish something for his baby daughter.

I pause here to write that I have been disdainful of publicity surrounding Pora, his daughter and now grandchild. Well perhaps not disdainful but sceptical. Bennett's book put that scepticism aside in a way that now makes me feel uncomfortable about rushing to a judgement. The boy who lost his mother at the age of 4 is in fact a very loving parent something that is hard not to admire. There is possibly a reason for this, his endeavours to make something for his own family having suffered the loss of his own mother and a dad that walked out. His life was bleak, he watched out, as much as a child could do for his baby sister but by then he was in a situation of being passed around the family. One Aunt and her husband were very cruel and violent toward Pora and his sister. It would be the same Aunt who would lie for money at his first trial and her daughter who would do the same at his retrial.

Imagine that. Police framing him with the help of his own family, paid to do the job. One would think if he had ever in fact been the violent killer the police alleged then every provocation was made for him to explode in anger - but he never did, such is the poise and mana of the man.

So back to those video interviews which have always interested me for what went on behind the scenes, before the cameras rolled and after. In Dark Places succinctly points out one particular movement in the 'confession' between the camera being switched off then on again. Entirely out of sequence as to what have been said shortly before the video had been turned off, Pora suddenly admits on screen that he held down Susan Burdett whilst she was being raped. The ex police officer Tim McKinnel, who as the book unfolds, becomes clear as being the central figure fighting for Pora, notes later after watching the video he tracked down under the Official Information Act, that Rutherford does not look Pora in the eye. While the young man is smiling and assuming he has said, what was required of him to get both immunity from prosecution and a reward Rutherford knows he has just taken part in successfully duping Pora into a confession for a crime he didn't commit and didn't have the guts to look him in the eye. He has watched Pora dig his own grave for Rutherford himself to push the young teenager into without a blink of the eye.

Also revealed in the book is how the investigation into Rewa was set aside in order that Pora was convicted. Police did not want it known that there was a hunt on for the serial rapist Rewa whose modus operandi fitted the Burdett rape and murder to a t. On the subject of Rewa, previously known a Mike Lewis, the book describes him in a way that I never knew him. According to Bennett Rewa/Lewis, at some point Sergeant of Arms in the motor cycle club Highway 61 was staunch to the bone, the man to sort out any difficulties and not to be crossed. The Mike Lewis I knew was timid and easy to laughter in the hardest company, but no doubt the ex army biker with the name nick name 'hammer' could be the man in surroundings he was sure of. Someone has told me recently that they read that Rewa was an informer, which was unsurprising to me, also that some of the police were 'turning a blind eye' to the rapes for that reason. I think, therefore, that some of his many rape victims, may take a class action against police. Not in the same, but in a similar, way that Susan Couch took a sole action against the Justice Department for not safely controlling the parolee William Bell who killed three friends of  Susan Couch and almost killed her. That action resulted in an unprecedented, if nominal, settlement with the Justice Department, one that may have been more substantial had there been greater awareness at the time of the depth of the NZ Bill of Rights Act acknowledging that the BORA trumps self-protecting laws enacted to divert Government liability.

Returning to In Dark Places, the book lays out the already quite well known fact of the of the second retired police officer 'Chook' Henwood, by all accounts a remarkable criminal profiler, who while working for police as a civilian after his retirement, spoke out publicly as to his belief that Pora was innocent. In the context of the depth of corruption shown by the police hierarchy in not acknowledging miscarriage of Justice and fighting this remains exceptional, not only because of Henwood showing the honest man he is, but because Police top brass reprimanded him for doing so. The same top brass who would some years later apologise to Pora for stealing 20 years of his life from him because he was a willing victim working under inducement. But they never apologised to Henwood or acknowledged the police association president had also spoken out in an unprecedented
way. Where police top brass failure 30 years later to apologise to Arthur Thomas for his false imprisonment so inwardly protective of themselves felt it necessary to rebuke a retired officer who was driven by all the powerful things which make excellent policing - honesty and fairness being foremost on that list.

What Bennett would most captures in his book was for this reader the very special part of the Pora story. And it is a story more significant, or a least as significant, as the death of Susan Burdett. It is a story of salvation of some sort, therapeutic, if but for a moment you may feel the shoes fit you -  cast down orphan, stripped of family and freedom thrown in the dungeons for a crime he obviously never did from which he grows immeasurably strong and at peace. Of all the things that most tell this story to me is that part, overcoming adversity with the absence of hatred.  Consider the recent television interview with Pora and the man afraid to meet him, Rutherford the ex cop in charge of this case. When Pora was asked what he would say to Rutherford should they ever meet and talk as they had for all those days when Rutherford had convinced Pora to trust him, plying him with petty gifts of food and cigarettes to the child like teenager and promises of 1000s of dollars to confess to a murder he had never committed. Pora replied that he would forgive him.

How much that statement constructs who had the mightiest power in the Pora case, the police, the state, successive governments and prime ministers who all turned a blind eye to his false imprisonment, or the man himself Pora, never killed, never bowed by his anonymous enemy called justice, that of a 1000 faces changing in the mist. It was Pora who won with his dignity, his power to forgive and for the love of his family. I wonder what Rutherford thinks of that.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Callinan's report of Bain compensation undefendable.

Minister of Justice Amy Adams told the public that it was a preferred way, in the public interest to go a bob each way on Callinan's opinion that David Bain was not innocent by some magic formula that didn't hold water. That bob each way bet was to deny compensation but pay  close enough to a million dollars anyway by reason that the compensation claim was tardy. Or in other words it had been delayed for years by the Government itself dithering perhaps on how to avoid acting fairly.

By doing this the Government was using an Executive Power. There is no Law that requires a government to make or deny payments to those applying for compensation. What is clear however is the use of executive power, according to NZ Law, and exposed by David Bain having already used Judicial Review (JR) against the application of Executive Power (EP), is a recognition that petitions  for any request under executive Powers are not constrained in scope - but their treatment must adhere to the NZ Bill of Rights (BORA). Since 30 years ago when then Prime Minister Rob Muldoon pardoned Arthur Thomas and awarded him compensation of around a million dollars one could say it has been a long time between drinks from an era when there was no BORA. A long time since EP was used in a forthright way that was understood to have been applied when the legal system was locked into a Miscarriage of Justice. It could be argued that Muldoon was before his time or that he was misusing a Power - although few New Zealanders did not agree with his actions at the time, or his good sense to order a Royal Commission whose determination supported Muldoon's instinctive measure.

Since then unfortunately use of EP has become clouded in political interest and no doubt was before. Another 2 generations of politicians have failed to separate themselves from politics when considering the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in particular. Scott Watson's application took 4 years to be decided and has waited a further 4 years for his decision to seek a review of the decision. Of course such delays favour a Government, time cures all ills, or at least urgency to correct things which may be wrong in the Judicial process - the very reason why EP and JR exist.

So to recap, Muldoon acted where he could plainly see a Miscarriage of Justice. This act was similar to what any Government since could have done in the Peter Ellis case, or could do now. Amy Adams acted where it was obvious that the Government's report commissioned from Callinan was hardly worth the paper it was written on  - putting it another way of course, saying that she had been told that it would be reviewed. Did she do this out of generosity to the principle and heart of what the use of the RP was designed to do? Or was she merely being pragmatic? For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter because others, including politicians, have seen the broadening of scope of Executive Powers on the one hand, and the more sobering reminder on the other, that their decisions must be advanced carefully in respect of the BORA and are not tempered in scope.

With the inevitable advance in the shelter of the BORA Judicial Review is an opportunity, as the Bain case showed, to have a fair application of the concept of Mercy brought before any Government knowing that the Courts are not excluded from the process of that application, or from what the Government considers and how, any matter in fact that might constitute relief to a NZ resident. These are some of the true concepts of what mercy is, a recognition that a system may stall or fail at some point where fairness appears to be gone. It wasn't fair for David Bain to have his application delayed for years because of the conduct of a previous Cabinet, many of whom remain in the current cabinet. It is still not fair that his application was denied the use of forensic science at the cutting edge, however that remains alive for another day and is in fact in print in international, peer reviewed papers being used in Courts, forensic science labs and Universities throughout the world. Time will submerge the resistance to science that was indeed the Callinan report. He may yet be seen as a fool who wore no clothes in the face of reality. He did however, even in his fumblings, preserve some truths that had previously been hidden. He acknowledged that suicide was possible (though it could hardly be denied), he acknowledged that Robin Bain died with blood on his palms - something that can't have got there from his own wounds, he vicariously acknowledged what Martin Van Beynan lied about for over 20 years -  saying that there were no scratches found on David's chest after Van Beynan had claimed there were and that they had arrived there when David had allegedly fought with his younger brother Stephen. History will preserve that the man who died with blood on his palms got that blood there in the commission of murdering his family. A preservation supported by science that Callinan, wrongly, foolishly, perhaps even deliberately excluded to deny David Bain Justice - acts and omissions which were all part of this Government's unprecedented decision to pay an unsuccessful suitor for fairness cash to go away. They were over defending a crock of crap.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

A chance to make a point in the Bain case and other injustices.


Surprised by the link above sent to me today by Roger Brooking who has started a Give a Little campaign to raise a million dollars for David Bain. But the Bain case has been full of surprises in all the years I have followed it since 2008. I needed to think about aspects of the idea of a campaign to do what any Government should do when a man is released after 13 years of false imprisonment, and after a retrial found not guilty. It shouldn't by any means, convolute itself to avoid that the State had let a single man down for a decade but wished to accept no responsibility.

This game of not guilty but not innocent on the balance of probabilities was thought up by mad men and is exercised by fools to this day. It should be rejected. Rejected on behalf of men such as Arthur Thomas, his late wife Vivian, Allan Hall and his family, along with others such as Peter Ellis who still wait to be treated justly by our Criminal Justice system. In Bain it was rejected by science but the Government chose to ignore that. People are convicted or acquitted on science and have been for at least a century, leading to the conclusion abroad that David Bain while innocent was denied the chance to prove his innocence with science. As earlier posts show his father was over 30 times more likely to have suicided than been murdered, the probability of his suicide was calculated at 97.3% but the Government agreed to let the appointed adjudicator of compensation, retired Judge Callinan to ignore that along with a heap of other stuff. He even got to tell porkies without rebuff.

So this idea of Roger Brooking is a chance to remember that New Zealanders convicted of crimes of which they may be innocent can no longer go to the esteemed, Centuries old Privy Council for an international perspective in the home of our NZ law. It's a chance to remember that Justice in New Zealand is not a fair fight because an accused person is denied equal footing to the Crown if they plead not guilty. Bain's team was small, as was that of Peter Ellis's, Allan Hall seems to virtually have had only his mother, and a brother from memory - even pooled together they were afforded little chance to win.

You may think David is guilty and that is your opinion of which you are completely entitled. But you may not feel the same about one of the others listed, or those imprisoned still in controversial cases such as Watson and Lundy. It doesn't matter, but if you have a view on any of these cases, or others - then see the opportunity to send a message.

A message to people like Pat Booth, Chris Birt right back 40 years and many others since that you heard them, recognised their fight for what they had come to believed in. If you have ever anguished over why men abandoned careers in kindergartens because of the Ellis case then think about this opportunity. Think also of those to come, even someone you might know who could get swallowed by the Justice system for a crime they didn't commit. Think of yourself, how even if desolate and laid waste someone might remember you and take a stand for your rights after they had been trampled on with methodical disregard. Think of that, also of when you helped another or they helped you.

It's worth a dollar or 2, just to remember and remind yourself that Justice should stand for us all.