The house fire I mentioned in my last post has a similar parallel to the situation that David now finds himself in by virtue that things that were within his hands are taken from him and not returned at all, or not returned to be comparable to his loss.
The Crown sought to burn his house down, and achieved this. They sought to imprison him and achieved this, on this point however is the first failure that led to the series of injustices against this man - that they withheld evidence material to his guilt or innocence from the Jury? It could easily be said that the first injustice began right back on the morning of the murders when he was treated as a suspect. As far as I know Robin Bain did not have intimate body samples taken from him. I'm happy to be corrected on that. I do know that David had such samples taken, thereby signifying that he was being treated as a suspect for a crime that may have had a sexual element whilst his father, dead with a rifle beside him, soot burns to his forehead, had already been eliminated? Further, we know that David was charged before the forensic test results were recieved, not only that but the police were working with his 'family' to get a confession before those results were recieved. Didn't this indicate that the forensic results, if necessary, would be 'screened' to provide the 'right' result? Move forward 15 years from the morning of the murders to the second trial and find the final death scene unable to be solved by the Crown in the beginning, was still unsolveable to them. Note also, no explanation for example, of Robin's dna found inside the rifle, and no explanation for the passive 'acceptance' by Robin of death, and no explanation for the spatter moving in two directions on his trousers and it's unimpeded flow across the floor and aerially onto the alcove curtains - an area for all intents and purposes which should have been shielded, if the Crown's theory were correct, by David.
So it is fair to say the moj began on morning one, and that the withheld evidence was another step on that journey, as was the burning of the house. What else though? The destroyed evidence, destroyed by the Police despite them being aware that an injunction was being sought to stop its destruction. Also the wrongful distribution of David's inheritance. His inheritance should never have been distributed while he was continuing to fight his case, at the very least it should have been held in a interest bearing Trust. The unfortunate situation given rise to the disbursement of David's inheritance was that it went to family members who had been active in trying to have him confess for a crime he didn't commit, and active in ensuring he didn't attend his family's funeral or that of his grandmother who had written to him throughout his imprisonment.
Were the Crown not responsible for any of the above? Was it some other Crown that is silent when MOJ's are revealed and take no responsibility for what are the actions of itself? The answer is of course, no. The Crown is ominiscient. The Crown is ever present and enduring. Each of us have obligations imposed upon us by The Crown and by society, so why is The Crown reticent when our highest Court has ruled there has been an 'actual' MOJ in the case of David, one which was underlined by the Jury in Christchurch last year who reacted to the withheld evidence and science demonstrating a suicide as being the outcome of the person responsible for the deaths of four of David's family? Why does The Crown remain mute and blind when a trial is followed back to Every Street, and the morning of the murders? A trail littered with deliberate harm and injustice wrought by its self?
No comments:
Post a Comment