http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/4109525/NZ-police-blamed-for-Solomon-trial-botch-up
In the foregoing, a High Court Judge ruled statements by 2 defendants as inadmissible. Basically, the Police denied the defendants due process including reading the suspects their rights and telling them that whatever they might say could be used against them. The Judge noted (in his words) that there were 'deficiencies in process' that 'tainted the entire interview' with the defendants and threw the statements out although not the charges against the 2 defendants.
In the Bain case there were clearly 'deficiencies in process' probably encompassing the whole case from the first minutes/hours of the investigation beginning. The police, probably correctly, assumed that the perpetrator had to be David or Robin, when they later 'decided' it was David it meant that evidence against Robin was either not pursued or ignored. To my mind that in itself was a Miscarriage of Justice along with the 'decision' of which of the two men it was, and which person therefore evidence against was to be looked for.
Let's look at the evidence against Robin that was either ignored or not pursued. Day 3 of the inquiry police were told of a potential motive, which they ignored, later one of the officers gave evidence to the effect they (the Police) weren't interested in incest because they had a murder to solve. That displays the mindset, the belief that David was guilty and whether or not Robin was an abuser of his children was neither her nor there in the greater picture. The uninterrupted blood spatter across the floor from Robin's body and on the curtains, they explained that later as proof that David stood behind the curtain, completely disregarding the nonsense of such a theory and in particular how David, standing behind the curtain, had been able to get an upward trajectory shot that required the rifle barrel to be touching Robin's head. Other things, like the fresh blood on Robin's trousers in the van, the blood and hair found in the van and never tested. The accurate profiling of Robin that should have, like it or not, shown that he was a man with real problems at the time of his death.
Not testing all of the samples of DNA found on Robin, not doing a GSR test, not seeking to reconcile the dna found inside the rifle and silencer, not seeking to reconcile that the first four killings were killer dominant downward trajectory and the last was killer 'passive' upward trajectory. Not being able to reconcile the frankness of the admissions that David innocently made, that his was the rifle, that only he had a key to it, not knowing that his sister was a prostitute and on it goes. The difficulty of David being seen outside the house when the killings had, in the final analysis, already happened. There being no motive, not that one is required in law, for David to have committed the killing, the only motives would come years later from frantic people trying to cover up or disguise Robin's incest.
Whereas in Judge David Cameron's view the 'deficiencies of process' in accordance with the suspects rights being ignored 'tainted the entire interview' it could easily be accepted that the 'deficiencies of process' in the Bain investigation 'tainted' not the entire interview but the entire inquiry. One of the most disturbing features is that it effectively took the Police until June last year to concede they'd arrested and imprisoned the wrong man, the evidence of which had not come from themselves, although it had been available to them from the outset had they not chosen to ignore it, but came instead from witnesses and experts who, given the opportunity, would have concluded that the Bain case was murder/suicide. That seems to display the failings that can happen in the adversary system, where it becomes personal for prosecuting authorities, personal rather that professional and questioning of anything that doesn't bear scrutiny. There was never a rush to 'solve' this case, there was all the time in the world. And all the time in the world for Courts (post the Privy Council decision) or the Solicitor General to acknowledge the obvious that the 'deficiencies of process' defeated Justice and Justice from being seen to be done. A point is reached when a decision can be made, that a tyre is flat and no amount of turning on the hub will make it anything other than still flat. Much like that it can be accepted the realisation that some one's gut instinct was wrong when they searched for the wrong evidence and ignored that which should never have been ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment