Sunday, July 31, 2011

Kent Parker, is your goose cooked?

Some tips Kenty.

1/ If your goose is cooked it'll be as scrawny and naked as you and Vic Purkiss comparing doodles in the mirror.

2/ If your goose is cooked you'll be feeling slightly sick after trooping off to the High Court and making a dick or yourself. Any reasonable person would know that, in your case, you wouldn't have to go to the High Court to prove that were a dick, you just needed to look in the mirror at you Vic and notice the missing willies.

3/ If your goose is cooked Kent you'll notice your rotten crew have slunk off, that you're not popular anymore and the contributions of 'another $5 sent in' as described by Rita Cochrane wont be pouring through your door faster that your tears are rolling out.

4/ Failing all this helpful advice assisting you, stick a fork in your bottom and record how many weeks it takes before you go 'ooch.'

Hope this helps Kent, jolly good and spot on, bottoms up and forks at 2 cm.


PS, pitch forks are acceptable, no need to use those fancy stainless steel ones.

Classic question in the Amanda Knox case.....

This weekend has been the opportunity for the Prosecution to question 2 Court appointed forensic experts, Carla Vechchiotti and Stefano Conti, whose evidence has been that the Prosecution dna evidence used to convict Amanda Knox was unreliable. This pertained to dna samples taken from a knife and a bra clip and said to be proven to be that of Amanda Knox. Evidence which some may recall wasn't 'found' until weeks after intial searches, like that used against AA Thomas, David Bain, Scott Watson and others.

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi asked the loaded, and irrelevant question anyway, whether the experts could be sure there was no dna on the blade just after Kercher's death.
Of course from what I've read the question was not qualified as to being specific about whether or not Knox's dna might have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death - which if correct, means that the Prosecutor was asking if anybody's dna might have been on the blade. How that could possibly connect to the guilt or innocence of Knoz is beyond me, unless it did exist and was shown not to be that of Knox because the dna Vechiotti and Conti examined was unable to be matched to Amanda Knox. But the Prosecutor uses the common trick of talking about something that doesn't exist, ie the possibility of something, to give an illusion of weight to non-existant evidence against Knox - nothing can only ever be nothing, not possibly something else at an earlier time. So his question ventures to the ground of asking the Court (and on other occasions Jurys)to accept that while something doesn't exist as evidence now, it may have possibly been evidence earlier and therefore should not be discounted.

The way of MOJs, talking about an undetermined event or possibility in order for it to be considered evidence. Vecchiotti in his answer confirmed that they (the scientists) could not exclude the possibility, that dna 'might' have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death, but said that on the basis of their tests 'done today' there was no traces of dna,' adding that the original procedures were unreliable. So we have it no dna, and original procedures unreliable. How Comodi expects to ever change those facts contains the same motivation we see in NZ cases, such as that against Scot Watson. Rather than except the obvious and their duty to the Law, the Prosecution fudge for another answer. In the Watson case that nobody saw a ketch, apart from 2 Crown witnesses. In the Knox case there was no dna, but perhaps it was there at another point in time.

The court also heard read a letter from a scientific police director Piero Angeloni, defending the work of the original forensic team, another classic measure defending the indefensible rather that letting the victim go. If the testing methodology was flawed no defence of the original forensic team will ever turn non-existent dna into dna, or even into more importantly Amanda Knox's dna.

Kent Parker - gone a bit quiet.

Kent seems to have gone a bit quiet. Maybe he's got a secret that he doesn't want to let his followers know in case they all crap themselves.

It's such a shame. I use to enjoy all the lectures he gave people about the law, defamation in particular. A right expert is our Kent, or maybe not? I remember when he gave me a big lecture, banned me from his hate-site and kept the lecture going even though I couldn't reply. Oh dear, he had the upper hand - then.

I seem to recall blogging a few months ago that his defence would be struck out. If that happened he'd be deep in it, as would all the other blabber mouths that thought they could defame at will. Well I did suggest that he get a lawyer because Judges didn't like dealing with know it all nutters from hate-sites. Surely that couldn't have happened, not to dear old Kenty. Maybe fiddler Ralph, or one of the other arse-wipes, might let us know.

Hmmh, I wonder what it could be then? If were the that his defence is struck out because it has no merit in law, the next thing he'll either have a sex-change or announce that he now has a lawyer. Hold on, didn't have a lawyer earlier. Yes, he did. Maybe Kent didn't like being told the law being an expert himself and all.

Oh well, I'm probably just mistaken.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Safety first policy ignored by 2 brave constables.

Two constables were honoured recently for their bravery. James Muir a dog handler was part of a team tracking 2 teenagers who had fled a farmhouse after a burglary with firearms and ammunition. The boys, only 14, and less likely to be as predictable as more seasoned offenders fired on police during a car pursuit and continued to threaten another officer with a rifle after their car stopped. That officer stopped in his tracks and the gun was turned on James Muir and the boy pulled the trigger but the chamber was empty. James Muir set his dog Neo on the offenders who were arrested. James Muir didn't want to speak about the ordeal yesterday at the awards but acting Commissioner Viv Rickard said Mr Muirs actions 'undoubtedly saved the life of a colleague and prevented potential harm to others.'

Nicolas Corley came across a vehicle crash-site near One Tree Hill Auckland. A car was ablaze, the cars passenger had alighted but the driver remained inside and Nicolas beckoned for him to get out before realising the man was unconscious. A ball of fire hit Nicolas Corley and he suffered burns to his face and arms but remained to his task reaching into the car and pulled the driver to safety with the help of the passenger. Of course most people know the danger of fire and how lifted to extreme that danger is when there are potential explosive fuels or gases involved. Whether Nicolas Corley thought of it at the time or not he was certainly aware that the car could have exploded again perhaps killing him or setting him on fire. After accepting his award Nicolas Corley was quoted as saying in respect of the incident and the driver 'But just his thank you was fine with me.'

How far we get away from the day to day dangers police take in their strides, let down by a few of their colleagues who hog the headlines for the wrong reasons. But there is more to this than these 2 men's bravery because their actions expose the fact that procedures and rules are not always the best solution. By the book James Muir was probably required to withdraw to safety from potentially more rounds being fired and killing him, but his natural instinct was to see the job completed and render the offender harmless and therefore the danger to himself and others. He certainly wasn't thinking of his own safety and nor was Nicolas Corey who might have had an ever higher appreciation of the danger to his life because he was already burnt in one explosion, but he went on when perhaps rules, commonsense, fear might have stopped him.

The police force is full of people like James Muir and Nicolas Corley, unselfish, unassuming types that can be relied on in any extreme. Yesterday they were honoured by their country and commended by acting Commissioner Rickard for acting in a way that many nzers think the police will act with bravery and scant regard for their personal safety. So I wonder how it is as a country that we applaud these men, as do their leaders, yet by all standards they broke the rules of safety first. These 2 would have gone into that Manurewa dairy and saved the owner lying wounded on the ground, and who was later to die for not having medical treatment soon enough while police did shut down and mapping of the store because they didn't know where the robbers were. A safety first situation that defies logic because robbers don't hang around after they've got the loot - they gone, more quickly if they've injured or shot somebody, and in this case the deceased man's tormented family told the police the robbers were gone but the police wouldn't enter or let anyone else enter.

Let's move to to 2010 and the Pike River disaster, a high ranking officer with no mining experience in charge probably by default. But we'll put James Muir and Nicolas Corley there with the old mining inspector George Bell in charge and appreciating from a lifetime of experience that the safest time to enter the mine was now (right after the explosion,) but a fair man he is, asking for volunteers - two of the first I venture would have been Muir and Corley and on the 6 o'clock news that night the families and the country wouldn't have heard a senior officer angrily declaring that nobody was going in to the mine because it wasn't safe, while word might have been out that Bell and a crew were gone in many many days before the next explosion would happen.

Juliet Leigh and Lindsay Gurnow - driven from their home.

The two women having endured an arson attack earlier this year have again been targeted with homophobic graffiti and it's obviously frightening intention in the Northland settlement of Mangawhai. After January's arson attack they incurred around $100,000 worth of damage to their shed, office and equipment used in their floral business.

At that time locals rallied around and 7 months later just when they were coming to terms with the earlier attack, the two women in their 60s, who obviously wouldn't harm a fly, and who no doubt are strongly community minded as judged by the community support they received, had 'God hates dikes + qeers' sprayed across their back fence in black paint.

It wasn't reported but I would expect the second intrusion is what they had dreaded for months after the first attack and were only slowly feeling confident living their own lives in their own home when the second attack happened. No doubt on of the worst things for the couple is that they know they are dealing with a nutter or nutters whom may not know when to stop. It's a short call from burning a shed to throwing a Molotov through a bedroom window. As well as the issue of looking at strangers and neighbours and wondering if they were involved earlier or know something about it, and being almost constantly on the look out for danger.

Well I hope they don't shift, I hope their community rallies around them again to strengthen in the face of this cowardly hate. It's difficult to think of a more harmless job than arranging flowers in order to bring beauty and appreciation into other people's life's. As to the perpetrator(s) it's difficult to imagine someone more cowardly and afraid of their own insignificance and personal value that needs to strike back at a bizarre world they've conjured from ignorance and fear.

Be strong Juliet and Leigh, don't be fearful because your fear is what this person or persons need in order to make their own lives seem less pathetic and to give them a sense of power. Harry Cohan described the 'whipping boys' those that others look for to persecute in order to hide their own insecurities and doubts, terribly weak people who hate themselves so much they must off-load that hate elsewhere in order to bolster themselves however temporarily. But if you should leave(and who could blame you if you do) I'm sure you will remain strong and I wish you well.

I'll finish here with some words from Juliet..
'This person, whoever it is, is a coward, and bigot and absolutely brazen.
'We have absolutely no idea who might have done this to us.
'In this day and age. It's hard to believe this sort of thing still happens. Where's the humanity? Who can show this much hatred?'

Monday, July 25, 2011

Hold on mate, you're shagging a sheep.

Well, maybe not quite but reading the comments by Felicity Goodyear-Smith, GP and forensic physician in the preceding blog on George Gwaze it seems that those like me that swallow stories by new Police Commissioners that things have changed on the subject of past false-imprisonments are not realising that the Commissioners intent is flawed by a systematic abuse of the truth.

Here's what Goodyear-Smith was quoted as saying, 'Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah."

The question remains how can it be that our Justice system still tolerates a situation so partisan that a Doctor is able to confirm in the case of contradictory scientific findings or opinion that "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah." What place can this difficulty have in a modern system of law and what drives it?

Well, only one thing can drive it and that is the pursuit of gaining convictions, and where does that pursuit begin but with investigators already convinced of a particular accused's guilt. So how can a modern police force undergoing changes be expected to function in any other way from Superintendents down if the focus is not on finding the truth but rather on finding the culprit and the evidence that fits that? Simply it can't. In each of the major cases where there has recently been exposed miscarriage of justices, single-minded policing and so forth there has been no top-level auditing, or on site-scene auditing of evidence that might have a different explanation or indicate a different suspect. The reason for this can only be that the from the top down there is no will to hold ambivalence toward evidence but rather a frenzied grasp of what might fit and an avoidance of that which doesn't. That's bad policing and bad policy that surely starts at the top.

This partisanship, grasp of feeling, should have no place in evidence gathering, everything should be dispassionate and no allowance given to 'feelings' or 'hunches' or indications that a certain suspect might be a bad bastard and therefore the one that 'did it.' So evidence is missed, good leads not investigated and as the case comes together so does the expectation that the forensic science will prove the case as well. It all shows a drive toward conviction at any cost, and that a suspect was chosen and the incriminating evidence found while to the public information was leaked in a type of preliminary trial. A man in a bar already knew that a particular accused was guilty because of the sometimes oblique and other times pointed police information fed to the media. And there is plenty of evidence that 'off the record' comments are fed to selected media as a myth is turned into an arrangement of facts and good hard evidence. Why?

Partly because of perceived public pressure to solve major investigations, when in fact there is never sufficient reason, nor should there be any inclination to hasten when time is not an issue - if only for the reason that we see the nightmare proportion of time taken to remedy mojs is diabolical.

I just here mention George Gwaze's case and the report of it in the preceding blog to note that even in our 'modern' times a decision is made on who is guilty then evidence found to support it whilst at all times holding comfort in the fact, as Dr Goodyear-Smith records there is a 'reluctance' by professionals to confront the integrity of forensic evidence least one becomes a pariah. And I also return to the letter written to the Coroner in the Sounds Murder (if even murder was ever proven) that there were no sighting of a ketch apart from 'only' 2 crown witnesses and also noting that it would be inadvisable that the real and 'fragile' heart of the crown case not be examined again by calling to the Coroner's court the 2 prison inmate 'secret' witnesses.

Just the language of this betrays the intent. The mention of witchcraft surrounding rituals in Charlene's death, a black man in a white city. 2 nzers sure they saw a ketch relegated to Coventry because the Crown didn't want a ketch, and the protective nature of needing to looking after 2 witnesses whose evidence might be quoted in the Coroner's Court but not cross-examined. It's a bloody sham. Audit the auditors if they actually do exist. Free police from the burden or misapprehension that the are responsible for making or ignoring evidence by insisting that they gather all relevant evidence and put aside personal feelings about potential perpetrators or about victims - whilst at all times conducting quality and recorded audits.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

George Gwaze.

The following was sent by a correspondent.
The conflicting way in which the Prosecution has sought to use evidence is alarming but for a true measure of this tragedy - note the comments of George's wife and daughter.....

Have a read of this its the upcoming Gwaze murder retrial
The ones the JRBG constantly harp on about as a parallel to the Bain trial
supporting in their twisted belief a retrial of David.
Cops are pushing a barrow uphill with this one too.

Crown looks to appeal after Gwaze verdict
by Donna Chisholm - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 25 May 2008

PROSECUTORS IN the George Gwaze murder trial are trying to challenge
his acquittal in a rare legal move.

Christchurch prosecutor Chris Lange says he has asked the
solicitor-general to consider an appeal after the Crown failed to have
the trial aborted in its final days.

The challenge stems from a dramatic development late in the trial when
lawyers became aware of the "bombshell" comments of South African
paediatric surgeon Heinz Rode that there were similarities between
10-year-old Charlene Makaza's symptoms and those of children who died
of Aids there.

Police were told of Rode's views after a Crown witness met Rode at a
conference in Hong Kong and discussed the case. Rode told Christchurch
paediatrician Spencer Beasley that some HIV children in South Africa
died rapidly and had anal tears and diarrhoea the symptoms New Zealand
experts said were unrelated to HIV when they argued Charlene was
sexually attacked and suffocated.

The development caused a flurry of behind-the-scenes debate the week
before the end of the trial which cleared Gwaze of murder and sex
charges. Jurors deliberated less than five hours.

Lange objected to the fact Rode's evidence was to be admitted as
"hearsay" through a police statement but the judge refused to abort
the trial or delay it several weeks so Rode could be called as a
witness or prepare in-depth evidence. He said the jury had to hear the
crux of Rode's comments or Gwaze couldn't receive a fair trial.

Gwaze's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, said the Crown's move was very unusual
but "nothing would surprise me".

Gwaze's family is considering laying a complaint with police alleging
racial discrimination during the investigation. It is also trying to
regain custody of Charlene's 13-year-old sister, Charmaine, who is
forbidden to live with her adopted parents Gwaze and his wife Sifiso
after Child Youth and Family removed her from their care during the

Gwaze's daughter Maggie told the Sunday Star-Times the investigation
was botched. "We have never been people who play the race card but
there comes a point when you ask what the hell is going on. We believe
if we had been a different skin colour we would have been treated

"We still have people saying `he got away with it, this is a
technicality because police didn't do a good job'. People still think
Charlene was raped and murdered."

In a special Focus section investigation today, the Sunday Star-Times
examines the evidence that put the Zimbabwean vet in the dock and
speaks to the defence advisers who helped to win his acquittal.

They believe that once Christchurch doctors began to suspect a sexual
assault, they lost sight of other possible explanations.

Maggie, 27, said the family which had been upper middleclass at home
in Zimbabwe was actually worse off in New Zealand, living in a small
roughcast bungalow in the working-class Christchurch suburb of Papanui
after leaving their mansion-like home in Harare three years ago. "It
is torture," she said. "We feel so alone."

She said one policeman even asked her if it was a culture shock to
come to New Zealand to see cars and buildings.

Sifiso, who works nights as a rest-home caregiver, says she hasn't
been allowed to mourn the child she regarded as her baby daughter.

"It is bad enough to lose a child, but this ... "

Maggie said Sifiso was frightened of looking after old people now "in
case they die and she gets the blame".

Asked why the family did not get Charlene treated for HIV, Maggie said
children regularly died in Zimbabwe despite being aggressively

On a website taken down in March on the orders of the
solicitor-general, Maggie said "children die of the disease every day
in Zim and I've never heard of a big deal being made of it like they
did Charlene's death. Knowing Charlene's health status (her death)
wasn't difficult to accept".

What is the problem with the police in the South Island and especially
in Christchurch.
Another trial where the media has been misled in an attempt to
prejudice the outcome and colour public opinion before the trial.
Facts don't seem to matter, good investigation seems to be lacking and
trial by trickery and media sem to be the norm.
Bain, Ellis, Watson and now Makaza. Who knows whoever else that hasn't
come to light.
Its past time that the Law Society or the Attorney General or whoever
took a good hard look at them. - comment by correspondent

Charlene Makaza went into hospital as a victim of HIV. By the time she
died 18 hours later, doctors had decided she was a victim of murder.

Their testimony in the High Court at Christchurch over the past month
that the 10-year-old Zimbabwean girl had suffered atrocious genital
injuries and been suffocated in a sexual assault could have seen an
innocent man jailed for life.

Wednesday's acquittal of Charlene's uncle, vet George Gwaze, 56, on
murder and sex charges would have surprised many. But that is because
the public has been misinformed about Charlene's case since she died
on January 7 last year.

This is what police told the media in the days following the death:

* Charlene did not die by accident or natural causes.

* There was no evidence she was sick or ill.

* Charlene had been suffocated.

* Charlene was found in her bed having difficulty breathing.

* Her family washed her bedding and clothing after she was the victim
of a "horrific" sexual assault.

* Police had been briefed on African beliefs about sex, including the
myth that sex with a virgin could cure Aids.

By the time the Crown revealed at a depositions hearing in July that
George Gwaze's semen had been found on Charlene's underwear, the court
of public opinion had found a new hate figure.

But this is what really happened and this, in the first days after her
death, is what we were NOT told.

Charlene was indeed found in her bed at 6am having difficulty
breathing. But she was deeply unconscious and awash in her own
diarrhoea. It was like porridge, chalky, white and watery. There was
so much of it that it had plastered to her legs, the white skirt and
pink undies she had worn to bed and drenched her bedding. When her
aunt, Gwaze's wife Sifiso, changed her into new clothes before rushing
her to an emergency GP clinic, the faeces continued to pour out and
soaked those clothes as well. In the end Sifiso wrapped her in a

By the time Charlene got to a 24-hour accident and medical clinic, she
had a temperature topping 40C, a racing pulse over 180, and no
recordable blood pressure.

She had lost so much fluid from her blood because of the diarrhoea
that she was in what was known as hypovolemic shock. There wasn't
enough blood to pump to her brain, causing the oxygen deprivation that
was later attributed to suffocation.

Charlene was regularly unwell. She had 20 days off school the year before.

The evening before her collapse an elder at her church noticed she was
hot to the touch and was having difficulty with her breathing.

Charlene had contracted HIV at birth from her mother Senzeni who died
of HIV-related tuberculosis when Charlene was nearly two. Senzeni's
husband Edgar also died of Aids in 2000.

Charlene's "horrific" anal injuries amounted to a series of tiny
lateral tears and such fissures have been reported in HIV-Aids

Charlene's older sister Charmaine, 12, had chicken pox a virus that
could prove devastating to a child whose immunity was as compromised
as Charlene's.

The semen on Charlene's underwear always looked bad for George Gwaze.
When the defence raised the suggestion of innocent transfer through
the wash, it was easy to see how the first reaction could have been
"Yeah, right".

But defence counsel Jonathan Eaton's DNA adviser, Arie Geursen the
scientist whose work helped to free wrongly convicted David Dougherty
in 1996 was in no doubt, given the other facts of the case, that
innocent transfer was the most likely explanation.

The morning Charlene was found near death in her bed, Sifiso had
returned home from hospital after being told Charlene was likely to be
transferred to Auckland's Starship Children's Hospital. Sifiso rinsed
all Charlene's soiled sheets and clothes and threw them in the washing
machine. It was from here that police recovered the underwear on which
Gwaze's semen was found.

But that morning there was none of George or Sifiso's underwear, which
could have been the source of such contamination, in the same wash. So
how could semen be transferred? Sifiso's habit was to wash underwear
her own and Charlene's, in a hand basin together, or throw them in the
machine if there was a full wash.

For Geursen, the contamination theory came down to scientific facts,
and the lack of any other evidence of a sexual assault. Gwaze's DNA
was not found anywhere else on Charlene, nor Charlene's on him.

The average male produces around 130,000,000 sperm heads in each
ejaculation. A peer-reviewed international study has found that cotton
underwear retains 43% of the DNA after it's been through each wash.
"So you have to do quite a few washes to reduce DNA below the
detectability of the tests," he says. That means the contamination
could well have occurred in an earlier handwash.

The total DNA sample from Charlene's underpants was the size of about
one hundred thousandths of a single grain of sugar. Had Gwaze been
convicted, says Geursen, it would have been "a terrible travesty of
justice. It would have been science and medicine gone astray".

So how did things go so badly wrong for George Gwaze?

GP and forensic physician Felicity Goodyear-Smith, the medical adviser
for the defence, believes that once sexual abuse had been raised,
other possible explanations were never considered.

And because Charlene's care was handed over between shifts, those on
duty later lost sight of her first symptoms. "They were
well-intentioned but totally wrong. The fact that she was admitted
with sepsis and hypovolemic shock was lost in the retelling.

"Once you get a particular line of thought, like this is sexual abuse,
it colours thinking," she said. "And these were very senior people
saying it was abuse. If it IS sexual abuse that doesn't matter, but
suddenly the possibility that it might not be isn't on the table any
more so everything is focused on looking for evidence of it and this
is really what this case typifies."

Goodyear-Smith says at first, she too thought the odds were stacked
against Gwaze.

"It looked very damning, and very difficult. But when I went through
it bit by bit and produced a timeline it all fell into place and then
it became incredibly compelling that there was actually no crime. Even
though there may be strange coincidences, there are explanations for
all of it."

On her timeline, the turning point in medical opinion as to the cause
of Charlene's death came at around 1pm when a rectal probe was
inserted to take a more accurate temperature. Nurses alerted
consultants to what they thought was a "meaty open wound" in her anus,
or a rectal tear. A paediatric consultant put the size of the wound at
around 7cm while a nurse described it as "a wound you would never

Quickly, attention switched to a possible sexual assault and the
infection being caused by the anal injury. By the time Charlene took
her last breath 12 hours later, with Sifiso holding her hand and the
rest of her family looking on, police were stationed outside.

And when pathologist Martin Sage reported the results of his autopsy
the following day that Charlene had likely been suffocated and her
genital injuries were consistent with forcible penetration the
prosecution had its murder victim.

But when the jury delivered its not guilty verdicts on Wednesday
afternoon, the Gwaze case became a judicial rarity a murder trial
without a murder. There was a victim, but no crime.

There were no gaping genital wounds, either, says Goodyear-Smith. She
believes what the doctors and nurses were actually seeing was a
swollen and distended anal canal caused probably by a combination of
the severe diarrhoea, Charlene's HIV-Aids status, and the fact she was
being pumped with litres of fluids to increase her blood pressure.
"There was no 7cm laceration. There were lots of tiny fissures but
there wasn't a big tear. But that's what they thought they saw and
they went `gasp'."

Sage's autopsy report made no mention of a 7cm tear, referring only to
cracks in the anal tissue, the largest of which was 5mm. But he
thought these could not be explained by natural causes.

What the doctors were in fact looking at was a very rare HIV-related
death in an untreated child. Charlene, who arrived in Christchurch
with Sifiso and Charmaine in October 2005, had never had an HIV test.

Though tests in Zimbabwe showed her immunity was lowered and HIV was
suspected, she didn't have an Aids-defining condition that would have
triggered treatment. And because she came here on a student visa, she
didn't have an HIV test.

The family probably knew Charlene was infected, but chose to treat
problems as they occurred, pointing to Zimbabwean children dying with
Aids despite aggressive treatment.

Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to
help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is
very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your
colleagues you may end up as a pariah."

Goodyear-Smith has tracked Charlene's 18 hours in hospital, almost by
the minute. Every test, every scan, every examination.

"Their attempts to save Charlene's life were heroic," she says. "They
did everything right. The only thing wrong was the diagnosis."


JANUARY 6, 2007:

6am: Charlene found in bed, covered with diarrhoea, unconscious, no
recordable blood pressure.

6.45: Arrives at GP clinic. Meningitis or encephalitis suspected. IV
drip. Immediate transfer to Christchurch Hospital.

7.15-10am: Airway tubes and catheter inserted, antibiotics started, IV
lines introduce saline. Blood tests taken. Blood pressure rises to
130/60. X-rays and vaginal swab taken, nasogastric tube inserted.
Charlene has seizure; blood pressure drops to 65/20. Registrar records
diarrhoea. Meningococcal septicaemia or brain abscess suspected.
Charlene in deep coma, peripherally shut down. Starship hospital
consulted. X-rays show fluid on lungs. Vaginal discharge and redness.

10.30: Transfer to ICU. Results of first CT scan show encephalitis or
oxygen deprivation. Preliminary diagnosis viral or bacterial

12.30: George and Sifiso go home to pack bag and clean up. Do washing.

1pm: Nurses trying to insert rectal thermometer find what they believe
is large, open anal wound. Consultants called, digital photos taken.
Consultant surgeon called in. Doctor calls Sifiso at home, asked about
past medical history and what she found on bed and clothing.

2pm: Rectal exam with proctoscope shows no evidence of rectal
penetration. Doctors discuss whether Charlene was suffocated during
sexual assault. Starship team arrives but decision taken that Charlene
is dying and will not be transferred.

2.45: Tests taken in morning find HIV-positive. Social worker told to
notify CYF and police.

3pm-4.15: Sex abuse doctor called in. Hospital staff advise Gwazes of
anal injury.

6-8pm: Gwazes told Charlene is brain dead. Sex-abuse doctor calls
pathologist. Police liaise with pathologist.

8-9pm: Another rectal exam with proctoscope reveals anal canal
bruising, no evidence of perforation but pinprick haemorrhaging.
Haemorrhage on hymen.

10-11pm: Third proctoscopy; swabs taken. Two police officers in ICU.
Doctors show Sifiso injury to rectum. Family told Charlene is dying.


1.05am: Charlene certified dead.

10am-3.30: Autopsy carried out.


6-7pm: News and radio reports quote police saying pathologist has
reported Charlene was suffocated

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Scott Watson File: Classic fabrication.

Not being acquainted with the whole file I find it disappointing that when part of the dialogue was commenced with the Coroner after the trial, the main points made were that Scott was convicted, that there was no ketch, a statement qualified with the proviso that a ketch had been seen by the water taxi driver (Wallace) and another water taxi driver (Walsh) but that no one else saw this craft either.

So here we have a great example, 2 witnesses or even 1 are often sufficient for a critical sighting that might turn a murder trial but here 2 witnesses confirming something the Crown wants denied and it is said that nobody else confirmed seeing a ketch despite what the witnesses saw. Of course others saw a ketch, many others, but 2 men right at the 'coal front' of this case are not to be believed because no one else (that the Crown cared to call) saw a ketch. Great work. That's how a fabrication or denial of evidence becomes more important than evidence itself, 'Nobody else saw Mr Jones that morning [despite the fact that evidence was given that Mr Jones was indoors]' and so it goes, 2 people saw the ketch, but others didn't so there was no ketch. How can anyone win against that, it isn't logical and it isn't just.

But to the point of the communication with the Coroner, no ketch only 2 sightings of it (at least!) Then moving onto the 'evidence' as to the deaths of the couple which gave details from yes, 2 prison inmates - effectively paid artists of deception, one of whom was able to give details of Olivia's death, well, in fact how she didn't die. I quote 'As part of the prosecution evidence another inmate (2 is better, one liar giving another credibility and sharing in the proceeds - my addition) related to the Court how Watson 'told' him that he put the bodies in deep water. When it was put to Watson that the deaths had been the result of being hit with a solid object and then a strangling he said that it was not how it was done.' Consider that, a man on trial for murder, 'confessing' to a stool pigeon. And if you don't believe he was a stool pigeon why was he putting to Scott (as though he, the stooly, was either a police officer or a prosecutor) that it was a strangling after a bashing? Only one reason, to give the jury an picture of what happened, and it's negative confirmation that Scott 'apparently' denied it - of course for a Jury, they simply needed to think 'yes, of course he would deny it,' when in fact the assertion was never made, nor did the conversation take place.

But there we have it, among important things to be written to the Coroner, the conviction (which can't be denied,) no ketch (except that confirmed by 2 witnesses who gave evidence and many others not called.) And additionally the way in which Olivia was killed, but which 'of course' was denied by the cunning killer who was spilling his guts to an informer to ensure he would get convicted, and for the informer to ensure he would get paid. Right, got it. Makes sense.

Not much else in the communication, just as there is little weight for the conviction against Scott Watson. But to underline that, is the information that the 2'secret guys' and how the officer would be 'extremely reluctant' to call them to give evidence at the Coroner's hearing because of difficulties 'maintaining the anonymity and safety of these people.' Well, I'll swallow anything, not even questioning if the 2 stoolies by then were proving difficult, or if giving evidence in the 'Coroner's Court' was beyond their brief for which they were paid. I'd rather go for 'that it was adduced' at trial how a 'fellow' prison inmate was told by Watson how he 'killed' Olivia. 'It was during a struggle where she was fighting him inside the yacht and he strangled her.' Hold on, the other guy said he didn't strangle her. Take your pick it's all macabre, gruesome, and coming at you from paid informants. And it fits with a aged strategy for the police grooming evidence from stoolies, that the evidence is not consistent (in that both were saying exactly the same thing) but which however hold the same message - Scott denied killing in a particular way to 1 witness and said the opposite to the other. We don't want the impression witnesses were being schoold do we?

Though the reality remains, the evidence against Scott was that there was 'no ketch' that is apart from the one identified by Crown witnesses. Getting a headache? No wonder they needed a trial that went on for months - they had nothing more to say, than that, there was no ketch, and 2 paid informers. That's what the Police wrote to the Coroner, in the similar language on which the whole trial was developed, weasel words, prejudice, and an over abundance of evidence that meant nothing, and didn't nor could ever, confirm that there wasn't a ketch seen that day, before or afterwards, and that of 2 'men' one could say how Olivia's death happened, and one couldn't even though they weren't there and were singing for their supper.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Scott Watson File: Money or your life - double standards?

I may not have the specific details exact but I recall a complaint into an affidavit sworn by OIC of Operation Tam in support of an Interception Warrant (phone tap, perhaps in fact a search warrant) being challenged on the basis that it wasn't factually correct.

An affidavit is in effect evidence which is sworn to be true, in much the same way that a witness gives evidence at trial on oath. If that evidence is false, known to be false by the witness he or she is likely to have perjured themselves or attempted to defeat the course of Justice. Justice stands on a foundation of truth. What you say or swear is what you own, and if you are not being truthful you could face up to 14 years imprisonment. Perjury or disrupting the course of Justice is about as serious as it gets.

As it prevails, after an extremely long delay, and an 'independent' inquiry if was held that Ex Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope's sworn affidavit wasn't true in all it's details. To divert for a second, anybody actioning a loan, signing a guarantee is bound by that, provided they were of sound mind, or not under duress, - the law is absolute on that. But apparently not senior police swearing affidavits that are not a fair appraisal of the facts, because the inquiry found that it was a 'acceptable' procedure that a busy police officer might simply swear an affidavit without satisfying himself that it was true, even having sworn that it was true - his word was not his bond.

Confused? Oh dear. Fast forward to recent events for the Directors of a failed finance company who were charged with issuing false prospectus details in order to raise funds. Their defence was that they, like Pope, were very busy (everybody is busy these days, busy busy busy,) and additionally that the details were provided by accountants and auditing staff 'responsible' for getting the figures right. On the Pope scale, all well and good. Sorry no. The Director's trial was by Judge alone and the Judge found them guilty saying that should have satisfied themselves as to the accuracy of the reports before signing them - sounds fair enough to me, the buck has got to stop somewhere.

One stark difference between Pope and the Company Directors was that at risk in Pope's decision and judgement was ultimately the freedom of Scott Watson. Not specifically on just Pope's decision to sign something that wasn't correct but his overall stewardship of the investigation and the public confidence that he was doing his job correctly and directing his staff in the same fashion. It's what the Public are entitled to, what the Justice system relies upon. Whereas, the Directors of the Finance company were entrusted to handle properly and fairly the funds of investors, if they mishandled that duty investors would lose money. If Pope mishandled his duties then there was the probability that the killers of the young couple might escape detection, or indeed an innocent man might go to prison. That is why I chose the title for this 'money or your life?' something we all know the answer to.

Time to enter in the relevant words, those that always fall when something has failed in the Justice system - 'Miscarriage of Justice' and the common denominator that perpetually links all break downs of Justice, the failure of Justice, is that when such things happen, whether they are white washed in any fashion (once discovered) they always fall in favour of the prosecuting authorities and never the falsely imprisoned. You can bet on it. Pope deliberately coloured the case against Scott in a prejudicial way according to many commentators, and even his apparent mistakes of swearing that something that was 'true' wasn't true, but that it was somebody else's fault still fell to Scott's detriment, everything fell to Scott's detriment and that is the way of Miscarriages of Justice and false imprisonment. That is their design, and once discovered those events are described as unfortunate, random, delayed by inquiries, given other names, white-washed but they always fall against their victim. Scott Watson is a victim of a Miscarriage of Justice.

Scott Watson File; One of the more serious errors in the prosecution of Scott Watson....

the number of people who didn't see a ketch. That is what the prosecution relied upon, saying that their own witnesses and those they didn't call, hadn't seen a ketch. Something like a double negative, an assumption that a host of kiwis, most of whom, unlike me, would be experts in distinguishing between different types of yachts and boats. People who came forwarded at the police's request and then found their evidence wasn't wanted, because it didn't fit.

First to mention here is Guy Wallace, like he had every reason in the world to say he took the young couple on his water taxi to a ketch, and not a smaller vessel. He just needed to get the police spewing on him for the next 20 years, but he would have been fine if he'd flopped into saying that he was mistaken in the misty moonlight and the couple stepped down from the water taxi and not up. He would have been fine on the outside but sick with himself inside because he was committed to telling the truth even when being leant upon from every direction - and salute to him.

And to the other people from the boating fraternity, who, in an un-orchestrated fashion, simply told what they saw with a type of detail that proved credibility, this from people who would be something like expert callers in a rugby game where the uninitiated wouldn't be able to distinguish the fine nuances of front row play. People, wholly honest and wanting to help out in a major case.

So the error is 2 fold, first of all shutting these people out because what they were saying wasn't help for the 'direction' in which the investigation was plainly being driven. Then gathering from the 1st error, the second, whereby an obviously unsatisfactory investigation can be criticised for want of a thoroughness. No use telling the public there was no ketch, when it is forever in the public mind, better to find the ketches and provide the evidence that it was not them - dispel all doubt. Call the witnesses and let the jury judge, not haphazardly insult good citizens trying to do their civic duty be essentially telling that they don't know what the saw or that they some kind of lunatics. Bad move, in a bad case.

A correspondent has sent me material about ketches that were within the environs of the couples place of disappearance, some of which I published earlier. Exactly what those sightings mean I can't say I know, apart from the fact that they should have been dealt with within the trial. Mystery ketches, much like MOJs, don't go away - nothing is surer and only a naive police hierarchy and prosecution would consider that it would, as time has proven correct.

And overall an anxiety is created about the way Guy Wallace's evidence was received, and how others with clear contributions to make to the overall picture were ignored. Part of that anxiety manifests itself in a desire for some people to 'solve' the murders once and for all. That I am afraid, is not the purpose for the man imprisoned, Scott Watson, and not for those that wish to see him freed because he is already held against the order of our Justice system because he is clearly not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This case is riddled with doubt, motiveless, 'magic' evidence, prejudicial dialogue, incomplete investigation, singing for their supper stool pigeons who have since recanted, and the list goes on - manufactured by the very doubt at the outset as to what vessel the couple alighted to from the water taxi, right back at the beginning something wasn't right in what the prosecution asked the jury to believe, and not right that all the doubts about the vessel were not dispelled there at the doorstep that led to a false imprisonment.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Apologies to Kent Parker.

Dear Kent,
Sorry to hear that you're upset about being called a hate-site administrator. Also upset to know that you reckon you don't look like Anthony Perkins in the Psycho movie. I've since corrected the records to say that you look like Hannibal Lector. Hope you're happy with that.

As for that one about the hate-sites, that's a curly one as Ralph Taylor would say. However, after careful consideration of your recruitment policies, the stalking and harassment that you've actively promoted on your site, perhaps I could refer to your sites as 'secret' sites.

That might be fun for you Kent, all cherry, cherry, apples and peaches. It could even help you get the finger out of your nose and the other one out from your posterior. How about you kiss and makeup with yourself? From now on I could refer to your site as a Secret Site, a 'Secret Site, without any Secrets.'

Anyway thanks.

Cheerio and all that.
Absolutely sparking and spot on.


Saturday, July 16, 2011

'News' of the World...for Kent Parker (2)

Got it worked out yet Kenty? Still struggling with reality? Haven't worked out why old Rupert's crew are falling over themselves to resign? You're so thick Kent, if you weren't so psycho looking you could be a good lap dog for someone like Genghis Kahn until he got sick of your yapping and looking at yourself in the mirror all the time. They're all resigning Kenty, falling like flys. At least you can hardly blame anyone for spilling the beans on you, cause you did that yourself.

yours sincerely,

your old pal


Ralph Taylor bleating.

Ralph Taylor
Pythinia I was using opening up peoples mail as a valid analogy in my view to what xxxxxx is doing re violating peoples privacy on her blog and which the defence are I understand co-operating in closing it down.An action of her's that because it is done in cyberspace that you seem to trivialize.Nothing therefore it would seem again is sacrsanct and open slather on the Internet.I am certain that if you e.g.had young children caught up in this you'd feel very differently I believe.

Of course Ralph Taylor had no idea, even after Parker had been told in writing that the hate-sites had been infiltrated, that hundreds of pages of material were leaking. Above Taylor, who played a fundamental role in the support of stalking my family, reproves a cyber-space figure Pythinia that if she 'had young children caught up in this' she'd feel differently.

That's a big problem for the twisted sisters, they thought they had a right to stalk peoples family's but as seen above, felt that there was some difference if it happened to them. Well, the record shows no one stalked any of the hate-siter's families or even had an intention or inclination to do so, no one was stupid enough to think that breaking the law was the way to win an argument that at all but been settled my 5 not guilty verdicts. But the 'concern' of Taylor was that he was called a pedo-pal because he supported Robin Bain, and at the same time posted hundreds of lies about David, often laughing about them. He from the 'anonymous' position of Jeeves on TM continued his attacks and lies against David at length, and did so on the hate-sites using his real name. Now Trevor Fox, Kennard and others moan because they taste their own medicine, but no one stalked their families, they stalked and snooped and laughed about it with Annette Curran, Christine Williams, Maryanne Newton and Glenda O'Brien to the fore - how do I know this? Because I have it all, and I will get more, the private communications and planning - because someone is coughing up big time and despite no more being needed, I'll take it. Thanks.

Friday, July 15, 2011

The demo boss, HNZ and the homeless young man.

In recent months one of the Auckland demo companies was contracted to demolish a burnt out Housing NZ home. It was a routine job and the demo boss was to meet a HNZ official on site at 8am the day the work was due to begin.

The demo boss arrived early and took the chance to look around the site of the old state house home with the usual interest of looking at something about to be destroyed and which had once been a family home filled with a million memories. Out the back was a shed that supported a lean to with the only open side shut by a canvass sheet of sorts. The demo boss, casually opened the canvass curtain to find a young man (we'll call him Adam) sleeping on a pile of stacked firewood.

Not surprisingly, the demo boss had what he described as an almost premature bowel motion in his pants. Adam was equally surprised. 'You'll have to get out of here mate,' said the demo boss. 'The bloody digger will be here and it'll curtains for you,' he said by way of explanation. 'And what are you doing here anyway?'

Adam explained that his was his home, and since it had burnt down he had no where to sleep. Said that his father had gone off to stay at his sister's place but Adam couldn't go there because she 'hated his guts.' The demo boss explained that Adam would still have to go because he, the boss, had orders to rip down the rest of the house and out buildings and the digger would be there soon. By then Adam was standing up, having climbed off the wood where he'd been sleeping without a blanket in the bitter cold.

The demo boss an old front rower and miner, judging that Adam could probably do a good day's work asked him he wanted a job. 'I can't work,' said Adam, 'because of the problems I've got.' The demo boss, experienced with working with all sorts of people in many different countries, knew giving a bloke a job who admitted he had problems up front and who was sleeping rough was both a risky and potential time-absorbing quandary. About then he heard the HNZ inspector arrive and shot off to tell him the story.

The inspector, also of mature years and life experience, asked Adam for his name and all his details, writing them down in a little black book of the type that proves ominous for most fringe-living folk. He said he was going to sort it out, something which the demo boss couldn't quite follow, so he repeated 'the digger will be here a minute,' to press the point. Adam had no possessions that the demo boss could see, but there were a few old bags and sacks on the ground that might have been all he had left after the fire. 'Here take this,' he told Adam, passing over $50. 'Get a feed.'

Later that day, he took a call from the housing inspector who told him that they'd found Adam a place to stay. I could be facetious here and point out that had it been in another city Adam might have got an elbow in the head, because he had problems, then thrown in gaol for stealing firewood, trespassing or something similar for hanging out near his life-long home even after it had been reduced to a burnt out shell, but really this story tells itself.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Old soldiers let down.

The Crete veterans were stoic on their return from the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Crete, few among their number willing to complain that they'd been paid only a part Government subsidy, not enough to cover their fares, and certainly not enough to pay for accommodation and food. The Defence Minister and his staff, a bunch of bludgers by any description, travelled first class, stayed in the best accommodation and were feted like true pigs.

Many of the veterans, in their 90s and no doubt with attendant health problems, assistants and helpers, were driven by what must have been a last trip to remember fallen comrades, to again try to put into perspective a war which ripped their lives asunder and which would seldom, if not forever echo in the minds as sombre the futility of what might have been made of rich young lives if not the devil beast war did call.

Who are these men that forsake what the veterans represent to all of New Zealand, those if but by time, may seem reduced in relevance, odd in some way, wit shortened by and made weary by age? They are those not humble enough, without pride enough to fete the elderly soldiers as their final days set still. The speech makers, applauded for their oratory while the aged warriors drew shortened breaths, thought of death, smelt again fear and recalled the promises to life if just one more shell did not destroy them, nor the next bullet take their lives as the dead lay all around, others broken and moaning a lament to find a rhythm that might shorten pain or bring a long sleep as cordite smoke drifted and waned a mournful dance.

They are the men who let the old soldiers down, for not remembering it was not their day to travel first class, nor to eat the finest foods and be applauded for Ministerial office or coveted diplomatic role, but the day to walk beside those that will never be forgotten, to support those struggling to walk, bring chairs and water for those that needed to sit, to push wheel chairs and be humble among the camaraderie of those who marked in time the tragedy of our war dead and our struggle to continue to come to terms with a past national willingness to fight beyond our shores in the face of a new sentiment to be leaders of peace.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Scott Watson File: Those pesky hairs on the blanket.

Just to straighten things a bit regarding the two hairs.First they were bleached blond, one was 6 inches long 150mm, the other 8 inches 200mm. In previous searches of the hairs and tiger skin blanket, the longest hairs found were 3 inches 75mm. 11 were chosen including both brown and yellow blond hairs for DNA testing, none of which returned a positive result from the DNA test.

The only DNA test that tied the hairs to Olivia was the $70,000 mitochondrial(mDNA) tests done in the UK but it only proved the hair came from one or other of the two girls no more. The nuclear DNA testing was useless and in spite of some junk science, the multiplying of two totally separate tests both with out reagents to confirm results meant the hairs could have come from Amelia or Olivia or any other person sharing the same mDNA.

The other test done, one of the hairs was microscopic comparison where the scientist would claim that hairs matched the sample hairs from the Hope home. Again, this is now totally discredited as DNA has resulted in exoneration's where hair comparison was a major factor in the conviction.

Tests done by the NAS for the US Dept of Justice revealed that the "experts" could not even reliably match two halves of the same hair, and could match hairs from totally unrelated people from different parts of the Country. Microscopic comparison can identify between races and parts of body hair, but head hairs vary depending on the part of the head they are from.

I borrowed the fore-going. I'm sure if it is not provable somebody will provide evidence that it isn't. It clearly demonstrates the 'golden bullet' evidence in this case, something that turns up in favour of the prosecution and which was somehow miraculously missed in an earlier 'meticulous' search. This evidence launches the conviction of Scott Watson into the realms of similar unsound convictions:

Arthur Thomas, the cartridge case discovered on a subsequent second search and which unfortunately for the police had not been even manufactured at the time of the murders of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe.

David Bain, a lens found days after a meticulous search of a small room, discovered after hours by an officer not tasked with the job. A lens said to have fallen in the room of his murdered brother on the morning of his death, but which however was covered in dust and belonged to an old set of glasses owned by Margaret Bain, the frames for which it was 'reported,' 15 years later by a detective at David's retrial, that David asked to be passed to him on the morning on the murders, glasses which had no lens. From memory this officer said he hadn't reported this important information earlier because he didn't want to be criticised for handling evidence in a homicide scene.

David Dougherty, the unfortunate fellow convicted of rape using in part dna evidence that under later analysis was found not to be his but a match for another man since convicted of the crime.

Amanda knox, the American woman who stands convicted on a chorus of conflicting evidence from a number of bizarre sources difficult to take altogether seriously, a convicted sexo of some type - whose evidence was recanted, a mafia member who claims the real killer is his brother, another man convicted of the killing but who now points the finger at Amanda. Though the majority of the 'case' is prejudicial weaving, allegations of sex games that went wrong, sympathy and defence for the young British woman killed (on the basis that she was undeserving of death it follows therefore that Knox should be convicted despite vast gaps in the narrative.) And golden bullet dna, found 6 weeks after initial searches in two places, a knife said to be used in the killing and on a bra clip. The court ordered further analysis of this evidence as part of the appeal process and the independent forensic scientists said the findings (said to Knox's dna) were too 'unreliable' to be be relied upon.

So Scott unfortunately has the similar weakness of the evidence against him, the yawning gaps in the narrative of the Crown case against him, bolstered by golden bullet evidence, which, in itself, as shown above, appears may have come from the sister of Olivia (and therefore been planted there between the 2 meticulous searches,) and whose hair matched in colour the same bleach evidenced on the samples recovered after the blanket on which they had been found had already been examined. Evidence, which in any event, was unreliable not only for it's lack of scientific clarity of connection to Olivia, and therefore Scott, but most importantly because it escaped attention and only 'arrived' when it was absolutely needed. When a conviction is held on absolutely 'needed' evidence that arrives on cue the Justice system is mocked, and when it continues to sustain no objection to that mocking or common sense, indeed observation of common sense on which 'reasonable doubt' is tested, then the Courts have become complicit in the mocking and then the whole country, and not just a single man falsely imprisoned, is mocked.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Arie Smith - the case lights up.

Apparently there were no complainants in this case, odd as that may sound. Perhaps looting doesn't require complainants in the normal sense. Before I go on, much is made of the burglar's tools Arie was alleged to have in his possession. In reality a burglary tool could be a simple as a screw driver, or pair of wire cutters, whatever the tools happened to be certainly wasn't enough to stop the Court asking the Police to exercise diversion. There seems an abundance of misguided information abroad such as that Arie wouldn't plead guilty or 'fess up,' in fact he did originally plead guilty and later asked for that plea to be vacated.

The couple whose unused building Arie entered were not informed until recently of the alleged burglary, and if what we saw on television last night is correct, had no concern for the return or custody of the particular light bulbs that Arie was impulsed to have. The man even pointing out that his concern was that it was unsafe to go inside the building. So it's a given that the victims of the crime don't consider themselves to be victims at all, and the police must have had a similar opinion because they hadn't bothered contacting them for months - and probably never would have.

After Police National Headquarters declined further comment last week about the case because it was still before the Court, the Chief Inspector of Christchurch began to comment at length about the case, most recently apparently declaring a criminal investigation into staff at TVNZ who reported on the case. That could prove very interesting because the case has been commented on at some considerable length by both sides until the police HQ apparently shut up shop on doing so, shortly after which the area Commander of Christchurch began.

Interesting to note that before the arrest of the ex partner of Carmen Thomas for her murder the police gave details of her body being dismembered, information which really didn't need to go into the public forum before a Judge made a decision on the matter, and can only therefore be assumed to have been entered for the prejudice effect of the public against the now accused man. I suppose it really is a question of how much the public need to know before the case goes to Court. A plea for information is understandable but when a case begins to get built publicly against an individual in the public arena someone has stepped over the line.

Of course all of this pre-empts was will happen on line where trials and misinformation by internet users will abound, including some might argue by bloggers such as myself. On that point as much as the opportunity is there, and while I'm unaware of any association of bloggers or an identified protocol or ethics committee, I personally recognise the need for accuracy in what claims are made. However, on message boards there is no or little restraint. Though it can be said that lack of restraint extends to both media and police pr machines. Is it Justice, I don't think so.

On the issue of blogs it would be timely for an association and standards to be set, much like the traditional print media because my belief is that an appreciation is growing that 'talking' in cyberspace is not different to publishing on paper. But really, why have the big guys the media companies who have hundreds of years of history in publishing in some cases, not leading the protocol standard - the answer can only be that they don't want to be lagging on the new wave of information. If that's a sufficient reason, then the test remains is it prejudicial, sub-judice even contempt of court in such cases, and if it is why are the Governments, Courts or Government agencies apparently so slow reacting.

In effect Arie has been tried in the media, by the police on one hand, and by an interested media on the other - something which has led to a standoff. What should either of these groups do when faced with the question of wresting trials away from the Courts before they are even tried. Only one thing in my opinion, go to the Courts for injunctions and directions as necessary. This is a fairly exhaustive subject which I'll leave for now, but first some comment on Arie.

Hard to build a picture of somebody from news snippets and a photo, so I guess having stuck my neck out a little on the subject of Arie I can admit, although I didn't expect would be the case, I was going to have to cop it on the chin and acknowledge so if I was wrong. It never hurts to be wrong, well not deliberately, but it's critical, if not always easy - to admit when you are.

But Arie came across just as I and I guess thousands of others has been pressure on him to admit, if he knows, how he got that severe bruise and damage to his eye, but he was quite honest in his description for my money - but more importantly, almost naively not wishing to use the injury in anyway for sympathy or anything else. Though we didn't get to hear him scream, his descriptions of how he freaked out were more vivid and simple in impact that any scream one might hear. His talk about best friends, and seeing his eyes light up when going to apologise to the couple and when talking about his hopes of being an electrician one day, and how important courses were told more about him than he could ever hide.

Now that I know TV1 are under investigation, maybe I shouldn't have written those poems.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Brad Meurant, what's he saying now?

He's admitted now that despite his denials that he knew anything about the police bashing of the clowns during the 81 Springbok tour he now says, 'of course I knew. I was the Squad Commander for goodness sake.'

He admits lying to police inquisitors, saying that 'it [the] became a matter of fighting fire with fire' in terms of closing ranks when 'Deep in Forest. One looks after one's mates.' Additionally, he has admitted ensuring that identification parade looking for a prime police suspect was 'illegal.' So he condoned the inclusion of a constable who was very similar in appearance to the Red Squad member suspect.

Having already spoken about a corrupt police culture and giving specifics of the framing of Arthur Thomas, he know reveals that he conspired to pervert the course of Justice in covering up for his squad members.

Of course unlike ex undercover Patrick O'Brien, he's not asking to charged or volunteering to plead guilty to perjury of any offence, but he seems totally confident that for his admitted crimes (for which I'm sure there is no statute of limitations on when a prosecution might be brought.) I wonder where that confidence comes from, also why at least to this point the police do nothing.

Am I the only one that things have turned upside down, pack-rapists protected from prosecution, undercover committing perjury and other crimes, ex police seemingly proudly confessing to breaking some of the most sacrosanct laws to preserve justice. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Meurant and O'Brien have spoken out but I'm not glad at the inaction of the Government or Minister of Police to address these matters. It's perjury and conspiracy to defeat the course of Justice that strikes at the heart of the Justice system, it says that police can do such things; send the innocent to prison, turn a blind eye to offending of their colleagues and so forth, speak out about it and Police hierarchy and the Government are silent.

Friday, July 8, 2011

'News' of the World...for Kent Parker

'Andy Coulson, who was editor of the paper when hacking was proven to have occurred, was told by police that the was to be arrested on Friday over claims that he knew about the hacking or was directly involved, the Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday night.'

Translated to our locality became.

'Kent Parker, who was owner of the hate-site when jury stalking and other stalking was proven to have occurred, was told by police that he was to be arrested over claims that he knew about the stalking or was directly involved, the local newspaper reported on Thursday night.'

And what the law says

Part 2
Criminal Harassment
Every person commits an offence who harasses another person in any case where-
(a)the first-mentioned person intends that harassment to cause that other person to fear---
(i) that other person's safety; or
(ii)the safety of any person with whom that person is in a family relationship

Don't be so glum Kent, you provided all the evidence yourself...good boy. No use trying to tell on your mates Kenty, they told on themselves.

Arie Smith, the self-rightous in full flight.

This from another site...

I'd also suggest that as his lawyer who also suffers from aspergers was in fact able to become a lawyer and function as a lawyer that such a condition is not necessarily any barrier to participation in society, including abiding by rules and laws and it certainly shouldn't be used as a blanket protection from the consequences of any wrongdoing.

Edited by nicky59 at 9:28 am, Fri 8 Jul

The above was from another self-righteous bigot but it shows an interesting mindset, one that might be troubling other dimwits like nicky. This fully functioning and outraged member of society, argues that because one of Arie's lawyers is also a sufferer of aspergers, who 'was in fact able' to become a lawyer, then Arie must be guilty. Well whoopee do, we now all know that every sufferer of aspergers or any similar condition is exactly the same as any other sufferer of the condition, there are no variations in the condition either by extent or exhibiting factors. We can take heart then that every 'normal' member of society is the same as all others, in fact a carbon copy with all the same characteristics and able to reach the same achievements as one another, and likewise it would follow that all 'normal' members of society are equal in their ability to appreciate the arguments and logic of those like Nicky and reach the same moronic precipice that Nicky has reached in being divine and all-seeing. What a pleasure to know I'm just like Nicky, fully capable of understanding, that there is no variations in life, no individual characteristics, we are all the same by Nicky's inspired vision..except, well except me.

At around 8.58 this morning this site

had its 10,000th unique visitor.

This blog began a few weeks off 12 months ago and 2 days after my wife had sent a letter of complaint from her sick bed to Trade Me after being harassed on the boards (even though she was an infrequent poster and expressed no opinions on a particular case) by a bunch of vigilante nutters who cared nothing for her but saw her as someone who should be punished for being my wife. As we attended clinics and surgery, worrying about what might happen to the woman who is the core of our life, in the background was the chatter of the sick souls of the hate-sites, threatening to come to our house, accost our children, take our children away.

I was encouraged to start the blog by reason that it was felt it was better to confront in cyber-space the stalkers who were prepared to go into the lives of those that didn't hold their vigilante views, and worse into the lives, of families friends and children.

There are things in my life that I admit not being proud of and which still trouble me. But I am proud of my family and my ancestors, proud also to stand up for those silenced or left behind by judgemental fools, by the angry and dispossessed through their own loneliness and bitterness and unwillingness to have love in their hearts.

I hope I may be able to continue to play a role in making the internet safe for users and their families, while at the same time be provocative in challenging what makes each of us human and how we might treat one another, perhaps learn that fear of things unknown, or people unknown is a crippling disability that can be overcome by not judging things or people we may not understand, and to be able to see and hear that which is between the lines.

I hope I haven't offended too many, and don't really care about those that dared come near my family, even by subtle machination.

For the great majority of others, thank you for taking the time to visit here. My best wishes to you.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Police Headquarters seems to want a pound of flesh from Arie Smith,

even though he has a disability that compels him to take light fixtures, head office wouldn't agree to diversion despite it being requested twice already and on this occasion referred by Judge John Strettell. Police were reported as having earlier said that diversion was not going to be offered because of the seriousness of the case, and the public interest in it.

Somebody is not reading this case properly, this case isn't serious but for the reason that police haven't acted decisively in recognising Arie's condition. Even the building's owners were 'astonished and extremely concerned that someone had been prosecuted for the burglary.' If that's correct even the victims of the crime are concerned that Arie is being prosecuted. I might need reminding of something, but I thought burglars stole for profit, to benefit themselves with someone elses money or goods - but it only seems that Arie wanted to rescue the light fittings for the symbolism of meaning to him, and we might never know how the impact of the earthquakes affected that. Arie isn't a burglar, he has no convictions. He's somebody who will keenly help out others with part of him still child-like. Judge John Strettell recognised at least that, and probably, more from his lawyer's point of view, that its unlikely able to be proved that Arlie had the necessary ingredient, mens rea, a guilty mind.

Let him go, don't make a disabled young man unable to resist rescuing lights, saving them or whatever, a serious case of public interest, we have enough of those that clearly fit the criteria

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Would kent Parker be so silly to leave

an electronic footprint to add to other evidence that shows he's been stalking? Annette Curran, Christie Williams and Glenda O'Brien were that stupid, but would he be as equally thick?

Yes he would.

Thanks Kent.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Old Mayor Len ain't what he use to be....

Remember when Len ordered the Palace Hotel to be demolished in a fit of post election ejaculation? When he wouldn't let the owners have their own engineers assess the site, when he took no counsel of what if any parts of the old Auckland landmark might be saved - when he ordered the old building to be torn down despite the city being host to many engineers capable of constructing a temporary stabilisation of the building, when, he Mayor Len, a lawyer - did not advise the owners that they could seek an temporary injunction to stop the lowering of the building. Remember him, old comb-over Lenny, robed-up and all goofy looking?

Well his council said there was evidence to prosecute the owners of the building, asking the world to believe, that there was some benefit for the owners to tear their own building down - even if the revved and useless council were going to do it anyway cause old Len wanted to make dust - it was closest he'd ever get to the OK corral come high noon. Now, months later, when the dust has settled, and Mayor Lenny has restrained himself from getting a hair transplant - the truth comes out. There is no evidence to prosecute the owners of the Palace Hotel, none zilch. No comment though if there is any evidence to prosecute the building compliance and inspection officers of the council, no no no. Mums the word on that one.

I wonder if where now might see a suit against Mayor Len and his council from the Chow brothers and a salutary lesson to the Auckland Council at least not to panic and become gungho just cause the wind is blowing wind blown dust and dirt. Oh Lenny boy.

DNA comments from a correspondent.....

Oh yes the fallacy odf dna
> In the mark lundy trial prosecution was 6 weeks of evidence defence was 3
> days .
> The enormous amount of blood in the room particularly the daughters
> where there was a blood shadow across the curtain where the offender
> stood.There were also bloody footprints .Yet the witness claimed to
> see him fleeing the scene in a shirt and tie which when inspected was
> not contaminated.nor his footwear nor anything of his.Later a minute
> speck of dna was found on a polo shirt originally said to be in the
> trunk of his car.But it was retreived from the exhibit room by an
> unsupervised officer.Esr in nz australia and uk refused to acknowledge
> the existance as brain tissue but the crown found a texan dr. that
> experimented on a chicken and confirmed it.No one else in the world
> has presented this evidence.
> In the jules mikus trial who appealed was only refused last week the
> dna evidence was claimed by the crown to be 60 million times more
> likely to be him.Yet this is equivalent to only a 7-8 loci dna
> match.His father in jail for rape would be the exact same.Parent
> siblings match approx 13 loci dna.He claims his dna profile does not
> match the suspect profile but was refused further dna testing at his
> appeal.By comparison nicholas reekies dna was stated as 700 billion
> approx 10-11 loci match. NZ testing has a 15 loci maximum reading

I can't confirm all the detail of this, nor to claim to be more than an amateur in understanding dna profiling, but I do recall that the police had to search high and low for a scientist to make the confirmations in the Lundy case. I also recall there was a problem with dna profiling or forensic findings in the Barlow case, and no doubt the whole country remembers Jules Mikus snr was a serial sexual offender.

Amanda Knox, the 'golden bullet' evidence falters....

Amanda Knox's appeal continues in Italy, the court appointed independent experts requested by the defence have reported that the analysis of 'golden bullet' dna evidence found weeks after previous searches was 'below international standards' and the evidence 'might have been contaminated.'

The 'wonder' evidence that arrives 'after' previous searches and when the case against a suspect is looking frail - appears to again fail. Here in New Zealand we've seen the cartridge cases recovered from a garden strip weeks after it had already been searched, but hello, the cases had not even been manufactured at the time of the crime, nine more years before Arthur Thomas would have that convicted set aside or be 'pardoned' for it. David Bain had a similar experience, days after his brother's room had been meticulously searched, an officer whose job wasn't to search but was in fact in charge of the scene, returned after hours and found a 'lens' that was said to match David's glasses. As time moved on the lens was found to have been dusty and 'under' clothing possibly in the room for a lot longer than the few days since the family annihilation or even 'put' there by somebody, and finally not to be from David's glasses at all (something the prosecution decided to withhold from the 1st Jury.) Of course there is another case of this type, that of Scott Watson who had a blanket from his boat screened for evidence, then on a '2nd' screening was found to have a hair allegedly from one of the deceased discovered on it - pretty hard to miss a long blond hair when that is the type of thing the forensic scientist would have been looking for. So the common thread, dna not found first time round in the Knox case and now its screening analysis found to be wanting, a cartridge case found on a 2nd search in the Thomas case that was even manufactured at the time of the murders for which he was falsely imprisoned, a 'magic' appearing lens in the Bain case found by an officer not directly involved in the search and after other officers had already searched the small room - and any complicity was required to be shown, the Crown with-holding evidence of a witness who said that the lens wasn't from David's glasses, the magic 'appearing' hair in the Watson case to add to a long list of other equally unpalatable fissures in a case that needed alleged incrimination's of the character of Scott to get over the line of what has all the appearances of another false imprisonment - time to let him go, as I hope that Amanda Knox is let go.

Her case also, like Scott's, makes up for its shortfall in evidence by impinging on the character of the accused and unproved propositions cast to set a distaste for allegations of (shock horror we're back in the 17th Century) a 'sexual' nature.

Give it up you framers. Show some guts, if you don't have the evidence don't 'make' it.