Monday, November 28, 2011

Scott Watson - does it matter?

One of the delays in Watson being given a decision to his application under the Prerogative of Mercy is that the Justice Department now need confirmation (signed affidavits) by Scott's lawyers (couldn't they just ring or write to them) at his trial that they did not know about an earlier identification procedure where main witnesses did not recognise Watson in a photo montage.
This is a procedural issue, if the lawyers did know and did not make an issue of it then the Law expects Scott to live with that, a 'tough luck' situation - 'your lawyers knew about it and didn't raise it so  bad luck.' When you think about that procedure the very exercise of it is a denial of Scott's rights. Every person facing prosecution is entitled to a fair trail despite who might be acting for him or her and what they may or may not decide at trial to use. Overall, this is fair because many guilty people often  round on their lawyers after their trials. The common procedures in terms of important evidence is that lawyers require the defendant to agree  for the lawyer to employ or not employ various options, including cross-examination of evidence, presentation of evidence and so on.
It becomes unfair when a man has spent years of his life in prison on circumstantial evidence, for a crime for which he had no motive to commit,  is required to legitimise what his lawyers might or might not have known at the time of the trial. In this case surely the single issue is that witnesses shown a montage of photos, in which a photo of Scott was included, did not identify him as the last man seen with the two deceased.
So why does the department use yet another tactic to deny Watson his freedom or the right to a fair trial where all the admissible evidence is heard? Watson's father, Chris, is quoted as saying that he believes it is an intentional delaying tactic by the Crown. Who can blame him, this application is years old, there is a public unease about this case that won't go away along with the knowledge that intentional misinformation was leaked to the public before and after Scott's arrest. Now the Crown ask for 'proof' that the lawyers didn't know - as if it could  matter more than the fact that Scott was effectively identified as not being the person in company of the deceased, boarding a yacht or sloop the morning they died.
A fair trial can't follow a Jury considering its verdict without knowing that important witnesses excluded the defendant as being the last person seen with a deceased, because for all else it means that the last person seen with the deceased was not the person charged with the crime. It's a full alibi, complete and full and something which the Jury had to hear, that it wasn't Scott last seen with the dead couple prior to their disappearance.
So no, it doesn't matter if the lawyers knew of the evidence or not, what matters is that evidence which showed Scott not to be the last man in the company of the couple before they disappeared.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

For the deniers of Robin Bain's guilt - a similar case.

The hate-siters often fell about laughing, spitting out false teeth, laughing so hard that their wigs fell off, amused beyond reason of the explanation from the evidence that after killing his family Robin, washed and changed his clothes. Indeed they said he was praying in the lounge when he was shot.

Of course the finding of high-speed spatter going the wrong way on his right shoe put paid to that idea. The spatter was travelling  left to right, and not the required right to left that it needed to have been from his own wound. There was another big problem because had been praying in the manner described as being his custom, the top of his  feet and therefore tops of his shoes would have been tucked under him and blood travelling in any direction not able to spatter across his shoes.

Well, if he wasn't praying in the fashion described, apart from whispering a few words as he lent his left temple against the rifle, then he certainly wouldn't have washed in any fashion and changed his clothes. This despite trousers being found in his van with fresh blood on them. Nobody, if you listened to a hate-siter would clean up, change clothes after committing murder and before suiciding, the very idea would be preposterous. Yes, it would be if you didn't comprehend the evidence against  Robin and his unsound mind. He had 2 daughters both of whom had spoken to others of their fathers 'prevailence' upon them for sex from a very young age. We know of the problems Stephen was having, the sexual overtones of those and the anecdotal links to a fractured child-hood that may have lent toward that. We know that Robin saw limited scope left in his career as a teacher, his behaviour deteriorating to the point he was seen as needing to have help. Things at home were no better, he was excluded, left out of plans to redevelop the family home, a sharp tightening in the attitude of his wife toward him. Public recognition that one daughter had taken to prostituting herself and the younger son in conflict with the law, himself forced to sleep in his caravan far from the marital bed and his daughters.

Today is reported that a nz man living in England, Mark Barrett 48, having killed his wife in a stabbing frenzy, washed himself and dressed, even cleaned the knife before suiciding, giving an example as documented in many cases worldwide of a ritual cleansing, following a 'phsyical' cleansing before suicide. The problems Mark Barrett's perceived himself to be having were daunting but limited in his mind to a single figure, his partner Rosie Mayer. Robin Bain, looking at the anecdotal evidence, had problems in every area of his life, work, with his wife, his two daughters (one reported as preparing to lay a complaint against him,) a son at odds with the law in a disturbing way. Looking at the attempt of 'cleansing' that besets some troubled souls, Robin's was advanced on all fronts.

Considering the likelihood that his daughters were not simply being mischievous for some odd reason in their claims against him, then he was facing prison, ostracisation in his own community. It is said that he was a 'devout' man and one can assume that he could easily have considered that there were things he needed to hide from his God, clean up or put right in some way. He may have considered that he had let 'God' down, and like many perpetrators seen his victims as the 'true' cause of that. Overwhelming his life was distorted and he needed to distance himself from a life gone wrong, perhaps turn back the clock to the time when things had been 'normal' before things and people had gone bad. Robin was in a bad place, somewhere that made him feel 'dirty.'

But what could he put right? Nothing if he had a rational mind, other than to seek help. Seeking help though would have not brought relief from that which he couldn't bear, wouldn't resolve the relentless turmoil his life had become. Young Stephen is thought to have fought for his life, the reality is that probably out of pure fear he did, however his first wound was determined as going to be fatal.  But it was Laniet who the evidence suggests might have been deliberately wounded and later finished off who was apparently subjected to a less than 'clean or efficient' death. A pillow put over her head for the final shot, as her killer slowly found his anger and disgust sated. She whom there was evidence of being in a 'relationship' with her father that was going to be revealed to the police. Some of this is speculation of course, though based on compelling evidence in every aspect.

What Mark Barrett saw as needing to be put right was in context of a new relationship, what Robin saw as failed and stalled in his life was a complete marriage, place in the Community, and an aborted relationship with those his duty had been to protect. What both men shared was the need to wash and dress before arresting their own torment that had not been vanquished by the spilling of the blood of those they 'loved.'

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The way they're killing Scott Watson at xmas.

The Minister of Justice Simon Power said that Scott Watson would finally know the answer to his 3 year old application for Justice under the Crimes Act by Election Day, 4 days from now.
But there's a problem. After 3 years the lawyer appointed to investigate the application appears to have decided that there was no 'new' evidence to support the claim. But hold on, she seems to have overlooked evidence of witnesses confirming that their original id of Scott was incorrect. What a torrid 3 years it must have been for her, pretending to be doing nothing while actually doing nothing.
So Scott won't know by Election time his fate, instead he'll continue to endure the slow death of false imprisonment.
Just a minute. It seems Scott's lawyer Greg King, has pointed out to the investigating lawyer, and the Minister, that there is in fact 'new' evidence, to go with the other 'old' evidence that shows Scott is innocent. But the Minister can't make a decision on the basis of common sense, or refer to a Court, because he needs to consider it at length. In fact right until he leaves office and the file becomes the property of another Minister.
This is how Scott Watson is killed.
He is denied his rights while timely haste is denied him in his prison cell.
So do you and me deny him, if but for a minute we look away.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

A dribbling hate-siter called bj.

What an unfortunate choice of name for the internet.

Anyway although the reaction to the news that an eminent jurist has been appointed to review David Bain's compensation claim has been fairly muted compared to earlier extremes it seems some of the hate-site members are beside themselves with rage. Thus, with frustration that their campaign is in tatters, that members have left in their droves leaving others facing 100s of charges and ongoing inquiries into allegations of threats, defamatory harassment, jury harassment and so forth this sick soul reverts to type - lies.

and the death certificate for Robin Bain says 'murdered' not 'suicide'.

Quotewelshdude (304 ) 6:07 pm, Sat 19 Nov #34

This former and discredited claim was once a rousing point for the demented few. Any reasonable person would realise that a death certificate isn't proof of murder in any situation, particularly not when no one has been convicted of the self-inflicted death of the family murderer Robin Bain. However, the truth is that the death certificate states benignly that Robin died as the result of a gun shot wound. So when they have nothing they invent things. Of course invention isn't proof of anything other than frustration of being unable to accept the truth. However, as I have written before, the persecution David Bain has faced is likely to be a contributing factor in determining what any compensation amount may be. One of the results of David's false imprisonment on biased, and in other cases with held evidence, was an actual Miscarriage of Justice that has already been ruled by the Privy Council. Not withstanding that, as reported in the foregoing blog, the persecution continued into the 2nd trial and after - particularly on Trade Me where the publishers allowed all manner of lies to be published in what were often Contempt of Court situations. David Bain may yet have the final word on that, or in fact some other judicial authority if, as I anticipate, the whole spectrum of what constituted the way the law and the internet was misused by idiots such as above to harass with lies and abuse David Bain as an enduring Miscarriage of Justice was weighed against him.

Interesting to note that it is only the hate-siters that sought to avoid the compensation inquiry, only they that are afraid of what the results might be. Bain's lawyer, the Queens Counsel Michael Reed, has expressed his confidence leading into this inquiry by someone who has been described as a 'star' of the legal system. Someone unlikely it can be presumed, to be anything other than disgusted that the media and dimwits with the unfortunate name of bj (welshdude) facilitated persecution by printing anything mindless idiots could think of even when the trial was under way.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Another blow against the hate-siters: Compensation claim to be considered.

The news broke yesterday that David Bain's compensation bid is set to be weighed by a retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ian Binnie. There are two broad aspects of the claim wrongful conviction and imprisonment, of course in a murder case one could not exist without the other.

Justice Minister Simon Power made the press release and from at least 2 of the things he mentioned it strongly appears that he sees the appointment of an overseas Judge 'in attempting to resolve Mr Bain's claim for compensation and a step toward achieving finality in the case.' I think this is a compromise decision between the Government and Bain from which both can expect the correct outcome. David Bain has experienced an extraordinary denial of his basic and constitutional rights and I'd suggest that the Government were fully mindful that the very essence of Cabinet's powers in cases of Miscarriages of Justice were on the line to be tested and likely to found wanting in this most unusual case where the highest Court had already ruled that David had been the subject of an 'actual' MOJ.

Simon Power was careful to point out that the decision had been made 'after consultation with Mr Bain's lawyers.' Also relating that in March last year the Minister had ordered his staff to work 'with Bains lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of the claim.' I expect the Minister was no less mindful that any other nzer that the case for compensation is never going to depart until it is satisfied  by a payout.

Broadly speaking there are a range of issues starting from the failure to investigate the motive Robin Bain had to kill his family, to fully comprehend the significant evidence that showed Robin as the killer at the outset, the untimely haste to charge somebody, the withheld evidence and so forth. But that goes further because after the Privy Council decision at the 2nd Trial there was further evidence of efforts to continue the MOJ by the Police. 5 in particular that I can think of now:
1/The evidence of Jones, describing a scientific impossibility as to the colour of blood under a poli-light.
2/The evidence of Jones, describing that skin under deflating pressure rather than flattened sharpened in detail.
3/The lifting of material from the Victorian Scientific Institute by NZ Police under the false 'pretence' of having a Court Order to do so.
4/The bizarre claim by a self-appointed linguist expert as to the contents of the 111 emergency call, something else totally discredited now.
5/The failure by the authorities to stop the activities of hate-sites and their patrons before, during and after the trial endeavouring to influence the public and potentially the Jury with lies about David, including alleged confessions and other pure fantasy from embittered people intent of perverting the course of Justice.

So there is a distinction. The Privy Council ruling that there had been a MOJ, then clear evidence of it continuing until David was acquitted, and in fact after as the record now shows with hate-sites claiming to have confessions, secret evidence and so forth - all of this contributes to the picture of what David Bain endured and for which he now claims for as wrongful conviction and imprisonment. All the consequences are relevant, I think that is something that Minister has taken advice on and determined, while not  a particularly 'rare' case, one nevertheless that has endured the full gambit of the agencies working under the authority of the state to verily set out to destroy an innocent man with all at it's disposal - lawful and unlawful, and being prepared to look away when something should have been done as a rabid pack of persecutors invaded cyber-space in a way that I doubt we will ever see again.

But enough on the hate for now, Justice has prevailed where good men and women feared at first to tread.         

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Kent Parker sings - 'Dont cry for me Argentina.'

Well not quite. But judging by his latest outburst he is tearful and feeling very, very sorry himself. How touching. I heard about his latest 'woe is me' lament and somebody sent it to me this morning. It's already on the internet - so I'll publish it here and follow with some comments for those that can't be bothered going looking or who don't want to visit a hate-site.

Defending the Deceased

I am defending the reputation of a deceased person, Robin Bain, who, in the Bain murder retrial of 2009 was not able to defend himself, and yet had various spurious and opportunistic accusations thrown against him with very little evidence to back them up. I can safely say that I speak on behalf of a number of Justice For Robin Bain (JFRB) members in this respect. It appears that dead people have few rights and that people can say whatever they like about us when we are dead. As far as I know I do not need anyone's permission to represent a dead person; not their family or anyone else; and I can assure you that I do not have any weird beliefs about communicating with people "on the other side". I do this because I want to and because in a democratic society such as ours, I am able to. The number of people who still belong to and actively participate in counterspin and the Justice for Robin Bain group, and their stature and reputations indicate that this is a cause worth pursuing.

The defamation suit that has been served on me, Vic and by proxy, 16 other members of the JFRB group, gives us a distinct venue in which to apply this political advocacy. Without it we would be void of a cause. There are two sides to every argument, and by dint of circumstance, Robin's side of the argument was sorely lacking until Bryan Bruce's incisive documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, was aired in July 2010. It is readily apparent that, despite the action we have taken in response to Karam's defamation suit, he remains keen to press his case, therefore any trial that might ensue from this insistence may provide the crucial opportunity to publicly air the evidence and exonerate Robin Bain. At the same time we may get some case law in place with respect to political discussions on the internet. Since this country is in the top three nations in the world for social liberties I am not expecting any draconian judgments in any great hurry and the process may take some time yet. As it stands we have removed from public exposure all comments cited in Karam's claim except for half or dozen or so.

Politics is full of finger pointing, name calling, allegations and accusations. There are limits, but leeway has to be allowed for healthy and lively democratic expression and involvement, whether by politicians, business people or the general public. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire. Don't pretend that you are mortally offended by other people's opposition to your public standing. Ultimately it will be seen for what it is and you will lose your electorate as a result. Karam's attempt to silence the JFRB group I see as an attempt to prevent his followers from seeing the other side of the story, an action which I believe is entirely undemocratic and which, unless this country suddenly plummets into an elite-centered totalitarianism after the upcoming election, does not carry much credibility. In terms of the reality of the society that we live in on 13 November 2011, it is improper and vexatious (yes, that is an opinion).

Perhaps the best thing that could have happened for Robin Bain is that Karam, the person who publicly vilified him after he was no longer able to defend himself, sued the people who countered his (Karam's) arguments and thus provided the occasion for Robin to finally be vindicated. By suing us he has ensured that opposition to his ideas will not die and he has made himself vulnerable to the Streisand Effect.

Obviously, Parker thinks he is defending a dead person. In what Court, Jurisdiction and on what authority he is doing this 'defending' is hard to establish but he hints that it may well be in his own trial on defamation charges. Unfortunately Kent remains struggling to get the picture that his defamation trial isn't about Robin Bain but rather about defamatory statements Parker made and encouraged others to make about one person in particular, Joe Karam. Simply, Kent can't understand that the Courts are not a soap box from which he can rave about his misconceptions, weep, fall down even, and claim that he was defaming because he was defending a dead man.

On that point Parker continues to be unable to absorb that you don't defend a dead person by defaming a live person. Nor do you defend a dead person by encouraging and taking part in a hate-campaign and you certainly do not defend a dead person by ignoring the results of a trial. A trial in which it was necessary for the Crown to defend the dead person in order to prove that a live person was the perpetrator and not the dead man that had an abundance of forensic proof pointing to his guilt.

Just looking at that guilt for a moment, and the defamatory allegation that Karam ignored the truth in pursuit of victory of his own will, none of the evidence against Robin Bain pointing to his guilt was able to be set aside. That wasn't the 'fault' of karam or anybody else. Forensic proof is exactly what it is, in this case bruised and bloody hands of Robin Bain, a full bladder, no underwear, no porridge on the stove, no shielding of blood spatter from his self-inflicted wound, no scientific explanation of how his dna was sucked into the rifle barell, how an upward trajectory shot was achieved into his head - none of this, despite what Kent might hopefully wish others to believe, had anything at all to do with Karam. That material was gathered from the suicide scene by the police years before Karam came into the picture. Even the allegations of incest against Robin Bain  were made within days of his death. So too reports of his obvious health and behaviour issues. In short, for Parker to believe he may have an 'honest belief' defence he would have to first convince the Court of matters which had already been determined by a Jury, where he would fail on that is that there is firstly the difficulty of revisiting something already confirmed by a Jury, and secondly that even if there were possibly anything arising from the defamatory allegations against Karam  they cannot be countered by already established facts.

Parker continues to misunderstand his role as a publisher, his perceptions on what truth is, and fails to comprehend that our society and law doesn't dismiss lightly law-breaking and excuses for it that imply the victim of the law breaking deserves what has befallen them. Above he says that without the defamation charges that his group 'would be void of a cause,' another demonstration that fails to recognise that any party can have a cause but the minute they begin to lie about their countrymen and women, prey on them with stalking and hate campaigns their 'cause' his already voided because it is illegal. In the same paragraph, desperate Dan Parker, cites as evidence a Television show of untested and rejected pondering that failed to absorb the breadth of evidence against Robin Bain.

Parker continues with 'he (Karam) remains keen to press his case.' Perhaps finally realising that the case will not go away however much Parker squeals and publicly expresses his sorrow for himself. As an outsider I note that he made no noises other than encouraging ones, when his 'follower's stalked and threatened other nzers and used message boards such as Trade Me to spread their hate message and lies. Of course, Trade Me, are also facing defamation charges for failing to stop Parker's crew from publishing defamatory material on TM boards. Use of the words 'followers' is interesting. Parker talks about Karam's 'followers' being blocked from the truth by Karams act of suing. This statement says more about Parker, and his delusional mind, than it does about Karam.

I don't know of Karam having any 'followers' he doesn't have a website, or an organisation such as that of Parker, for all intents and purposes he holds his own counsel. Again Parker misreads that people form an opinion of their own without being 'followers.' He mistakes that a few, not so bright individuals, flocked to Parker's website and stayed for a while, as others retired quickly - realising that Parker's site and campaign was about himself and defamation, stalking and threats were seen as 'collateral' of his campaign. Personally, I didn't form an opinion about the Bain case from reading hate-site messages and other unsubstantiated nonsense, I was always primarily interested in the forensics above. The upward trajectory shot initially, the erroneous claims that David wasn't strip searched with intimate tests being taken and therefore was not a suspect, that Robin didn't have bruised and bloody hands and so it went on, all of that was answered by the evidence - not as Parker would try to manipulate as being from Karam.

Parker says 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.' His use of the word fire rather than the traditional word 'kitchen' is more of his threatening under tone. However, the fact remains that it is obvious that Parker cannot stand the heat in his own kitchen and now blubbers for sympathy, interposing threats and sweeping self rightous statements.

Too late Kent, your kitchen might be on fire but I'm sure Joe Karam's is fully air-conditioned and cool. Try to sweat it out bro, or take my advice offered over a year ago - close up your hate-site and either do a runner or go cap in hand to the man you victimised - while your at it consider what other legal action might becoming your way.

Footnote: Must note here the single piece of evidence that proved Robin as the killer, and David as innocent : the high speed blood splatter going the 'wrong' way found on Robin's shoe, and which was therefore occluded from having come from his own wound. The evidence that put him on the scene of the other killings, as it is accepted all the killings, including Robin's suicide, were carried out by one person using the same rifle in each. Setting aside all else that might seem complicated, this one piece of evidence shows why David should never have been charged and points to another reason why Parker's campaign of hate has failed.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

In who we trust.

A friend sent me the following link as an idea for a blog subject.  ----- essentially a discussion by Richard Wilkinson citing facts as to what most of us understand as the difference between the rich and poor in our societies. Briefly put he says that we have known since before the French Revolution the destructiveness of economic gaps within societies and points out that the difference now is a broad information base that shows without doubt that per capita income relevant to different countries has no bearing on the social gap but rather the income gap within any given society.
Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden have the least disparity and the least social problems, NZ is at the higher end along with the USA. The figures are poor for NZ across all quarters and are completely consistent with one exception that I could see. NZ has a high imprisonment rate, poor welfare of children score, high life expectancy declines at the lower income levels, violence, violence against children and so depressingly it goes along.
The one inconsistency that I observed is that nzers (Kiwis) have a high score of trusting in one another, right out of kilter with all the other findings which should have indicated that within our society trust of one another  would be a rare commodity.
I need to develop some other facts about 'the gap' as it is called before coming back to the trust issue where we kiwis have scored ambiguously high. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker has written a book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' which demonstrates that despite a general anxiety of omniscient violence and hostility the human race is growing gentler and that the past was far nastier. He argues rightly that there are fewer wars and offers 'presentism' (recent or current events) that cause us to reflect that times are more violent, when in fact the past was far more violent and that a great deal of violence was from the hands of the state against its own citizens. Interestingly he comments about the worse periods being times of torture of  Governments against its own citizens which in my opinion is relevant to the USA at this time where in bleak  financial times, and slipping world wide influence they have found torture to be acceptable in some 'circumstances.' Pinker talks about the horror of the Mongol conquests as making pale anything of more recent times, but the real consequences of the Mongol conquests and no doubt other more recent events of colonisation, slavery, etc as dull by not being 'present.'
Another factor that might help understand the gap, Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, is the interview with Chinese poet Liao Yiwu currently in NZ for a writers festival. Liao was imprisoned (one of many times it prevailed) for the 1st time was for writing the poem Massacre following the Chinese Governments crackdown on students in Tiananmen Square. That was a four year stretch followed by others as he continued to write about those at the wrong end of the social gap. Others will have read the article but for the context of this piece I quote him 'The Chinese Government hopes that every Chinese will be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.' Liao, I understand is identifying the gap as being almost a disease of sorts where money is king. Showing perhaps, as did the facts Wilkinson revealed, that the 'gap' becomes an attitude where as Liao puts it people become pigs to a dominant master.
I introduce another voice here from the financial section of today's paper, a piece by Brian Gaynor that identifies what he believes is causing nz to sink. The borrowing to fund entitlement, he was writing about a number of specific issues but in particular how nz 'rewards' from a borrowed purse all superannuates despite that one might be totally impoverished and another rolling in money. He speaks about the lobby groups that grow from Government hands out and the sense of  entitlement with the retirees because of the 'work they've done tax they've paid' (my quote.) Gaynor points out the fiscal strangulation of borrowing now to fund pensions to be available to all, including those who demonstrably need a pension and what this burden is costing new entrants into the workforce. Who, in my opinion, may presumably one day feel entitled that the then government borrow even more money because they're also entitled to a pension when they retire.
Wilkinson was able to show that countries like nz with a wide earnings and wealth gap featured poorly on high imprisonment statistics and argues not necessarily because of more crime but often because of being 'tough' on crime. A call not so strident in this election as perhaps the maturity of some politicians  allows them to admit that a high imprisonment rate is a fiscal and social disaster. Not unexpectedly Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden the consistent winners of a narrow social gap have low imprisonment rates, less severe sentencing regimes and don't, unlike China and the US, execute their own citizens. Pinker points out the remarkable reaction of the Norwegian people in response to the recent massacre there, highlighting their remarkable restraint and 'love bombing' instead of 'real bombing.'
Without digressing too far I note reading of a Mexican Judge who recently dismissed an accused claims of being tortured to confess on the grounds that the confession was 'too detailed.' The unfortunate woman was clearly unable to understand that confessions from under torture can be minutely detailed, they will in fact be exactly what the torturer requires and in the torturers own words.
So we see this co-relation in the countries, where the income gap is wide, of false confessions, a willingness to torture, execute and so forth quoted by Pinker from the 17th Century philosopher John Locke saying of the escape from nature to so-called civilisation why run from pole cats only to be devoured by lions.
So despite all this, and kiwis placed consistently near the bottom of all social evils to befall its citizens why do we trust one another disproportionally to the economic gap. I can't say I know the answer and it may not have been studied yet. But it appears to me to have at least part of its answer in that according to many reports nzers are generally most concerned about children and are horrified by the statistics that rate us so poorly in the world for looking after, protecting and educating our children. That seems to be across the board and within all the cultures that make nz home. Significantly however, odd and flightless bird that we be, we generally respect authority but not through fear, through a type of respect that is probably a nz strength and goes to a core event of the acts of violence Wilkinson was able to demonstrate came from people feeling socially separated, unacceptable or not respected - laughed at or mocked if you like.
We have cultural traditions pacific traditions that many of us may not realise are relevant to a large part of our pacific population, respect for the land, for chiefly leaders and the wise - those of whom we can turn to in our own separate societies (within a large society) for help. In other words people we trust. And perhaps our high ranking of trusting one another has its roots there, that we instinctively (or the majority of us) trust first, give somebody a 'go' until they prove they were not worth giving a go, offer help and seldom expect it by return. But when offered assistance or 'a hand' feel vindicated and uplifted for our beliefs in respect and helping one another whether as an act of kindness or because of being part of a particular pacific, pakeha, european, asian or other culture, or indeed just open to the argument that we each have a duty to one another, not to turn away or take more than our share to the detriment of others. As Liao puts it not 'be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.'
What  can I do? Change the world, I wish. No, all I can do is to continue to help the few people I do help and perhaps help them a little more. Also be reminded of coming closer not further away from others, think of the land, the sky and the water realising that trust is a greater component in this society than distrust.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Baby X, who speaks for her in a life without rights?

Baby X was born in 2009 after some 20 years frozen as a fertilised embryo. Her biological parents Peter and Christie Clark donating the embryo to a childless couple asking by return for openness and continued contact. Unfortunately, and perhaps somewhat naively, accepting the word of baby X's parents that they would be involved in the life of their biological child. Who might not be naive, Peter and Christie had endured many years of being childless, adopted a son Dylan, then later as IVF made it's place in NZ became parents of a natural son Troy. They chose to keep the fertilised embryo of baby X, perhaps for the reason that the embryo of baby X lived in their minds as a child that might yet be born with all the promise of new life from part of themselves. They were no doubt influenced by understanding the experiences of people childless like they themselves had been for 11 years before adopting one son and the later successful birthing of a natural son.

They formed a contract with baby X parents, a childless couple, that captured good faith and a commitment to love they might share from a subtle distance. It was a time of expectation and excitement for both couples, there may have been misunderstandings between them and it was apparent that Peter and Christie were wealthy if but also kind. They may have given the impression of financial benefactors supportive of the couple and the baby, they may have even have imagined some financial control over the relationship.

They speak now about baby X's parents seeking money and agreeing to that before finally shutting the door when becoming concerned that the relationship might have been distorting. Finally, they were served notices excluding them from the baby's life. They discovered soon after, although it being made apparent to them before, that they had consigned all their biological parental rights away when signing  a Donation Consent form. On the surface a complete situation contained in the law - total exclusion from the child's life?

Well yes, that is what they consented to - even though they had a verbal and operating agreement with baby's parents which was exercised for 12 months. A colour of right, an operating agreement - something that could be judged as in the best long term interests of the baby, but regardless a firm basis in law operating that gave baby X no right to know her true identity. It should not be that baby X lives in a information vacuum, not knowing the natural  right of identity because of a Law claiming to determine all that her life might mean before she were ever born, a law that excludes her from knowing her biological parents or anything about them - a situation that placed her without certain rights before she took her first breath.

So who speaks for her, the child? In any other situation, a divorce, separation, eventually even adoption someone, the law, the rights of the child speak, but not for baby X. No one speaks for her, she is unrepresented, a test tube baby whose course in life was determined by contract that she had no part of. Well, shouldn't the  Courts let her speak? Recognising rights in a contract that she is the essential part. Who could claim that a baby's rights were contracted away from her before she was even born. It is clear for humanitarian reasons that she should be represented and her rights should never have been assigned away without someone representing the dialogue of her life. Baby X is real, breathes her own air, someone, by every human right, should speak for her - look to bring all the elements of her family life together in a way representing herself, her best interests at least  until she reaches the age of consent.

Baby X is like the adopted children who once under the law where never allowed to know or contact their birth parents, like the war baby's, and refugee children brought to NZ during and after the 2nd World War and often told their parents were dead when in fact they still lived. In all these cases something is taken from the children, something is assumed about them - that they have lesser rights. Probably we all know adults who've suffered by not knowing they were adopted or that they had birth parents in the world and know the tragedy that can mean to some.

Step in Polynesia, the Pacific way - where children can, and sometimes are, raised by other members of the family, have 2 mums or dads but where the truth is never kept from them. Children that when they become adults can acknowledge all parts of their lives and are accepted no less that any other, children not constrained by a law that keeps the truth from them, children not caught in a dispute between parents that sees part of their lives shut out and takes away from them their basic rights. The lawmakers can be as callous and cold against a child they might never meet, nor understand that is abhorrent to hide the truth from them, hide the essence of who they are in such a way that devalues their existence and rights - a palangi way.

The case of Baby X is important for her and others like her. It surely must be within the law to recognise the contract that operated before it was arbitrarily shut down by one side having enjoyed the fruits of that contract in a financial way for a whole year before retiring behind a second 'contract' that they had ignored to that point. There is little fairness in that, and that they accepted the 'gift' on an embryo on an acknowledged and operative verbal agreement. A situation that reasonable adults, with the help of the Court and Government agencies if necessarily, should be able to resolve, but the gross unfairness is that nobody represents Baby X, or speaks for her until she can speak for herself.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Another nail in Kent and the sister's coffin.

Oh how the hate-siters rejoiced when they were 'vindicated' with the 'news' that  potentially prejudicial evidence had been with held regarding David Bain's 111 emergency call. The evidence of a police 'expert' who miraculously, after more than a decade, heard the words 'I shot the prick' in the tape of the call.

The fact that he was the only idiot to hear it first didn't stop a gaggle of hate-siters wetting themselves in the excitement of 'vindication.' Not one of the morons could connect that a carefully planned murder-suicide would not result in the alleged killer, presenting his 'alibi' for the first time, interspersing it with a mid line 'confession.' To their minds (if they had one) they probably thought it happened all the time. Interesting the linquist experts who conducted tests on the tape found absolutely no evidence that the alleged words were said, backing up the reasons why the 'evidence' was never allowed. Some of the sample group who were told what the words were (auto-suggest,) when informed that no such words were spoken - didn't believe it. But don't worry they were all aussies, either that or ex-pat kiwis on the run from Parker's threats to enjoin them in the proceedings he faces.

Anybody that followed the case, and in particular the physics and forensic evidence of the final death scene would have realised that Robin Bain killed himself and every bit of evidence found in the lounge where he died confirmed that and excluded any other person being present. So even on that basis, the phone call was irrelevant but that didn't stop the hate-siters frothing at the mouth and going off on stalking expeditions because, like part of those in the sample group, they'd heard what they were told to listen for. It rang out loud and clear, because it was what they wanted to hear, it justified the hate they'd poured out on David Bain and Joe Karam for years, a hatred that crossed over to contempt of Court many times throughout the trial and since. Some, like Christine Williams, even offered that she would undertake hanging David if the opportunity was given her. So there you have it, the witches of Salem affect crossed into 'modern' nz and the 'twisted sisters effect' - to hang somebody for a murder (that of Robin Bain) that never happened, based among others things, of words that were never spoken.

Much like the evening the Jury returned the 5 not guilty verdicts, I just feel left cold that the winds of the 17th Century, the burning of 'witches,' 'marks' of the devil, sexual longings and other such travesties has its dark place in modern nz. And so the story of David Bain and Joe Karam changes yet again, another plank from a (very few) nzers of the defamatory hate that besieged them, rots and falls away. Shame on you sisters, shame on all of you.

In another way this 'finding' that police 'experts' will hopefully force the Courts to decide to unconditionally exclude such evidence in future trials where evidence of phone calls, taped conversations, overheard conversations and the like is sought to be introduced in cases where there is no other supporting evidence of what the amateur 'expert' hears, and is only also 'heard' by others once they are 'told' what they will hear. This use of 'experts' has evolved into another way of allowing the police to 'verbal' a suspect or defendant, that is after legislation required conversations to be video and audio recorded to avoid events of the past such as John Hughes 'verballing' another innocent man Arthur Thomas.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Scott Watson - unfortunate bad news?

The Herald on Sunday has reported that it is understood that Scott's plea for clemency 'must' fail because Kirsty McDonald investigation has uncovered no 'new' evidence. Rodney Hide spoke to both the Herald on Sunday and on Radio Live about his disappointment that Simon Power hadn't acted on what is recognised as a travesty of Justice. Plaudits to Rodney for that.

The idea that failed or disproved evidence doesn't constitute new evidence seems to be an aberration that a conviction can still 'hold' when there was so much that Jury couldn't consider because it wasn't before them, such as the fact that witnesses recanted on evidence that was persuasive and offered under inducement, and so many leads were dismissed without investigation.  False or recanted evidence that on 1st consideration fully imposed a troubling picture of Scott Watson, a false picture that remains and ought to have been erased either by a pardon or by a re-trial where the truth would be told and untruthful evidence excluded.

Then for students of the elements of a miscarriage of Justice is the more publicly recognised knowledge now that there was a deliberate campaign to blacken the name of Scott Watson by investigators long before the trial and a exclusion of evidence or investigation into leads that might have steered the investigation away from Rob Pope's target - Scott Watson. And that campaign is borne out now that more of the case is public and understood by the fact that highly prejudicial evidence offered by prison inmates in exchange for deals with the police has failed the test of time and credibility.

I hope these portents are wrong, just as I know the Royal Prerogative for Mercy is most often ineffectual and wrong and misplaces the course of Justice from the Courts into hands of transient politicians who might seen as concerned with the winds of what public reactions or favour might bear upon any decision they make. Fairness and Justice cannot rely on 'gut instinct' policing that utilises propaganda, excludes evidence, recanted evidence, laid out to be picked over at length by a lawyer who can see nothing new in failed evidence.

If the worst prospect is realised I hope Greg King will seek a review of the Minister's decision, all guns blazing.  If the recanted evidence was of no value then why was it ever called and who but the Jury could have determined the weight originally given to it in their deliberations. It was the icing on the cake, the ultimate prejudicial arrow to allow a jury to be disgusted and convict despite other evidence harbouring doubt falling short.