http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7092030/Judge-to-talk-to-David-Bain
Fantastic news here for David. His opportunity to speak freely about the effect of his false imprisonment on him, his dealings with the police and Crown over the many years since 1994. Van Beynan tries to blow some wind into the arrangement but even he must acknowledge the significance of Justice Binnie deciding to interview David. Despite what the hate-siters have said for years there are no 'curly' questions for David to answer because the forensic evidence showing his innocence is complete and always was had the investigation been up to scratch and open minded.
On the other hand the request to interview former Detectives Weir and Doyle is significant. There may possible be issues as to self-incrimination which could see them refuse to be interviewed and the inquiry and the public will make of that what they will. I've been very hopeful about this inquiry looking into revealing what went wrong with the Bain investigation and the conduct of Weir, Doyle and others. They will not be happy men, but it is difficult to feel any pity for them as they were pitiless in never investigating Robin Bain, even showing public hatred towards David in Weir's case. There is an under leaf that is in the public interest to be turned over in this case, detectives recording times but not reporting inaccuracies of time on their watches, detectives suddenly 'remembering' events years later that were detrimental to David, the placing of glasses on a chair that were suddenly 'remembered' to have been asked for even though they were on no use to anybody. The witnesses Sanderson and Laney who were lied to when they were told their evidence would be 'corrected' though it never was.
I'd like to know why Weir suddenly became a 'searcher' when he was OIC of exhibits and why his 'search' took place after hours. Why Doyle had no questions how the lens could have been found 'despite' as in the case of the shell in Crewe garden, having been thoroughly searched before. I'd also like to know how Laniet's electronic diary disappeared while in care of Weir as attested to by another witness. Equally, if that diary was why the Crown pathologist Dr Dempster was kept from the scene for many important hours. Also, if that diary showed that the allegations that members of the investigating team had indeed been 'clients' of one of the deceased. It would be helpful for Doyle to explain how he would 'know' that the results of forensic tests would not exculpate David, but charged him anyway. I'd like to know why there was so much haste, why Robin's hands weren't bagged at the outset, why police walked through the entire house that had blood on the walls and floor. It would be helpful to understand why the 'paper run' alibi was 'bolstered' with lies, confusion and omission. My list could go on for a long time, but I'm sure it will not near match the acute reasoning and questioning that has resulted in this move by Justice Binnie, to what seems to me, look behind the formula of a blatant Miscarriage of Justice.
I called for Weir to come clean, clear the air. Maybe he will now or maybe he will be silent. But things are surely not over for he, Doyle and others. Those still involved in the police that were on this case may well see themselves interviewed officially by Justice Binnie or from within the Police. The country still drags around the horror of what happened to Arthur and the horrible way the late Vivian was treated - yet I think we see here that this stone won't be left unturned and that, is for the good of this country.
Except that this is not a public inquiry as it ought to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Bazley inquiry into the corruption down in Dunedin in the 80s and 90s was lacking the impact it should have had because the conduct of those involved could be classified as a performance issue and thus 'addressed' privately, away from public scrutiny and knowledge; and what was left was insipid. While it is hugely important for the functioning of society that we, 'the public', maintain confidence in the police and the criminal justice system, surely we are not such idiots that we can't know that individuals can be wrong and single apples bad without it meaning the whole barrel is rotten? But rotten apples will spread their rottenness if hidden behind and among the good apples.
If Binnie finds that David should get compensation, will the hard questions be asked? Will there be a public inquiry? Will the system and the way it was subject to scrutiny only by itself be criticised and lessons learned from it? Will the role of the media and the apparent manipulation of the media by the police be examined and questioned? Will we - our society - learn and improve from this?
Somehow I doubt it. Politics (governmental and organisational) will no doubt take over, and people will be protecting their own power and positions, and things will continue as they did. We didn't learn from AAT. We didn't learn from Peter Ellis. Scott Watson is still trying to get heard. These people along with David are martyrs, who have given their lives, or large parts of them, to an ignoble cause: maintaining a myth of a 'clean' system. Tamihere, Lundy, Barlow and more... there are questions about the safety of their convictions, and those questions sound louder because we know the 'system' is questionable.
Why do we not insist that the myth should be a reality? Why do we not insist that those who work for us - the public servants, the politicians, the police - prove, beyond reasonable doubt, their own innocence? Prove that they are worthy of our trust?
Naivete or apathy? Or simply selfishness: that until it touches our own lives directly, we do not care?
We do not care, because until it breaches us personal, or touches the lives of someone we love, we have no reason to absorb what is happening in our justice system, and in the 'brotherhood' of our police force. We have become a selfish species, and despite our vast technicological advancements, a stupid one.
DeleteThere are new police (those who have joined the force since AAT's conviction) that will swear on the bible he was guilty. When you ask them to explain it is simple - police do not lie - but we know they do. We know that your 'class', your ethnicity, and your 'power' all effects whether you will be arrested, and if so, convicted. It effects the degree of the charges, the courts handling, and the punishment.
Whether Wishart was right or not in his book regarding the Crewe murders, the one thing he did get right was the corrupt and inadequate practices of the police. Their ability to be one-eyed, to protect their own interests, and if necessary "fake it till they make it".
I would like to think they had learned. That when Ms Collins reluctantly had a bit of a sort out, the rot was gone. Unfortunately that is not so, like rust, it festers, and still bubbles away under the surface. I fear in the Ewen Macdonald case we are witnessing the same spirit. The police had no idea, so the looked at what they had, and found the best 'fit'. As anyone that buys shoes will tell you, making do with something that can be made to fit, will cause nothing but pain eventually.
We have the evidence, but our problem is we cannot make it fit in a nice neat box. It is spread through generations of convictions. When, and if, someone finally puts it altogether, it will rock the very foundations of our police and judicial system. Until then, god save us, because those charged with the task of protecting us, are the ones who also have the ability to destroy us, without cause.
I'm looking at it like this. This type of inquiry into compensation is a big step forward for David and for the country. I anticipate that there will be a pay out, in itself the pay out will vindicate David and damn the prosecution. Included in the report may be recommendations about a fuller inquiry or even an investigation into the original inquiry and subsequent behaviour of some of the investigators.
ReplyDeleteEqually, and by no co-incidence, a strategic propaganda campaign was waged on the internet which is still currently being picked to bits. It may be frustrating in one sense but there is a lot of movement forward here. The Government may be compelled or inclined to act on any recommendations and we may see changes both in investigations and 'neutrality' of evidence. There may even be comment about the hate-sites and the way they were utilised.
In all good faith it seems time to wait for the outcome of Binnie's findings and what follows from that. I'm still anticipating a clear and concise picture of what went wrong to be arrived at. With pressure remaining on the Thomas case it will be more difficult for the powers that be to ignore any negative findings or conclusions about the investigation in this more contemporary case. The clichéd 'times have moved on and things have improved' will be a hard line to swallow taking into account the retrial was only a few short years ago and all the 'potential villains' remain.