Teina Pora: liar liar, pants on fire.

I've written about Teina Pora before here under 'Teina Pora 20 years for being a liar'. He was the 17 year old that tried to collect a reward for the Susan Burdett murder by dropping senior Mongrel Mob members in it as the culprits. He was a junior or associate of the Mob but not bright enough to connect that he would not only need substantial proof but that if he was successful and gained the $20,000 prize his life and that of his family would forever be changed. Indeed, he probably brought significant trouble to his family and friends in the gangland depths of South Auckland. Not to forget that he has now served 20 years of a life sentence, in the backyard of the Mob - prison. So he ran 2 risks, that of trouble brought to himself or family for 'narking' on the mob, being stupid enough to 'assist' the police in a manner which ultimately saw him convicted of a crime in partnership with a known rapist whom I have no known reliable confirmation ever met the youth. - then having to be placed in prisons with high population of mob members, being the 3rd and added risk which resulted from his dim-wittedness. You could call that his 3rd strike.

We have to look past the fact that Pora couldn't even find the right street when showing police where he attended the rape and murder as some kind of look out. Then when shown the street he couldn't find the right house. Any problems emerging? Anything to say hold on this can't be right? But placing himself there, both eyes on the reward, and none on common sense changing his story in order to 'help' the detectives, and in order to get the reward. At subsequent Court hearings and at Pora's 2nd trial the focus was not only on his reliability as witness even against himself but getting him placed with the serial rapist Rewa whose semen had been located on the body of Susan Burdett, evidence which emerged 2 years after Pora's first conviction of the murder. Evidence, which was alone strong enough to have an a retrial ordered, and more rightly has time has shown to have the charge thrown out completely. The Court was critical of the police 'selection' from the many statements of Pora of what was correct and which wasn't, obviously anything that self-incriminated Pora was acceptable to the police and that which did not was a lie. Game set and match and own goal for Judicial reasoning to let any of the evidence go ahead, when the semen was from a 'lone wolf' rapist with no history of operating with others? Has to be. But no Rewa denied murder but claimed a 'relationship' with Burdett, still he was found guilty of the rape but not the murder. He was believed and not believed by the jury, he didn't kill her he 'merely' raped Susan. I think if you wonder why that could be was because the Jury might not have understandably been unable to differentiate between the truth of what Pora had said and that which was lies, in my book too dangerous to go ahead with without strong supporting evidence. That is even before seeing how the police 'linked' the 40 year old serial rapist and the 17 year old dysfunctional kid - yes, prison informants. Any worry there?

I can think of a couple, inducements for one. Also that in a city of 1 million people the man and the boy were never placed together by witnesses who might have nothing to gain, or by forensic proof, even Pora didn't say that he was with Rewa. He instead chose to say he was with the senior mob members, his bros. So on this occasion Pora was lying, covering up for a gang member from a rival gang. A little disturbing to anyone? Well, think about those prison informers, put aside that they might not simply be liars, or wanting to get out of prison early or any other inducement, but why Pora would be telling them the 'truth' when the 'truth' he told in the beginning was not, in his beleaguered mind, to incriminate himself but to incriminate mob members.

So there are a lot of variables and a few constants: the later being no forensic proof linking Pora to the murder scene, no plausible explanation why he would be out 'raping' with a 40 year old serial rapist who was profiled as always working alone, no reason why he wouldn't have known the house in his own neighbourhood or even the street. All bad enough before Dr Gudjonsson, a world leading expert of false confession says: 'I have no confidence in the self-incriminating admissions he (Pora) made about his alleged witnessing and participation in the rape and murder of Ms Burdett.' This disclosed in an 80 page report forming part of an application by Pora for an exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. This adds to concerns raised by 2 former detectives about the case, one of whom profiled and helped find the lone rapist Rewa.

But over20 years has gone since the day Pora couldn't find the correct street or house where alleged witnessing the crime for which he had applied for the reward. 20 years and now he is nearing 40 years old and still in prison because of, on the arguments of many, not only a false conviction but because he presents a difficult case for parole. How do these things happen. How does a Court overlook the danger of dealing with Walter Mitty like characters, if not in the beginning but when the case becomes farce,  the real rapist and killer identified, the alleged rapists and killers exonerated, the 17 year old fantasist identified as being a 'plausible' liar when it suits the Crown with an implausible murder scenario and at all other times just a straight out liar.