That person whose name I forget.

I think he's forgotten his own name as well.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/brian-rudman-on-auckland/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502866&objectid=10851995

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/8036164/Editorial-An-unseemly-backtrack

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/8036580/Bain-compensation-a-tough-decision

Looking at the first two links above compared to the third by The Press there is a noticeable lack of objectivity that is similar to the person whose name I can't remember but who could likely be the 'unknown' author of this opinion piece that I'm likely to complain to the Press Council about in the future. When I use the word similar, the 'award winning' reporter of the Bain case also had a distinct ability to miss important things out and to generally  be seen as anti David Bain without editorial fear or favour.

Some will remember that he was the expert that forgot to tell the NZ public that David Bain was strip searched on the morning of the murders and no recently bleeding injuries were noted by the police Doctor and certainly no injuries to his chest. In fact the award winner writer went onto take purchase of 'unexplained scratches' on David's chest to imply his guilt, never once to my knowledge admitting that they couldn't have possibly have been contemporaneous with the murders because they simply were not there when Dr Pryde examined David. Nor did the mystery man tell us that David had invasive swabs taken as would be routine in finding a survivor in a house with 3 dead women, two in fact being teenagers. Of course in award winning fashion the journo forgot to tell the public if Robin had the same types of test which one would assume were an absolutely necessity. But just as this journo ignored the fact that gun residue tests weren't taken from either man it seemed the direction was set at the outset to starve the public of the truth but feed them absolute untruths such as 'scratches from the fight with Stephen,' 'fingerprints in blood on the rifle' that David said he hated his father.

So attractive to the reporter was that last prejudicial lie that he could not but help ask David at the Perth International Justice Conference why he had said he hated his father. Look and see, that what David actually said in response to a question from a detective was 'that he would hate is father if it proved true that he had killed the family.' Objective and balanced reporting or something from a reserve of hate and willingness to spread lies about a falsely imprisoned man. I know what I think, and the answer isn't difficult. But perhaps what is now difficult is for the award winner to put his name to his continued attacks against Bain, particularly now that he has been 'outed.' Not only for his reporting but for Jury stalking, the result of one Juror complaining to the police of being harassed by him. The unknown author calls the compensation a 'tough issue,' which, if he is the person who unreliably reported the evidence, is entirely true because he put his reputation on proclaiming Bain's guilt and tailoring his reporting to suit. Tough? Well tough bikkies I say.

As can be see by the first 2 links and various others which are abroad there is a lot of dissatisfaction on the Minister apparently ignoring a report and looking for another that might suit her 'needs.' I still don't think that is the case, I think she is under pressure from within her own Department for potential statements within the report to be 'unfair' in that the worried folks don't have a chance to reply. It could go further than that, it might be that the comments would in fact be sub judice on the basis that charges might follow and the prospective defendant's argue that their right to justice and fairness would be prejudiced. Unless the Crown is sued and a private settlement is reached, the public should, as the Minister has indicated, see the report, and by assumption the second as well. On the other hand Hutton was afforded no such protection when he was named as the evidence planter in the Thomas case in the late 1970s so I could be wide of the mark.

On the question of suing the Crown, Susan Couch has had a remarkable victory, no doubt at great personal cost, in finally prevailing over the Justice Department who now wish to settle with her to 'save money.' She of course sued the Justice Department for their lack of due care in supervising a parolee, allowing him to work in a situation where he presented a danger and in fact killed 3 of her workmates and all but killed Susan herself. It's a significant and common sense victory, soured a little by the fact the Crown fought long and hard against Ms Couch in a 10 year battle to have accountability of the Crown recognised. In many ways the victory will go beyond Susan, and again in my disrespect of the idea that The Crown should ever be involved in judging itself, we've seen the Courts as the best place for impartial and progressive Judgement by an independent Judiciary.

At a time when the Judiciary have been under undue pressure, and a sitting target for those that don't understand their role I see it as a step forward that Judiciary allowed Susan Couch to sue The Crown. The warning goes out that a Government who holds each of us responsible for what we do or don't do now is on notice that they own what the do or omit to do, not just by Judicial Review but by tort for damages. In the meantime among all the speculation about the Bain case a step closer has come for David Bain to sue for remedy.