Does the Commissioner of Police condone Miscarriages of Justice?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871565

Another interesting aspect here of the similarity and dis-similarity of how police administration deal with Miscarriages of Justice. As the link above shows a profiler is warned, properly it would appears by selective use of conditions placed on his past employment, for speaking out on his concerns at the lack of safety of the conviction for murder of Teina Pora. He cites his conclusion that the killer of Susan Burdett was Rewa, the convicted 'lone wolf' rapist whose dna was found at the scene of Susan's death. As an ex police officer, and current civilian police employee, he was told to, well, effectively shut up, on the subject of his belief that Teina Pora is an innocent man in prison, convicted of the crime that all logic provides was committed by the hunting rapist Malcolm Rewa.

Contrast this 'speaking out' warning compared to the case of David Bain, a man once found guilty of five murders, freed on bail as the result of a finding of an 'actual' Miscarriage of Justice and then found not guilty at a retrial. Later, as is to be considered in the High Court later this year, found to be innocent on the balance of probabilities of the crimes of which he was once falsely accused. In the Bain case there has been a running commentary for over 3 years of 'evidence' and 'opinion's of ex police and current police officers. By in large these have all come from hate-siters. 'People' who have bragged on line about who they have contacted, ex Detective Weir for example, and report what they claim they were told. On every occasion what was 'claimed' and recorded as having been said was information that pointed, falsely, to David's guilt. There has been one particular hate-site administrator who has been 'divulging' on line 'conversations had with ex and current police and other witnesses as 'he' goes about reconstructing a case against David, a case at odds with both the truth and facts.

So just to be clear, in the Pora case ex police are warned to silence for speaking out about their concerns as to the obvious innocence of Teina. While conversely, alleged 'leaks' from police or ex police against David are allowed by the police hierarchy to go unanswered. It's a clear demonstration that the Police Commissioner's office objects to opinion that Pora is guilty but has none what so ever in it's campaign to continue to 'prove' that Bain is guilty. Fair and measured, equitable even? Don't think so.

Teina Pora what's going on?

I've written about this case a few times, knowing the bones of why it is a Miscarriage of Justice but seeing the interviews recorded on video as shown on TV3 last night was surreal. It may not be the first time in NZ history that an 'offender' when showing police a crime scene was unable to find it, but it would be a struggle to find another case where the 'offender' actually had to be shown the scene by the police. Retired Detective Sergeant Rutherford showed in that moment that he had lost perspective of being an investigator and simply wanted to wrap up a case that had been dragging on for 12 months. Anybody suspect would do, in fact Teina Pora must have appeared like a dream come true because he was fully co-operating in his own demise, totally unaware that rather than outsmarting police to get a reward he was preparing himself for decades in prison for a crime he hadn't committed.

Would a reasonable conclusion have been to Rutherford, or anybody, that Pora was simply lying and that because of his youth he needed to speak to a lawyer? Or is it the case that Rutherford was willing to over look all and simply lay a charge against the compliant teen who was already freely admitting (although not realising doing so) that he had been a party to rape and murder. Why did Rutherford break the rules and hold Pora without charge and without seeing a lawyer. Indications are that what Pora didn't know about the crime he had 'committed' that Rutherford would tell him. Rutherford didn't hear alarm bells ringing when Pora couldn't find his way back to the crime scene, was implicating others, didn't have a good description of Susan Burdett, was clearly 'slow, unaware that he was talking himself into a life sentence when in fact he thought there was going to be a reward for him in return for the convincing story he had invented. He didn't hear them because he didn't want to hear them.

I don't know the details but it seems that anything Pora  had offered was said with an inducement (the reward)  in mind and therefore was unreliable against himself or anyone else, another reason to insist he took legal advice. There was something exposed about Rutherford from the first minute of the interview, he claimed to be just 'sitting in' on the interview or  similar, but it soon became clear that he wanted Pora to know that he was the 'boss' in charge of the whole investigation. Clearly, that was setting the tone. However, Pora had been involved with Mongrel Mob he would have known there is a boss and what he says goes or some 'trouble' is going to happen. Rutherford would know the style and one opinion could be that he was impressing on the boy, that he Rutherford was the boss, others did what he told them, it was his turf and Pora would do the same - when dealing with 'natives' talk the same language, make them understand nobody walks out the door alive or gets a reward unless the 'boss' says so.

I hate to use a cliche but would any child/teenager from a leafy Auckland suburb be held incommunicado for 5 days, his freedom taken and not be allowed to speak to a lawyer. He needed to speak to a lawyer then to give this case credibility. It has none because it is a complete and utter frame up of a black, not so bright boy, from the mean streets of South Auckland - Rutherford knows that and the Minister of Justice and Commissioner of Police must also know that. They all know correct procedure attending any investigation and in particular one featuring a child/youth. The minute Rutherford diverted from correct procedure and the law the case against Pora was over, yet here we see that he has been imprison for over 2 decades, so the Courts have brought into it. I know there might circumstances where minor infractions of 'due process' could possibly be overlooked because of features of clear guilt, intention or lack of intention by investigating staff and so on, but this case there was a clear and sustained attack against due process from which the Crown ought to have been allowed no recovery.

That point is of course just relating to those many days when Pora was denied his rights, a time far earlier than when it became clear that Malcom Rewa was the killer and rapist of Ms Burdett. This case didn't go from bad to worse when Rewa's dna was identified as being on the body of Susan, it went to catastrophe and my mind boggles how anybody could be convinced by the defence that the lone rapist Rewa was having a relationship with Susan. Somebody needs to get real, she was one of his 28 or so victims and was convicted of her rape. He may have denied her murder and in fact been found not guilty on it but I ask why Rutherford, the police or The Crown simply didn't withdraw the charge against Pora, making it clear to the Jury that the Crown conceded that Rewa had acted alone, just as he had done in all his other rapes. Getting murky? Consider then that not only did The Crown not accept that Rutherford had railroaded Pora but they were prepared to accept the evidence of stool pigeons who were paid to give evidence that put Pora and Rewa together. When they did that, they were effectively co-operating in the commission of Rewa's false alibi, that he'd had consensual sex with his victim and that somebody 'else' had killed her.

I didn't know that the TV3 show was coming up until told yesterday about it. Recently however I had been thinking about Malcolm Rewa, or 'hammer' as he was known in his 'gang days.' Thinking about what a gutless wonder he was and still is. He knows that Pora didn't commit the murder, he knows he could tell the truth and it would make little difference to the fact that he will probably never get released from prison, but that it might help him in some way to have been seen to having admitted his offending and having at least the guts to help a man who has suffered for 20 years over a crime he didn't commit. Shouldn't Crown Law be speaking to him? Of course it should, but by the decision to keep Pora locked up when it became clear that Rewa was not only the rapist of Susan but that there was enough evidence to charge him with murder placed Rewa and The Crown in the same boat, one now that somebody must take the lead and get The Crown out of that boat.

Make no mistake, Rewa might have been the killer of Burdett - and without a doubt if charges against Teina had of been dropped when that DNA was found Rewa had a far greater chance of being convicted in the clearer waters that would have existed had The Crown not started paying for evidence. Where does that leave Rutherford, well if Rewa not only raped Burdett but also killed her, as evidence shows, then Rutherford effectively killed Rewa when he denied the boy due process and didn't have the guts to admit it when it became clear as day who the killer was.

I've got more to say about this case and the way it has been dealt with, and the way it is being dealt with now. I'll leave that for another time.

Collins versus Bain: Time for Compromise.?

A few weeks have past since David Bain sought a Judicial Review of the handling of his application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. In that time the Minister has released various communications under the Official Information Act which includes police submissions regarding the content of the Binnie report. In reading those submissions two thing becomes apparently clear, the first thing is the ambiguous position police have to take following acceptance by The Crown of the suicide features shown in the death of Robin Bain. To me it is a major concession from which there is no real chance of 'escape' by The Crown. Secondly that ambiguous position is 'supported' in the police submission with 'facts' that simply don't matter to the overall merit of the Binnie report.

I'll list a few here, para 18 that Binnie declined to interview David's first counsel Micheal Guest. While that is true it takes the case no further ahead for The Crown. Ian Binnie addressed the situation with Micheal Guest in some detail pointing out that the issue was resolved by the 2003 COA judgement which determined that Margaret Bain's glasses were not shown to have been worn during the killing spree. That was independently offered in evidence by Sanderson who didn't think the 'mystery' lens had been recently used. Nevertheless, the argument goes to credibility of David Bain. Ian Binnie said that he believed that David had worn the glasses the weekend preceding the killings whilst David said he had not - raising a question of credibility, but not significant enough to overcome a finding of innocence on the BOP. Anybody with normal experiences in life would assume that David, who had co-operated fully with police at the outset - even submitting to a strip search before he was charged or had spoken to a lawyer, might well have seen the way the wind was blowing, that he was being 'framed.' For him to remain 'truthful' about the lens after that point might have had nothing to do with 'truthfulness' and everything to do with trying to survive what became ruled as a Actual Miscarriage of Justice. Evened out, the glasses mean nothing, they didn't put the blood on Robin's palms, nor did they figure in the close contact upward shot The Crown have since said were characteristics associated with suicide.

The police in para 32 take exception to the view that  it would be 'remarkable' that David would incriminate himself by saying he was the only one with access to the trigger lock key. The Privy Council held that view and a compensation application ought not to be a review of a Privy Council decision. In para 48 the police object to luminol evidence regarding footprints in the murder scene, however that contrasts with the reality that the evidence was fine with police at a point when Robin's feet had been 'measured' by actually measuring one of his old socks and not his foot, again something already litigated. In para 54 the police take contest with a claim they 'rushed' to Judgement on the case, the facts are that the public know that David was charged before the forensic test results of early samples and specimens were finalised, while indeed it is also widely known that police didn't bother investigating the no 1 suspect's alleged motive, test the red 'material' found under his nails or the blood on his hands - that's rushing toward a desired result in anyone's language and not something which will ever advance the police case. In para 85 they point out that Binnie said that Stephen was shot 3 times in the head and that is wrong, of course it is. However, it doesn't advance the case one way or another. In para 90 the police make a truly ambiguous statement that it is likely that other family members knew the location of the rifle and ammunition, that claim doesn't help the Crown at all nor does it diminish the Binnie report - particularly after the fact that 'only David knew' where the trigger-lock key was, a mainstay of the police case for 15 years. Something is also made of the 'newspaper' evidence, who brought it  in David or Robin, again a point that either way doesn't diminish a finding of innocent.

Para 171, was a new revelation to me, or one that I must have overlooked - that the Crown discarded it's position that David called the 'family meeting.' Something else significant in the MOJ that David 'got' the family together in order to kill them all. Herein The Crown and police are at odds, yet it is The Crown who prosecute, not the police. In para 326 the police submit rightfully that the witness Kleintjes was not a police employer - really hard to understand why such mundane and unimportant issues are raised. In para 512 police take exception with Binnie's finding that police prematurely destroyed evidence, yet that was evidence given by their own ex police member, Doyle, who admitted destroying samples without notifying the defence, yet in another instance in the same case did so. Little point in labouring the obvious there as in paras 530 - 533 where once again police attempt to make a case that David wasn't a suspect, despite that he was under guard and stripped searched looking for injuries, tested for recent sexual activity and so on flogging a dead horse. Of course they say soon afterwards in para 535 - 539 that David's examination was 'thorough.' So the police objections contradict themselves, and from another point of view make a lie of the hate-siters claims that David wasn't searched or that he wasn't properly searched.

I've already written about The Minister's objections to not releasing the Binnie report because of the claim that various people might have wanted to object or even have it reviewed. We now know that to this point none of that has happened despite the Minister releasing the report. On that matter there are several Crown witnesses who would possibly fall into that catagory: Jones, Hentschel and others, yet the problem for the Minister's objection remain - that these witnesses gave evidence in public and the evidence and cross examinations are all public records, not something 'new' and otherwise, but for the report would be unknown.

In summary there is nothing in the police submission that couldn't have been resolved under 'best practice.' What has been 'best practice' in the Binnie report until it was filed? Keeping all parties in the loop, informed and able to raise any matters what so ever. It's fairly clear to me that The Crown themselves were in the best position to deal with a number of the matters raised by police, arguing for the removal of some and proceeding with a resulting list sent on to the Minister, Binnie and defence with a view that they be arbitrated in some way. At the very least for matters not able to be agreed upon, police might well have been satisfied that some of their objections were included in the report whether accepted by The Minister, The Crown, Binnie or the defence, or even accepted by some and not others. I'm writing about being pragmatic, looking to have had meetings called which were necessarily attended by all parties - even the issue raised about Binnie's approach (which from all the correspondence between he and Simon Power) looks to have been exactly on track. Such objections, perhaps tasked by The Crown or by The Minister could, and should have, been resolved again with all parties involved.

What begins to get lost are the basic points of the case, the lounge in Every Street on the morning Robin's body was found there. The plain evidence showing in that scene and on his body, the methodology used by Binnie in weighing up the evidence, then stepping back and taking in the overall picture, not who was in the police and who wasn't. Something following The Crown's concessions, that Robin may have turned the computer on, that Robin's body and wounds had characteristics of suicide, that David hadn't called a meeting to get the family together, should have worked upon. This has been a 20 year conflict and needs to be resolved, The Crown have moved, I'm sure current police can be moved on from the objections raised about the investigation that took place nearly 2 decades ago. The Bain case is more fully understood than it has ever been yet still evidence of the probability of Robin's guilt and David's innocence continues to come to light, that's the way it is and will always be. It think the High Court will at the very least recommend (whether or not it can make an order remains unclear) further dialogue between the parties with a view to settling without disturbing Binnie's approach or reasoning. Of course there is a whole range of constitutional restraints and freedoms given life by David's application for Judicial Review whether they take full breath in this application, isn't really the point (and certainly can't expected to be as a point to be 'made' by David Bain) but the fact will remain, yes they do breath in our Law now.

Retired Det Sergeant Doyle's interview with Binnie

This interview has been in the public domain for a few months now and reveals some extraordinary information about the Bain case from new perspectives. Page 53.


Police don't tend to look at the motive if it's not clearly there as an issue. I n
this particu lar case , n o . I don't think at any stage we looked for a motive for
David killing his fam i ly. I think that to be very fair, I think the approach that we
p robably had taken at that point in time was that this was a you n g man who,
for whatever reason, had snapped and I know that myself and p robably a lot
20 of other police officers would have dearly hoped that there had been some
med ical condition become evident that wou ld have explained it but, aside from
that, no there was no q uestion of tryi ng to p u rsue a motive and I , I think in this
sort of a situation you'd never, ever be able to ascerta in what a motive wou ld
be.
25


Doyle is clearly saying that he 'dearly hoped' there was a 'medical condition' that made David 'snap.' On the surface that, I gather, would explain what happened and put everything in order in Doyle's mind - David had a medical condition but the fact he didn't wasn't necessary. But taking into account that David wasn't initially claimed to be a suspect that left only one person and I wonder why Doyle wasn't therefore hoping Robin had a 'medical condition' and why that was never investigated at the outset. Particularly so after police were told about the incest allegations. 'Hoping' for a medical condition seems incomparable to not investigating the prime suspect, as Robin was, at least according to Doyle, in the early days of the inquiry. Of course when looking for firm ground from the man ostensibly leading the investigation it might have been expected he would have reasons to subjecting the surviving victim to an intrusive strip search within hours of being sensitive to such an extent that he didn't test David for GSR. There are sharp conflicts in what Doyle says, and what is known to have happened.

David was being held under guard from the time police arrived. He was rightfully being treated as a suspect, it was clear that if it wasn't 'suicide murder' as it appeared to be then it was murder and David was the suspect. Taking into account that even 2 decades later nothing has changed from the morning the police arrived at the Bain household, it still holds true that it was one man or the other. Trying to pretend David was not a suspect but yet that he was under guard and strip searched is a frustrating observation. I'm surprised that Doyle continues with that theme all these years later. The invasive search was for clear reasons, that there might have been a sexual content to the murder of 3 women. The specific strip search was looking for injuries and the body chart was filled out in the prescribed manner. The police in their letter to the Minister para 535 - 539 regarding the Binnie report confirms that the examination (strip search) was thorough. A deflation for the hate-siters that have said firstly that the search never happened then later that it was limited, the police themselves say it was thorough and clearly imply they thought Binnie was offended by the fact a strip search took place and yet they were merely doing their job properly.

So accepting that the search was thorough and invasive why does Doyle feel the need to continue the theme that David was not a suspect. I can only think of one obvious reason, by Doyle claiming that David wasn't a suspect (when in fact he had to be as a survivor in a house of the dead) that it places an emphasis on David's 'guilt.' Or, 'at first we thought it was Robin (even though he was investigated) but then we discovered it was David.' About as persuasive as the 'paper run' alibi. I wonder if it ever occurred to Doyle that because there'd been a fight that the 'suspect' was likely to have blood on his hands or at least damage to his hands. Pryde reported that there was none to David on day 1 and Robin's body showed both damage and blood. I wonder how that could have been ignored by Doyle if Robin was the suspect and David 'wasn't.'


B I N N I E J :
And what I 'm talking about i s not the container that went back to the
(ina u d i b le 1 3 : 3 5 : 1 7) but I'm speaking of the samp les that were refrigerated?
MR DOYLE:
I appreciate that.
B I N N I E J :
25 And I don't believe that the destruction of those sam p les was the subject of a
letter to defence counse l .
30
MR DOYLE :
No i t wasn't.
B I N N I E J :
And therefore you wouldn't - h e had n't been i n touch with you about it, by the
same toke n , you had n't been i n touch with him to say, look, we have -

and earlier:


B I N N I E J :
You see what concerned m e i s that the rules for appeal to the P rivy Council
seem to be q u ite flexible that you can't look at a calendar and say, right the
d ate for seeking leave from the Privy Council h as passed therefore the case is
DOYLE J O Le I NTERV I EW (1 9 J uly 201 2)
6 1
done, because they like to retain flexibility a s to whether they take appeals.
So that the o n ly way of determ i n i ng whether the matter would go to the
Privy Council wou l d be by contacting d efence cou nsel .
5 M R DOYLE:
At that stage , Sir, no ind ication had been g iven to us that the matter was going
past the New Zealand Court of Appeal. To that end , I had put it in writing to
the defence counsel of our i ntentions of dealing with the exh ibits notwith -
1 0 B I N N I E J :
Well , you put it - I th ink you put i n writing that you were dealing with a
container of stuff -
MR DOYLE:
1 5 Absolutely.
20


M R DOYLE:
1 5 It never happened , probably because it's not the normal process of the way
tria ls or post-trial i n my, my experience post-trial p rocesses. I 've neve r been
i nvolved in a trial that, in a case that had gone to P rivy Council from reca l l and
so once it had gone to the New Zealand Court of Appeal that seemed to be
the end of the matter for us.
20
BINNIE J :
But you were aware there was a potential for a n appeal -
M R DOYLE:
25 N o .
B I N N I E J :
- to the P rivy Council?
30 M R DOYLE:
No I was not. N ot at that point in time and the moment I found o ut that there
was a potential and in fact it may have been M r Karam that b rought this to the
pol ice notice or M r Guest. It was not until J u n e of that year that counsel came
- that's J u ne that we' re d ealing with '96?





Looking back it's difficult to accept that Doyle might not have considered that a further appeal might have gone to the Privy Council, but regardless surely the only option was to write to counsel regarding intention to destruct evidence. He did it in the case of the items inside the container but not the smaller, and no doubt more important specimens held in a fridge. I suspected that because Doyle was  quite frank about some of the aspects of the investigation being a shambles that he would have conceded on not only the 'destroyed' evidence material, but also that David was a suspect and even when Robin was a 'suspect' that he wasn't investigated, it's so plain to see.

After all, this was the man who after saying he was 'hoping' for a 'medical condition' and who went onto explain that 'motives' were not required and who refused to investigate Robin's alleged motive (exposure as a participant in incest or worse) sent his charges to discover what David might have been 'reading.


And lastly, j ust on this q uestion of motive. There was a d i rective, I believe you
sent o ut early o n in J u ne , about checking bookshops for what David Bain had
been read ing or viewing in an effort to perhaps identify his interests and
whether there was anything pecu liar or bizarre or d isturb i n g . Do you recall
1 0 that?

In either Doyle's evidence or that of Weir's to Binnie it is mentioned that police considered that there wasn't 'enough' blood on Robin for him to have been the murderer. On the basis that there wasn't enough blood on David therefore to be murderer unless he had 'washed up,' I can't see how if one man is 'clean' of blood and the other isn't it means that the first man 'cleaned up,' but of course that the second didn't. This was one of the fundamentals in deciding that David was guilty - ignoring the wounds and blood on Robin but prefer the no wounds and no blood on David. Going further that one man might wash up but that the other wouldn't. It's very easy to see that the fundamentals in this case were amiss, and that there was no vigorous debate going on. Somebody would reach a decision and others would simply follow, no body for example, appears to have said Robin has bruised hands and we need to eliminate those from the inquiry. Or that he has a red substance under his nails and that must be tested, or that we must find out whose blood is on the towel and so on. Instead we see it said 'David must have done it and then washed up' despite there being no proof.

If such short shortsightedness and lack of robust reason could be called remarkable then so too could Doyle's reliance on the timing of the washing machine. He was able to do this without reservations for the age of the machine (which when later tested showed to jump entire cycles) or that somebody having just killed members of their family would have the presence of mind to set a known unreliable machine exactly and expect an exact result. The subtext of Doyle's interview is clear they were looking for admissions from David throughout, they thought he was a 'spinner' and would fess up or display his 'medical condition.' That's why Doyle, or who ever gave the order, wanted him fully examined, and on the first morning from 'physical' proof of David's guilt then a confession would follow, or a consent for psychiatric examination and then that blood on Robin's palms would 'seemingly' no longer matter, and so  too the bruises to his hands that Doyle never oversaw being investigated - even if just to remove them as 'relevant' to Robin's obvious guilt.

The hate-siters, who really is to blame?

Imagine a group of folks who are never happy unless they're unhappy. Or putting it another way, who can't be happy without being unhappy. It's a state of mind. A miserable state of mind that sees no good unless it relates to somebody suffering and which can then can be 'down loaded' by the viewer of the misery with a good dallop of hate. Discharging hate in such a way is pleasurable, of course only a temporary pleasure because as most people know a deep well of hate can't be emptied by off loading onto others. It takes courage to deal with the hate of oneself. Rather than being a vehicle for hate, in so much that as much as hate can be 'transferred' no void is created because fresh hate is generated in its place.

So it's a cycle of hate, a person never being happy unless they're down loading onto others. It's a hiding thing   as well, because although people who hate will join 'together' they're merely combining their hate into a safe fortress that they believe won't be, or can't be challenged. Safety in numbers results from the combining, also there is the confidence and 'pleasure' that they'll go unchallenged for what ever they say or do among their peer group. I think I have described the Bain 'hate' cultists. After 3 to 4 years experience I can say that I have never seen on a message board or within their own various hate-sites such 'Guilty Free Forums,' JFRB or Counterspin any hate-siter remonstrating with others for being untruthful for plotting against people, stalking or making threats. That is clearest evidence of all that the 'cults' are open to all and the only requirement is hating David Bain, Joe Karam and in some ways unfortunately, people seen to be 'supporting' them.

The word 'support' is loaded with meaning for a hate-siter, it can mean as little as being unsure about evidence in the Bain case, or merely being interested in the Law and logic applied to the case. It is as termed in the early american 'gangster scenes' of the mid 1900 of 'if they're not for us, then they're against us.' So clearly a hate-siter or what he or she does or says is not to be questioned or you are against them. That means in my case at least everything possible will be done to hurt me or my family. Only a deeply troubled mind, one in fact filled with hate, could possibly extend malice in such a way and then employ from a familiar 'tool kit:' lies and false allegations. The 'false allegations' are of the type used to justify the anger employed. For example we have Kalnovitch claiming for as long as possible that I sent her a threatening letter, then when the letter is published on here, and else where, and is seen to be moderate in tone and conciliatory  it suddenly becomes a 'letter' to her daughter and quite quickly soon after another letter in her imagination. So the proven formula, lies then 'justified' hostility.

The same with Christine Williams in various disguises claiming to be threatened by mail, and from memory a 'mystery' phone call. That this apparently happened after Williams had threatened to send gang member 'relations' to my home, abduct my children (by saving them in her deeply disturbed threats) was therefore somehow justified, by what, the same tools as always invention and lies. When Annette Curran's hate site leaked through google and all the 'hidden' information of 'right thinking nzers' emerged, the claim was that the site had been 'hacked.' Again, no embarrassment about plots to make false complaints about others, to stalk them and so on - just protests of how the information 'escaped.' A familiar pattern, no self analysis, but simply blame and hate. Which I think brings arrival to a inescapable point: will the hate-siters ever achieve anything to their satisfaction.

I think the answer is no, no person can be a willing vessel for hate and expect happiness, a sense of achievement or satisfaction. That is the reason why as all else has failed there is no relief in sight for the hate-siters, it's not just the pending court cases it's the fact that David Bain has become untouchable to their hate, effectively that has endured for a long time, the last time of any significance that the hate crew were able to land a 'blow' was martin van beynan's bizarre question at the Perth Justice Conference. Even the most recent rehashes of 'old and re-invigorated' arguments in light of the Judicial Review have made no impact, just as they have never made an impact since the failed re-trial. The truth has escaped and is living free of the hate-siters. The question of compensation is important, obviously of critical importance to the hate-siters because they have lost all else. Presuming for a moment compensation was not granted, would that be a victory for the twisted sisters?

The answer is no because unfortunately David has been found not guilty and there is no going back on that. There is nothing to be achieved whether David gets a payment or not for the hate-siters, because all they have, and ever have had, is a bond in hate, the product of which is their own self-inflicted misfortune. When I wrote to Kalnovitch pointing out that she had submerged herself into something from which their was no benefit I was referring to the pointlessness of embracing hate and disguising it with lies, that hasn't changed compo or no compo.