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.