I wonder how the sisters will twist this one. I think the Minister will be wishing she didn't have Mr Fisher's phone number on speed dial.
With today's press release confirming the unsurprising news that Dr Dempster the Crown Pathologist in the Bain case has revealed that there were no marks by way of cuts or scratches on the thumb of Robin Bain which might explain the photograph taken on the morning of the murder suicides there must be much consternation in the camp of the hate-siters. Publicly some of them are trying to disregard the significance of what the police Deputy Commissioner Burgess told the public that they might have been scratches resulting from home 'handyman' repairs is utterly wrong.
When Burgess made that statement, smug at it seemed to be, it was difficult not to think that he was perhaps amused by what he was saying - even testing the waters of public gullibility. Whichever the case those that 'needed' to believe went hook, line, sinker, boat and car trailer for it. There was an awful lot of swallowing happening among Kent's people - well more than usual. Fairly easy prediction that Mr Dempster had thoroughly done his job, a man with years of experience, concerned with recording every detail that might be later used by the Coroner or else where. A man doing his job.
It has always struck a note of discord for some followers of the Bain case as to why Dempster was refused entry to the house for hours while a train load of inexperienced elephants tramped through. I've written before of the dismay of learning that probably the most experienced investigator into homicide or suicide in Dunedin at the time was kept from the scene while others walked through, unmindful of blood or moving things about. In fact during the trial we heard of the magazine in the lounge being moved about, the body moved and so on. How easy was it for two fine marks to be accidentally erased, very easy. How easy was it to in fact miss them, well a whole country did as the photo emerged into the public domain. At least for many years it was missed by experienced investigators, scientists, pathologists and lawyers alike.
Unfortunately, apart from the Compensation Claim by David Bain, and possibly the on going inquiry as to how Royal Prerogative Powers have 'stepped' outside the rules of Natural Justice and Due process, this fact of Dempster not having had the opportunity to 'solve' the murder-suicide before amateurs entered the scene is water under the bridge to all but the hate-siters and heavy investors into David's 'guilt' and persecution. Yet it is of National significance - it was where things went wrong in a case that has dominated interest for years.
I noted in the panicked voices that it was said that the marks on Robin's thumbs were not parallel. That didn't surprise me because of the nature of the human body, skin moving under pressure and so forth. The very reason that the finger print expert Jones gave the most blatantly corrupt evidence of all when he claimed that finger print ridges were heightened under pressure rather than flattened and distorted. But I freely admit that I didn't know there might be a more significant reason for the apparent 'lack' of uniformity between the two lines - or not being parallel as some sisters chortled - that the magazine itself on the surfaces of the loading chamber were not parallel, either because of wear or some accident. In fact distorted to the point of perhaps being responsible for many of the mis-feeds viewers saw on the 3 Degrees Show and of which evidence was found at Every Street.
Here follow two photos (in the following post) that show the two lines on Robin's thumb were unique to his loading a particular magazine - the one he used to load the rifle with which he killed himself. They are as significant as anything else in the Bain case because the lines don't compare with any magazine but the particular one Robin loaded before his death.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Showing why Robin Bain is guilty - more to come..
In fact
the non-parallelism of the magazine exactly matches the non-parallelism
of the marks…..
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Scott Watson RPOM Report - Some general impressions.
First of all in this report in response to an Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy made by Scott Watson to the Crown is the number of 'blanked' out names. The report is a now made public and it is difficult not to notice how many of the details of witnesses, or potential witnesses, are kept secret, fairly unprecedented in a society that takes pride in 'open Justice.'
Of course the most 'secrecy' appears to surround the evidence and recantations of prison inmates, in particular the troubled prisoner 'Secret Witness A.' It is clear that the author of the report Kristy McDonald QC had an extreme difficulty in 'stepping back' to consider this and other evidence in an overall context of the case against Watson. I must note that SWA has made contradictory statements to the point that he must be considered totally unreliable. It can't be forgotten that SWA was an important Crown Witness who put a 'confession' into the mouth of Scott Watson, a confession that must have had an impact on Watson's Jury. Now however SWA will no longer co-operate with The Crown, who despite that fact still 'stand by their man.' McDonald QC interestingly enough, saw her mandate as only able to consider new and fresh evidence, accordingly it would be appear to the uninitiated that it is new evidence that SWA no longer stands by his earlier evidence or indeed by The Crown. By the record produced of the contact attempts by Ms Mc Donald it is revealed that the troubled SWA still maintains a lifestyle as a criminal and perhaps unfortunately for him, the same mental health problems. Reading some of the claims by SWA, my opinion is that they are bizarre and untruthful and that he no longer is willing to support them is in itself 'fresh' evidence favouring Watson. If the 'confession' to SWA is a cornerstone of upholding the conviction of Watson The Crown case is obviously in serious trouble, was from the outset when police needed to rely on evidence from prison inmates, this one in particular having mental health issues.
Moving onto another 'cornerstone' of the evidence against Watson is the 'identification' of him the morning of the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Reading the report the identification is frankly a mess, yet Ms McDonald dutifully holds it together. She in fact says that neither Guy Wallace or Roz McNeilly properly identified Watson and that was put to the Jury at the Trial by the Defence. She observes, on one issue forwarded by Watson, that both McNeilly and Wallace would not have identified, by their own admission now, Watson as the person the Jury were asked by the Crown to believe was Watson drinking in the bar that night, and later 'seen' leaving the wharf with the deceased couple. She says that the defence case was put to the Jury of non identification and that 'dock identification' of Watson that the witnesses now say they couldn't have made is unreliable. Hold on folks, the Jury obviously accepted the identification of Watson, clouded as it was, and having heard either witness tell them that Watson wasn't the person about whom they were giving evidence would have resulted in a dramatic and telling point in their deliberations, one that can't be escaped. It needs to also be noted that Ms McNeilly is now able to say that the person she served in the bar that night had no missing fingers, whereas Watson does. Effectively she would now be able to say Watson wasn't the 'mystery' man and that the 'mystery' man had no fingers missing, in fact able to give a good description of his hands.
In all fairness to The Crown they had identification problems, they had/have credibility problems with their witnesses. On that point there are witnesses whose evidence was 'allowed' as to the propensity of Watson to 'talk about' killing people, women in particular. 'Propensity evidence', also that of 'prisoners' and unreliable identification are all hallmarks of a weak prosecution, one which is striving to fill the gaps. In this case despite the 'propensity evidence' at least one witness was a former girlfriend of Watson whom apparently had nothing to offer in support of his propensity to murder, let alone to be violent.
A few weeks ago I wrote on the interactive blog Kiwi Blog that both the Minster of Justice and Ms McDonald had effectively hung their hats on the dna evidence of 2 hairs 'found' on a blanket taken from Watson's boat The Blade. The report reveals that the 2 hairs were no actually found on 2 earlier ESR searches rather than a single previous search that I mistakenly observed. So 2 searches and no 2 hairs. What I've now read is that our own Court of Appeal has commented on those 2 hairs and the controversy surrounding them in that they were part of a 'contaminated' mix pointed out by a commentator here a couple of days ago on the previous Watson thread. The COA refers to the 'matched' DNA profile as ' not explained by the dna mixed hairs.' On the surface a 'commanding' observation until viewed with a more neutral and open mind that allows the equal 'commanding'' observation that the importance of the 2 hairs (more about them shortly) is not explained by the 'contaminated' hair. If the first does not explain the second, then the second can not explain the first and that falls in favour of reasonable doubt about the importance of the evidence, the sanctity of it, and also the passage by which it travelled to that blanket only to be overlooked twice.
So as to those 2 crucial hairs one cannot help but note the language, which, on this point, Kristy McDonald is guarded - she uses the term 'strongly supported.' Not conclusive, without doubt, beyond doubt or absolutely proven. She relies on 'strongly supported.' On each and every turn Kristy McDonald avoids the 'overall' and highly visible picture between the lines of her report - as late Lord Diplock of the Privy Council has observed... “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.'
If Watson legal rights have indeed ended, and if the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is so lifeless and blind then it can be said that a man unidentified by critical Crown witnesses as being in the company of Hope and Smart, whose ability to be a 'boy friend' of at least one woman who was unable to confirm is propensity to violence, let alone murder, whose confession was 'sung loud' by a crippled minded prisoner who is reported to have since said the police didn't look after him, and whom now abandons his master, is held in prison on the evidence of 2 mysteriously appearing hairs, uncontaminated by their contaminated environment.
Of course the most 'secrecy' appears to surround the evidence and recantations of prison inmates, in particular the troubled prisoner 'Secret Witness A.' It is clear that the author of the report Kristy McDonald QC had an extreme difficulty in 'stepping back' to consider this and other evidence in an overall context of the case against Watson. I must note that SWA has made contradictory statements to the point that he must be considered totally unreliable. It can't be forgotten that SWA was an important Crown Witness who put a 'confession' into the mouth of Scott Watson, a confession that must have had an impact on Watson's Jury. Now however SWA will no longer co-operate with The Crown, who despite that fact still 'stand by their man.' McDonald QC interestingly enough, saw her mandate as only able to consider new and fresh evidence, accordingly it would be appear to the uninitiated that it is new evidence that SWA no longer stands by his earlier evidence or indeed by The Crown. By the record produced of the contact attempts by Ms Mc Donald it is revealed that the troubled SWA still maintains a lifestyle as a criminal and perhaps unfortunately for him, the same mental health problems. Reading some of the claims by SWA, my opinion is that they are bizarre and untruthful and that he no longer is willing to support them is in itself 'fresh' evidence favouring Watson. If the 'confession' to SWA is a cornerstone of upholding the conviction of Watson The Crown case is obviously in serious trouble, was from the outset when police needed to rely on evidence from prison inmates, this one in particular having mental health issues.
Moving onto another 'cornerstone' of the evidence against Watson is the 'identification' of him the morning of the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. Reading the report the identification is frankly a mess, yet Ms McDonald dutifully holds it together. She in fact says that neither Guy Wallace or Roz McNeilly properly identified Watson and that was put to the Jury at the Trial by the Defence. She observes, on one issue forwarded by Watson, that both McNeilly and Wallace would not have identified, by their own admission now, Watson as the person the Jury were asked by the Crown to believe was Watson drinking in the bar that night, and later 'seen' leaving the wharf with the deceased couple. She says that the defence case was put to the Jury of non identification and that 'dock identification' of Watson that the witnesses now say they couldn't have made is unreliable. Hold on folks, the Jury obviously accepted the identification of Watson, clouded as it was, and having heard either witness tell them that Watson wasn't the person about whom they were giving evidence would have resulted in a dramatic and telling point in their deliberations, one that can't be escaped. It needs to also be noted that Ms McNeilly is now able to say that the person she served in the bar that night had no missing fingers, whereas Watson does. Effectively she would now be able to say Watson wasn't the 'mystery' man and that the 'mystery' man had no fingers missing, in fact able to give a good description of his hands.
In all fairness to The Crown they had identification problems, they had/have credibility problems with their witnesses. On that point there are witnesses whose evidence was 'allowed' as to the propensity of Watson to 'talk about' killing people, women in particular. 'Propensity evidence', also that of 'prisoners' and unreliable identification are all hallmarks of a weak prosecution, one which is striving to fill the gaps. In this case despite the 'propensity evidence' at least one witness was a former girlfriend of Watson whom apparently had nothing to offer in support of his propensity to murder, let alone to be violent.
A few weeks ago I wrote on the interactive blog Kiwi Blog that both the Minster of Justice and Ms McDonald had effectively hung their hats on the dna evidence of 2 hairs 'found' on a blanket taken from Watson's boat The Blade. The report reveals that the 2 hairs were no actually found on 2 earlier ESR searches rather than a single previous search that I mistakenly observed. So 2 searches and no 2 hairs. What I've now read is that our own Court of Appeal has commented on those 2 hairs and the controversy surrounding them in that they were part of a 'contaminated' mix pointed out by a commentator here a couple of days ago on the previous Watson thread. The COA refers to the 'matched' DNA profile as ' not explained by the dna mixed hairs.' On the surface a 'commanding' observation until viewed with a more neutral and open mind that allows the equal 'commanding'' observation that the importance of the 2 hairs (more about them shortly) is not explained by the 'contaminated' hair. If the first does not explain the second, then the second can not explain the first and that falls in favour of reasonable doubt about the importance of the evidence, the sanctity of it, and also the passage by which it travelled to that blanket only to be overlooked twice.
So as to those 2 crucial hairs one cannot help but note the language, which, on this point, Kristy McDonald is guarded - she uses the term 'strongly supported.' Not conclusive, without doubt, beyond doubt or absolutely proven. She relies on 'strongly supported.' On each and every turn Kristy McDonald avoids the 'overall' and highly visible picture between the lines of her report - as late Lord Diplock of the Privy Council has observed... “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.'
If Watson legal rights have indeed ended, and if the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is so lifeless and blind then it can be said that a man unidentified by critical Crown witnesses as being in the company of Hope and Smart, whose ability to be a 'boy friend' of at least one woman who was unable to confirm is propensity to violence, let alone murder, whose confession was 'sung loud' by a crippled minded prisoner who is reported to have since said the police didn't look after him, and whom now abandons his master, is held in prison on the evidence of 2 mysteriously appearing hairs, uncontaminated by their contaminated environment.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Scott Watson: What is Collins and Kristy McDonald's answer to this?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post
"Scott
Watson and being Judith.":
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.
For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....
'In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.'
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.
For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....
'In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.'
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The test of Louise Nicholas.
Anyone that saw Louise on a recent show where she was welcomed to police headquarters in Wellington would have seen the sudden delight on her face when one of the reporters later told her that the Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall had referred to her as a friend of the police. I think Marshall's message was clear, that Louise had done the right think in pursuing her case against police for terrible events that happened to her in her teenage years, because it had caused police to look at themselves, resulted in an in-depth inquiry which resulted in some police being imprisoned and Louise's own case brought before the Courts.
She described that case as a victory to her, because she had prevailed in having the previous police officers and one serving member brought to task. That they were found not guilty didn't detract from what she had achieved - one small woman standing up for herself.
Last night on 3 Degrees we got to see her again, she is not the sort of person capable of 'hiding' her feelings and I think I saw the level of shock when it was revealed to her what had happened as the result of some police not doing their jobs properly, and others who did their job corruptly - resulting in Malcom Rewa the serial rapist, 'harvesting' more victims for over a decade after one of his first victims complained to the police and in fact identified him by name, after being told by a police man in Glen Innes, Auckland, that the woman needed to name the offender.
Louise rightly pointed out that those victims should be compensated, If there is a 'class' action case worth taking in New Zealand this is it and many will watch this story unfold, hopefully with Marshall playing a leading hand.
As an aside, it was interesting watching Louise answer the question about Pora's innocence. To me she certainly hesitated before affirming her belief that he was innocent. In that split second delay I think Louise showed what many might feel, where there is smoke there if fire to some extent - showing her conservative and cautious side. I think it also summed up a further disadvantage that Pora faces - his 'association' with Rewa, completely untrue as it is, naturally slips into the minds of some; that what is bad about Rewa, is also somehow 'bad' about Pora.
Considering that for a moment, and also I think the 'awkwardness' of the questions put to some of the 'guests' on last night's show to confirm the situation with Pora is the most pressing in this whole mess showed some clumsiness of thought. In my opinion none of those effected by the police actions and inactions is more pressing than the others, they share equal importance. While Pora needs to be let go, this very day also someone with the appropriate power should be putting in place at least an offer of remedy to all those victimised by Rewa and the police facilitation of that. It's time to act.
She described that case as a victory to her, because she had prevailed in having the previous police officers and one serving member brought to task. That they were found not guilty didn't detract from what she had achieved - one small woman standing up for herself.
Last night on 3 Degrees we got to see her again, she is not the sort of person capable of 'hiding' her feelings and I think I saw the level of shock when it was revealed to her what had happened as the result of some police not doing their jobs properly, and others who did their job corruptly - resulting in Malcom Rewa the serial rapist, 'harvesting' more victims for over a decade after one of his first victims complained to the police and in fact identified him by name, after being told by a police man in Glen Innes, Auckland, that the woman needed to name the offender.
Louise rightly pointed out that those victims should be compensated, If there is a 'class' action case worth taking in New Zealand this is it and many will watch this story unfold, hopefully with Marshall playing a leading hand.
As an aside, it was interesting watching Louise answer the question about Pora's innocence. To me she certainly hesitated before affirming her belief that he was innocent. In that split second delay I think Louise showed what many might feel, where there is smoke there if fire to some extent - showing her conservative and cautious side. I think it also summed up a further disadvantage that Pora faces - his 'association' with Rewa, completely untrue as it is, naturally slips into the minds of some; that what is bad about Rewa, is also somehow 'bad' about Pora.
Considering that for a moment, and also I think the 'awkwardness' of the questions put to some of the 'guests' on last night's show to confirm the situation with Pora is the most pressing in this whole mess showed some clumsiness of thought. In my opinion none of those effected by the police actions and inactions is more pressing than the others, they share equal importance. While Pora needs to be let go, this very day also someone with the appropriate power should be putting in place at least an offer of remedy to all those victimised by Rewa and the police facilitation of that. It's time to act.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
What's in store for Kenty and Counterspin now?
It's no secret that Kent's defence to the defamation charges he and Vic Purkess are facing is sinking in deep water. What is interesting to observe is the apparent associated panic that has set in, not only is Vic no longer a site administration but also recently Aunt Fanny is gone. It hasn't much been in focus to this point, but it's questionable where liability stops with the members of Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain. Invariably, they have all been party to the defamatory attacks on Karam, it has been their 'work' for many years, in which they have 'shared' the commitment and costs, a combined effort by a group with clear intentions.
Of course there has been a united effort in attacking Karam by the hate-sites. Even in respect to the defence of those attacks members have pooled their resources and 'money.' It's has always been clear that it hasn't been just silly Kent attacking Karam and Bain, it's been the administrators, the members and the 'feeders' to the hate sites. So Vic and Aunt Fanny apparently attempt to 'divorce' themselves from the attack against Joe Karam as the defamation case nears. By no longer being administrators for the 2 hate-sites they apparently that it absolves them from blame for the dirty war they waged. Likewise, the vocal attackers, the contributors to the financial fund have also displayed liability when tested by what could be lost or gained by their activities. Yet I wonder why they think they can escape. The hate-sites have a common purpose, one shared by their members, financial contributors and 'feeders.' They are able to be observed over a long period as having a common cause.
I look forward to finding out what steps are available to Karam to satisfy any award the Court might make. This could involve an analysis of the Constitution of the two hate-sites, the administrators, advisors and in particular the 'contributors' to the 'fighting fund.' Some readers will recall an early proposition that donations to the 'fighting fund' could be seen as an investment. The administrators of the time presented that scenario, which in their minds, would result in good returns for those that fronted up with money. In other words a 'share holding' with the intention to profit. Everyone knows that shares can increase or decrease in value, yet if the 'investment' was an attempt to obscure civil or criminal offences, the penalties for which cannot be paid, then that 'instrument' may well be scrutinised for potential vicarious liability. There is another avenue that is also a potential opportunity for recovering the debt, examination under oath of the administrators of the time over their comments, calls for money and so on - what was raised and where it came from. Of course there have also been public claims by a now ex-administrator (one who has 'resigned' in the last few days) to fund the litigation and by implication 'bank roll' the case and therefore the dividends if the case met with success. Furthermore, there are others on record, the Remuera housewife, who have also made public pledges to fund the entire case, pledges it seems which were encouragement for site-members that they were 'on track' with their hate-site 'business.'
One hardly needs to point out that the pledges, calls to invest and so on were an effort to maintain defamatory attacks on Karam and others. One clear perspective is that if 'investors' expected to gain, as 'worldy and informed' they must have also expected they might also lose - but it is to what extent now which may well be the question. Just like the hate-siters have willingly accepted anything said against David and Karam, they have 'accepted' (it's in their writings, captured to file) that the hate campaign with all it's elements of lying, threats and so on is their responsibility or 'good work.' I think soon we will see the hollowness or fortitude of the hate-siters, the value of their words, and the value of their commitments - somehow I don't think it's going to be a pretty site. I believe, as they have always done, that they will display shallow character, prove that their word and pledges mean nothing - just as their hate-campaign has ultimately meant nothing good as it now flounders on the rocks waiting to sink. Look closely, and you'll see a steady line of rats deserting a 'noble' cause, scurrying back underground from where they and their evil came.
In certain quarters the defamation trial is seen as the prospect of a third trial for David Bain. How bewildered those poor souls are. The reality is that Kent and Vic will face cross examination if they give evidence. It would be material to that evidence for it to be determined who their 'contact's and 'feeders' were in order to establish a clearer picture of the attacks against Karam and who may have also been behind them. The same will apply to any witnesses they may chose to call. And who knows Karam himself might call some of the sisters, there are a few names I could recommend who might be able to inform the Court if Parker or Purkiss ever discouraged them from their defamation and other illegal activities. We might find out the links to van beynan, Weir, the members of Sensible Sentencing Trust who involved themselves in the campaign and who were willing to break the law both with false complaints and threats. Not quite the 'third trial' but a beaut nevertheless.
I look forward to a news 'scoop' from van beynan regarding the fate of Parker and Purkiss, or perhaps Kent or Vic's willingness to come clean about the 'feeders' and 'supporters' once the water reaches their feet.
Of course there has been a united effort in attacking Karam by the hate-sites. Even in respect to the defence of those attacks members have pooled their resources and 'money.' It's has always been clear that it hasn't been just silly Kent attacking Karam and Bain, it's been the administrators, the members and the 'feeders' to the hate sites. So Vic and Aunt Fanny apparently attempt to 'divorce' themselves from the attack against Joe Karam as the defamation case nears. By no longer being administrators for the 2 hate-sites they apparently that it absolves them from blame for the dirty war they waged. Likewise, the vocal attackers, the contributors to the financial fund have also displayed liability when tested by what could be lost or gained by their activities. Yet I wonder why they think they can escape. The hate-sites have a common purpose, one shared by their members, financial contributors and 'feeders.' They are able to be observed over a long period as having a common cause.
I look forward to finding out what steps are available to Karam to satisfy any award the Court might make. This could involve an analysis of the Constitution of the two hate-sites, the administrators, advisors and in particular the 'contributors' to the 'fighting fund.' Some readers will recall an early proposition that donations to the 'fighting fund' could be seen as an investment. The administrators of the time presented that scenario, which in their minds, would result in good returns for those that fronted up with money. In other words a 'share holding' with the intention to profit. Everyone knows that shares can increase or decrease in value, yet if the 'investment' was an attempt to obscure civil or criminal offences, the penalties for which cannot be paid, then that 'instrument' may well be scrutinised for potential vicarious liability. There is another avenue that is also a potential opportunity for recovering the debt, examination under oath of the administrators of the time over their comments, calls for money and so on - what was raised and where it came from. Of course there have also been public claims by a now ex-administrator (one who has 'resigned' in the last few days) to fund the litigation and by implication 'bank roll' the case and therefore the dividends if the case met with success. Furthermore, there are others on record, the Remuera housewife, who have also made public pledges to fund the entire case, pledges it seems which were encouragement for site-members that they were 'on track' with their hate-site 'business.'
One hardly needs to point out that the pledges, calls to invest and so on were an effort to maintain defamatory attacks on Karam and others. One clear perspective is that if 'investors' expected to gain, as 'worldy and informed' they must have also expected they might also lose - but it is to what extent now which may well be the question. Just like the hate-siters have willingly accepted anything said against David and Karam, they have 'accepted' (it's in their writings, captured to file) that the hate campaign with all it's elements of lying, threats and so on is their responsibility or 'good work.' I think soon we will see the hollowness or fortitude of the hate-siters, the value of their words, and the value of their commitments - somehow I don't think it's going to be a pretty site. I believe, as they have always done, that they will display shallow character, prove that their word and pledges mean nothing - just as their hate-campaign has ultimately meant nothing good as it now flounders on the rocks waiting to sink. Look closely, and you'll see a steady line of rats deserting a 'noble' cause, scurrying back underground from where they and their evil came.
In certain quarters the defamation trial is seen as the prospect of a third trial for David Bain. How bewildered those poor souls are. The reality is that Kent and Vic will face cross examination if they give evidence. It would be material to that evidence for it to be determined who their 'contact's and 'feeders' were in order to establish a clearer picture of the attacks against Karam and who may have also been behind them. The same will apply to any witnesses they may chose to call. And who knows Karam himself might call some of the sisters, there are a few names I could recommend who might be able to inform the Court if Parker or Purkiss ever discouraged them from their defamation and other illegal activities. We might find out the links to van beynan, Weir, the members of Sensible Sentencing Trust who involved themselves in the campaign and who were willing to break the law both with false complaints and threats. Not quite the 'third trial' but a beaut nevertheless.
I look forward to a news 'scoop' from van beynan regarding the fate of Parker and Purkiss, or perhaps Kent or Vic's willingness to come clean about the 'feeders' and 'supporters' once the water reaches their feet.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Is Kenty baby confused more than usual?
Kent's thought of a new name for himself a few weeks out from his defamation trial, he's now a 'self litigant' or an LG for short. Clearly he doesn't like the idea that he's one of the defendants in his own trial so he's thought up a new name. A secret source reveals that he's going to go the full hog with his new identity, buy a Davy Crocket hat to wear along with a pressed white shirt, a long black coat (borrowed from Aunt Fanny) and ask the Court to refer to him as Mr Litigant rather than as the defendant.
In his most recent writing he has revealed his subtle delight that Joe Karam is not going to be represented by Michael Reed, but rather by a 'very experienced' defamation expert Peter Mc Knight who 'however does not have his head around the issues anywhere like Reed does.' Clearly Kent thinks that not having Reed representing Karam is an advantage to himself in having a 'defamation expert' instead. I guess in Kent's world, being in the defendant in a defamation trial, it's an advantage if the plaintiff's lawyer is an expert in the field of defamation. Well, of course anything can happen in Kentsville, its a lonely bewildered mind that holds fort there. But I assume most folks wouldn't take much confidence in facing a highly experienced expert, unless of course you happened to be a LG. or more properly Mr Litigant.
Looking a little further into Kent's reasoning, and taking into account what his mad agents have been broadcasting, Kent the poor chappette still actually believes his trial is in fact the 3rd murder trial of David Bain and that he Kent, Mr Litigant, now has the advantage with Reed gone and McKnight stepping in who doesn't have his 'head around' things. I imagine Kents opening to The Court will be to point out that the 'defendant' isn't present only to be old that 'yes he is' that should get things off to a bewildering start. Particularly, when Kent asks 'well where is he.' 'He is you, Mr Parker along with Victor Purkiss.'
Poor Kent, I bet when he got the big 'D' at school marked on every subject he didn't realise it was 'D' for deluded, or maybe he did and thought that he was on track after all. It's going to be an interesting spectacle. Kent walking in his long black coat exposing his 'lily' white legs and little bobby socks and casting a confident eye over Peter McKnight, perhaps even snickering at his advantage or sneezing because he is allergic to coon skins and cussing Davy Crockett for his dress sense. Casting his eye about for David Bain and probably convincing himself that because David 'hadn't turned up' the Judge would order his arrest. Go Kenty....
In his most recent writing he has revealed his subtle delight that Joe Karam is not going to be represented by Michael Reed, but rather by a 'very experienced' defamation expert Peter Mc Knight who 'however does not have his head around the issues anywhere like Reed does.' Clearly Kent thinks that not having Reed representing Karam is an advantage to himself in having a 'defamation expert' instead. I guess in Kent's world, being in the defendant in a defamation trial, it's an advantage if the plaintiff's lawyer is an expert in the field of defamation. Well, of course anything can happen in Kentsville, its a lonely bewildered mind that holds fort there. But I assume most folks wouldn't take much confidence in facing a highly experienced expert, unless of course you happened to be a LG. or more properly Mr Litigant.
Looking a little further into Kent's reasoning, and taking into account what his mad agents have been broadcasting, Kent the poor chappette still actually believes his trial is in fact the 3rd murder trial of David Bain and that he Kent, Mr Litigant, now has the advantage with Reed gone and McKnight stepping in who doesn't have his 'head around' things. I imagine Kents opening to The Court will be to point out that the 'defendant' isn't present only to be old that 'yes he is' that should get things off to a bewildering start. Particularly, when Kent asks 'well where is he.' 'He is you, Mr Parker along with Victor Purkiss.'
Poor Kent, I bet when he got the big 'D' at school marked on every subject he didn't realise it was 'D' for deluded, or maybe he did and thought that he was on track after all. It's going to be an interesting spectacle. Kent walking in his long black coat exposing his 'lily' white legs and little bobby socks and casting a confident eye over Peter McKnight, perhaps even snickering at his advantage or sneezing because he is allergic to coon skins and cussing Davy Crockett for his dress sense. Casting his eye about for David Bain and probably convincing himself that because David 'hadn't turned up' the Judge would order his arrest. Go Kenty....
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Teina Pora - shows everything that is wrong with New Zealand's Justice System.
Absolutely nothing has been got right in the Pora case. There hasn't been a single failure but rather a continuation of failures - which continue now. The failures have been systemic and while The Crown is entirely responsible, the confusion within the legal fraternity as to the scope of The Royal Prerogative of Mercy now compounds the problem. In the Pora case where public interest is at a high, yet the 'solution' chosen at this late point, the Privy Council, shows confusion as to what the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) is intended to be.
Foremost, it is a safety net in cases with unsound convictions. It is defined in the Crimes Act as a method by which a case can be 'reopened' after the appeal process is exhausted, and on the basis of new evidence as one example. From there it departs the 'natural world.' Applications (petitions) are submitted to the Minister of Justice who takes 'advice' from Crown Law, thereby presenting the first difficulty in that Crown Law have invariably been the party responsible for the conviction. The applications may be sent to an 'outsider' for advice, most likely an ex Crown Lawyer or Judge. Despite a charge having been laid at the drop of a hat in the early days of a murder inquiry, the advisor may take years to report back, 1 or 2 years not being uncommon - so hardly the pace expected when there is somebody languishing in prison who may be innocent, and also far from merciful.
When the report is returned to the Minister the advisors recommendation is normally accepted, then Cabinet make a decision. Of course there are recent and important variations to those procedures. The current Minister rejected advice given to her regarding David Bain's application for an Exercise of the Royal Prerogative - different name there, but in fact same procedure with cabinet finally making a decision on a recommendation. She then, in secret, sought another 'report' in which she basically gave an outline of how the new report should be framed - note here intervention by the Minister in secret.
Moving to Scott Watson's recent application for an exercise of RPOM, over 2 years for a decision to be made not to exercise the prerogative - no 'direct' intervention by the Minister. However, comments from the Minister that echoed the opinion of the author of the report (a lawyer who just happens to be representing the Minister in the High Court at the moment on the Bain matter) that the conviction must stand primarily be virtue of the disputed finding of 2 hairs on a blanket. Think a little about the issue of 'public interest' and also of the word mercy. There is enormous interest in the Scott Watson case, public interest that seeks to be satisfied that he is either guilty or not, an interest not satisfied by the trial, and which remains alive today. Imagining an entire complex case broken down into the simplest terms the Minister and her advisor hang their hats on those two disputed hairs. Considering what 'mercy' is meant to be, compassion, fairness, clemency extended to a person within another's power or care. Considering also that the Minister has shown a willingness to be 'involved' in the advice accepted or rejected - it must have been both in the public interest, and in the fair application of the power of the state to have 'looked further' at the 2 hair samples, particularly where much else in the Watson case is hardly convincing of his guilt - more so of his innocence. Would any New Zealander object to the Crown seeking an agreement with Scott's counsel that the 'hair evidence' should be examined independently, few if any. So public interest is not satisfied and the word 'Mercy' is rendered as useless as the term 'Royal Prerogative.'
Another example of that rendering to 'useless' is this Minister 'sitting on her hands' depending to be powerless when almost every man, woman and dog in the Country has formed misgivings about Teina Pora's conviction and believe him to be innocent. The Minister has told the Country what she cannot do, and those claims are inconsistent with the use of the Royal Prerogative in the past. Notably in the Thomas case, and more recently in the Bain case where to both extremes actions were taken by the executive. In the Thomas case to pardon him, and in the Bain case, unfortunately, to 'work' against him.
This is all frustrating enough for the public, and difficult to imagine how difficult for Bain,Watson and Pora to name a few. I am not only disappointed in the process employed, but also in the 'staid' and apparently sombre few taken by the good lawyers who work, often without pay, for those that might be falsely accused and imprisoned. I think things are beginning to move to challenge and expand how 'mercy' of a Government toward it's captives should be expressed . We saw that last week with Michael Reed QC explaining his view of the Minister's meddling in David Bain's application for compensation in the Auckland High Court - something which to me has been a long time coming. When I write about challenging and expanding 'mercy,' or the use of Prerogative Powers, surely that is up to the Lawyers. Up to them to not accept the way things have been but rather show how they should be. The Courts, as Reed has shown, is the place for that. An independent Judiciary asked to rule not only on the exercise of the Law, but also on it's concepts such as due process, natural Justice and the protection of us all under The Bill of Rights.
It's not right that Pora is in prison now, it is not right that Watson has been denied an application based in its refusal on 'suspect' evidence - many people will agree. However, they might also agree that the role of the Courts should be exercised in the fundamentals of Justice. For many years there has been talk of Criminal Conviction Review authorities, we now fortunately also have a Innocence Project - however it is disregarded that we have laws on the books now that venture right to the concept of Justice for the falsely imprisoned and which are not being used - save for the current Judicial Review by Bain which deals by remote 'control' with false imprisonment, but which is in fact seeking a 'fair' outcome to false imprisonment.
Reading the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative Legislation, and the executive 'rules' regarding compensation there are few actual restrictions, if any, that can 'overcome' basic rights. But what has happened is that Crown have been restrictive in their role, hindering and controlling to a point that would not, and could not be allowed to happen in the Courts. Therefore, when an application is made it is not necessarily in the mind of the applicant or his or her lawyer that they will 'test' the exercise of the 'power' and monitor very closely its adherence to the core of the law and a citizen's rights, or in fact ask for 'specific' issues to be dealt with in a specific way and consider taking them to the Court if not undertaken in a manner consistent with the Law. I suggest there is nothing stopping this, apart from the idea that it is a new 'approach' and not therefore within current experience.
Pora could today be making an application for an exercise of the RPOM and be releasing it to the public so that it might be seen to contain all the issues current with that case and public concern at the moment, right down to him being released or paroled in some fashion immediately. If the Minister 'chose' to say she can't do 'this or that' and if Krebs for example thought not only that she could but that she must - he could take it to Court in order to assist his client and for the Country to see that we do have a system to arrest the falsely imprisoned from their peril - and it lies within the Courts where necessary.
Foremost, it is a safety net in cases with unsound convictions. It is defined in the Crimes Act as a method by which a case can be 'reopened' after the appeal process is exhausted, and on the basis of new evidence as one example. From there it departs the 'natural world.' Applications (petitions) are submitted to the Minister of Justice who takes 'advice' from Crown Law, thereby presenting the first difficulty in that Crown Law have invariably been the party responsible for the conviction. The applications may be sent to an 'outsider' for advice, most likely an ex Crown Lawyer or Judge. Despite a charge having been laid at the drop of a hat in the early days of a murder inquiry, the advisor may take years to report back, 1 or 2 years not being uncommon - so hardly the pace expected when there is somebody languishing in prison who may be innocent, and also far from merciful.
When the report is returned to the Minister the advisors recommendation is normally accepted, then Cabinet make a decision. Of course there are recent and important variations to those procedures. The current Minister rejected advice given to her regarding David Bain's application for an Exercise of the Royal Prerogative - different name there, but in fact same procedure with cabinet finally making a decision on a recommendation. She then, in secret, sought another 'report' in which she basically gave an outline of how the new report should be framed - note here intervention by the Minister in secret.
Moving to Scott Watson's recent application for an exercise of RPOM, over 2 years for a decision to be made not to exercise the prerogative - no 'direct' intervention by the Minister. However, comments from the Minister that echoed the opinion of the author of the report (a lawyer who just happens to be representing the Minister in the High Court at the moment on the Bain matter) that the conviction must stand primarily be virtue of the disputed finding of 2 hairs on a blanket. Think a little about the issue of 'public interest' and also of the word mercy. There is enormous interest in the Scott Watson case, public interest that seeks to be satisfied that he is either guilty or not, an interest not satisfied by the trial, and which remains alive today. Imagining an entire complex case broken down into the simplest terms the Minister and her advisor hang their hats on those two disputed hairs. Considering what 'mercy' is meant to be, compassion, fairness, clemency extended to a person within another's power or care. Considering also that the Minister has shown a willingness to be 'involved' in the advice accepted or rejected - it must have been both in the public interest, and in the fair application of the power of the state to have 'looked further' at the 2 hair samples, particularly where much else in the Watson case is hardly convincing of his guilt - more so of his innocence. Would any New Zealander object to the Crown seeking an agreement with Scott's counsel that the 'hair evidence' should be examined independently, few if any. So public interest is not satisfied and the word 'Mercy' is rendered as useless as the term 'Royal Prerogative.'
Another example of that rendering to 'useless' is this Minister 'sitting on her hands' depending to be powerless when almost every man, woman and dog in the Country has formed misgivings about Teina Pora's conviction and believe him to be innocent. The Minister has told the Country what she cannot do, and those claims are inconsistent with the use of the Royal Prerogative in the past. Notably in the Thomas case, and more recently in the Bain case where to both extremes actions were taken by the executive. In the Thomas case to pardon him, and in the Bain case, unfortunately, to 'work' against him.
This is all frustrating enough for the public, and difficult to imagine how difficult for Bain,Watson and Pora to name a few. I am not only disappointed in the process employed, but also in the 'staid' and apparently sombre few taken by the good lawyers who work, often without pay, for those that might be falsely accused and imprisoned. I think things are beginning to move to challenge and expand how 'mercy' of a Government toward it's captives should be expressed . We saw that last week with Michael Reed QC explaining his view of the Minister's meddling in David Bain's application for compensation in the Auckland High Court - something which to me has been a long time coming. When I write about challenging and expanding 'mercy,' or the use of Prerogative Powers, surely that is up to the Lawyers. Up to them to not accept the way things have been but rather show how they should be. The Courts, as Reed has shown, is the place for that. An independent Judiciary asked to rule not only on the exercise of the Law, but also on it's concepts such as due process, natural Justice and the protection of us all under The Bill of Rights.
It's not right that Pora is in prison now, it is not right that Watson has been denied an application based in its refusal on 'suspect' evidence - many people will agree. However, they might also agree that the role of the Courts should be exercised in the fundamentals of Justice. For many years there has been talk of Criminal Conviction Review authorities, we now fortunately also have a Innocence Project - however it is disregarded that we have laws on the books now that venture right to the concept of Justice for the falsely imprisoned and which are not being used - save for the current Judicial Review by Bain which deals by remote 'control' with false imprisonment, but which is in fact seeking a 'fair' outcome to false imprisonment.
Reading the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative Legislation, and the executive 'rules' regarding compensation there are few actual restrictions, if any, that can 'overcome' basic rights. But what has happened is that Crown have been restrictive in their role, hindering and controlling to a point that would not, and could not be allowed to happen in the Courts. Therefore, when an application is made it is not necessarily in the mind of the applicant or his or her lawyer that they will 'test' the exercise of the 'power' and monitor very closely its adherence to the core of the law and a citizen's rights, or in fact ask for 'specific' issues to be dealt with in a specific way and consider taking them to the Court if not undertaken in a manner consistent with the Law. I suggest there is nothing stopping this, apart from the idea that it is a new 'approach' and not therefore within current experience.
Pora could today be making an application for an exercise of the RPOM and be releasing it to the public so that it might be seen to contain all the issues current with that case and public concern at the moment, right down to him being released or paroled in some fashion immediately. If the Minister 'chose' to say she can't do 'this or that' and if Krebs for example thought not only that she could but that she must - he could take it to Court in order to assist his client and for the Country to see that we do have a system to arrest the falsely imprisoned from their peril - and it lies within the Courts where necessary.
Keith
Can you email me, I've misplaced your contact. Have had contact from a young man interested in finding out information about his late father. I think you're the best person capable of helping him. Goes back to the "Hole in the wall gang' days and before.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Counterspin - convincing idiots.
A double meaning in that heading. Firstly, it would answer the question as to what type of idiots they are - 'convincing idiots.' Additionally it could be view of the effort CS that put into convincing themselves of various things - which appears to happen quite easily. Some time back in response to the revelation that Robin Bain died with blood smears on his palms, indicating that the had been involved in the deaths of his family - one of the head morons said that David had 'planted' the smears. Similarly as the hate-siters digest the revelation of the gunshot residue shown on Robin's hands in one photo, the hate-siters have many answers; that the 'marks' were cuts or scratches yet they're not able to explain why they were not seen in later photos. They've had many other ideas about what the 'marks' are not without realising they're contradicting their members who say there were in fact no marks at all. But the humdinger must be the recent claim that David, again, 'planted' the gsr marks on Robin's thumb - this of course still with the background of others among their knitting circle that there were no marks at all.
What I found particularly interesting about the 'planting' claim is that it really goes to the core and desperation of the hate-siters - when they have no explanation they blame David. They don't consider the improbability of what they claim because it is their back up - blame David. This of course from the same 'group' who quote David at length as being a 'liar,' yet who at other times quote something David has said, or some cases what disbarred lawyers have claimed he said, as proof of something.
There are certainly more signs of that desperation than anytime in the past, perhaps because of concern that police are going to test the murder weapon for gsr discharges that might leave gsr marks on the thumb of those using and loading it. This is also revealing, why if certain of everything they have claimed (inconsistent and contradictory those claims might be) should they be concerned at all about the tests. Looked at from another angle, if they are in fact people interested in the truth why then be concerned - surely the point of any genuine campaign is to achieve something good and worthwhile. To date of course the dear 'sisters' have achieved very little good, many of them have ended up in Court and it appears more will follow with all the activities which have led to some appearing in Court have been because of allegations that they've broken various laws. A situation which by any degree isn't a good look.
Some time ago I blogged about Kent's claim that he was going to be able to turn his defamation trial into an opportunity to 'prove' that David is guilty. Later he went off other tacks, one of the more recent by claiming professional 'privilege.' But most recently many reports are emerging that Kent is back on that track again as to the '3rd Trial'. Some of the sisters seem quite excited and are making new dresses, buying new perfume and high heels and that's only the men. Others have been seen hanging around the shops of taxidermists looking for 'pretty goats.' It's not absolutely subtle because the sisters in Auckland are sending communications to those in Palmerston North by smoke signals rising from titre fires, it's also been quite dangerous because one visiting donkey from Otrohonga had her tail hair singed and said that she quite like that feeling. Live frogs have become a scarcity in the cities and batwings are sold out, even animal visceral from the Whakatu Freezing Works is attracting a premium price. There have been requests for wider doors to be put on the Auckland High Court for some of the more seemly sisters in order that they might be able to wander in and fall through the floor on the Number 1 Court Room to the cells below in the hope some randy blind man might indulged their fantasises - the poor sod.
But alas, I predict all this excitement and preparations will be fore-stalled in their tracks once the trial commences. First of all, I expect the Judge will refuse to have donkeys and goats in the Court. I also doubt that cauldrons will be allowed either. Once all the braying dies down, and Kent finds himself alone apart from Vic being present, minus his monkey suit, I feel certain that there will be more bad news from the minute Kent gives his opening address beginning with the claim that by the time the trial is over he will have convinced the Court that not only is David guilty but that he, Kent, is not a madman. Kent might temporarily believe the Judge has agreed with him when the Judge bangs down firmly his gavel, causing Kent to break out in a rendition of the 'Black Hands' in celebration but I fear it will be to allow the Judge to say 'off to the cells you go' for old Kenty baby. Of course that will be David's fault.
What I found particularly interesting about the 'planting' claim is that it really goes to the core and desperation of the hate-siters - when they have no explanation they blame David. They don't consider the improbability of what they claim because it is their back up - blame David. This of course from the same 'group' who quote David at length as being a 'liar,' yet who at other times quote something David has said, or some cases what disbarred lawyers have claimed he said, as proof of something.
There are certainly more signs of that desperation than anytime in the past, perhaps because of concern that police are going to test the murder weapon for gsr discharges that might leave gsr marks on the thumb of those using and loading it. This is also revealing, why if certain of everything they have claimed (inconsistent and contradictory those claims might be) should they be concerned at all about the tests. Looked at from another angle, if they are in fact people interested in the truth why then be concerned - surely the point of any genuine campaign is to achieve something good and worthwhile. To date of course the dear 'sisters' have achieved very little good, many of them have ended up in Court and it appears more will follow with all the activities which have led to some appearing in Court have been because of allegations that they've broken various laws. A situation which by any degree isn't a good look.
Some time ago I blogged about Kent's claim that he was going to be able to turn his defamation trial into an opportunity to 'prove' that David is guilty. Later he went off other tacks, one of the more recent by claiming professional 'privilege.' But most recently many reports are emerging that Kent is back on that track again as to the '3rd Trial'. Some of the sisters seem quite excited and are making new dresses, buying new perfume and high heels and that's only the men. Others have been seen hanging around the shops of taxidermists looking for 'pretty goats.' It's not absolutely subtle because the sisters in Auckland are sending communications to those in Palmerston North by smoke signals rising from titre fires, it's also been quite dangerous because one visiting donkey from Otrohonga had her tail hair singed and said that she quite like that feeling. Live frogs have become a scarcity in the cities and batwings are sold out, even animal visceral from the Whakatu Freezing Works is attracting a premium price. There have been requests for wider doors to be put on the Auckland High Court for some of the more seemly sisters in order that they might be able to wander in and fall through the floor on the Number 1 Court Room to the cells below in the hope some randy blind man might indulged their fantasises - the poor sod.
But alas, I predict all this excitement and preparations will be fore-stalled in their tracks once the trial commences. First of all, I expect the Judge will refuse to have donkeys and goats in the Court. I also doubt that cauldrons will be allowed either. Once all the braying dies down, and Kent finds himself alone apart from Vic being present, minus his monkey suit, I feel certain that there will be more bad news from the minute Kent gives his opening address beginning with the claim that by the time the trial is over he will have convinced the Court that not only is David guilty but that he, Kent, is not a madman. Kent might temporarily believe the Judge has agreed with him when the Judge bangs down firmly his gavel, causing Kent to break out in a rendition of the 'Black Hands' in celebration but I fear it will be to allow the Judge to say 'off to the cells you go' for old Kenty baby. Of course that will be David's fault.
Friday, August 9, 2013
JFRB and Counterspin cut off at the pass, again.
It's fair to say that JFRB and Counterspin don't have a glorious record of success. In fact it's probably correct to say they don't have a record of success at all. Others may be aware that members of both sites claim to have spoken to various personnel involved in the Bain murder inquiries from which they put their own 'slant' on what they were 'told' or claim to be told in order to 'resurrect' their credibility on various issues.
The biggest perhaps of those issues was the claim that David Bain was never strip searched, If that were true it would follow that he may have had the scratches to his chest on the morning of the murders, significant evidence against him. From there things needed to be stretched because there is evidence given at both trials of a strip search and an exhibit remains of the form filled out in conjunction with that strip search that records there were no scratches on David's chest during that examination. That would be the finish of it for most people. A record of evidence of a search, and a record which included a diagram in which any relevant injuries would have been recorded to confirm the notes of the Doctor who conducted and recorded the search by diagram and notes, and who took invasive swabs for testing.
Of course hate-siters are not 'most people.' So years ago there was firstly a denial of any strip search and I'm confident that the foremost 'expert' and Court reporter Martin Van Beynan never revealed the strip search in all his writing on the case. Thus allowing him to make purchase of the 'scratches' in his obvious campaign against David Bain. Others will remember the links between the hate-sites and Van Beynan most notably because of the writings and claims of the hate-siters themselves. It appears to have been 'necessary' and 'critical' to mislead the public about the strip search in order to continue the hate-campaign against David Bain. Van Beynan sure played his part.
As information became more freely available that a strip search had taken place the hate-sites 'voiced' their interpretations of what a 'strip search' is despite it's obvious name, suggested also that the Doctor didn't do the strip search despite his own evidence and the various exhibits related to the search, then finally in a type of 'concession' one of the dear sisters revealed that he had spoken to police after which making various claims that the police said there was no search conducted, and or alternatively that David was searched 'wearing' a blanket in some bizarre dance of the 7 veils in which he 'managed' to prevent the Doctor 'seeing' those scratches, vaudeville or just plain insanity? All of this of course the bird brains expected others would believe. There were even revelations about who was spoken to within the police and what they said.
Some redoubtable soul however decided to contact the police and Justice Ministry themselves and was finally given all the known correspondence between the sister and the Government agencies. I had the opportunity to read that information and see revealed a petulant comment by the sister that he was upset that the Minister hadn't sent him the Binnie report for his review because he considered himself an expert on the case. Yes folks the demented dimwits expected to 'review' the Binnie report before it was released.
Additionally, there were communications from the police essentially telling the nutter to stop bothering police by phone, also to use normal procedures commensurate with the Official Information Act. However, and most significantly, there was no denial of the strip search, just some ambiguous language of what a 'strip' search might mean to various people but no denial of the evidence given by the Doctor, or associated various exhibits involved, the swabs, the body chart and so on.
Most people would leave it there, sprung. But not the JFRB, CS nutters. They needed to find out who had the information, applied for it and gloated on line about what they expected to be able to reveal about the identity of the recipient of the OIA material. In other words reverting to the old tiger spots of 'stalking' and beside themselves with the thought that they might discover who the correspondent was and begin to harass them. Of course the Minister's office was going to have none that, accepting the recipients position that they would be concerned that anyone from the hate-sites had their details based on a long history of stalking and threats by members against those that 'rejected' that the hate-siters were right and that the Privy Council, a Jury and Binnie were wrong.
So the pattern of the hate-sites continues, twist or omit the truth, personalise the 'opposition' by finding out as much about them as possible in order to take 'action' against them, their families and friends. All of this working on 2 fronts, one from the pen of van beynan, the other bile and hate from the twisted sisters, yet still the truth wins.
The biggest perhaps of those issues was the claim that David Bain was never strip searched, If that were true it would follow that he may have had the scratches to his chest on the morning of the murders, significant evidence against him. From there things needed to be stretched because there is evidence given at both trials of a strip search and an exhibit remains of the form filled out in conjunction with that strip search that records there were no scratches on David's chest during that examination. That would be the finish of it for most people. A record of evidence of a search, and a record which included a diagram in which any relevant injuries would have been recorded to confirm the notes of the Doctor who conducted and recorded the search by diagram and notes, and who took invasive swabs for testing.
Of course hate-siters are not 'most people.' So years ago there was firstly a denial of any strip search and I'm confident that the foremost 'expert' and Court reporter Martin Van Beynan never revealed the strip search in all his writing on the case. Thus allowing him to make purchase of the 'scratches' in his obvious campaign against David Bain. Others will remember the links between the hate-sites and Van Beynan most notably because of the writings and claims of the hate-siters themselves. It appears to have been 'necessary' and 'critical' to mislead the public about the strip search in order to continue the hate-campaign against David Bain. Van Beynan sure played his part.
As information became more freely available that a strip search had taken place the hate-sites 'voiced' their interpretations of what a 'strip search' is despite it's obvious name, suggested also that the Doctor didn't do the strip search despite his own evidence and the various exhibits related to the search, then finally in a type of 'concession' one of the dear sisters revealed that he had spoken to police after which making various claims that the police said there was no search conducted, and or alternatively that David was searched 'wearing' a blanket in some bizarre dance of the 7 veils in which he 'managed' to prevent the Doctor 'seeing' those scratches, vaudeville or just plain insanity? All of this of course the bird brains expected others would believe. There were even revelations about who was spoken to within the police and what they said.
Some redoubtable soul however decided to contact the police and Justice Ministry themselves and was finally given all the known correspondence between the sister and the Government agencies. I had the opportunity to read that information and see revealed a petulant comment by the sister that he was upset that the Minister hadn't sent him the Binnie report for his review because he considered himself an expert on the case. Yes folks the demented dimwits expected to 'review' the Binnie report before it was released.
Additionally, there were communications from the police essentially telling the nutter to stop bothering police by phone, also to use normal procedures commensurate with the Official Information Act. However, and most significantly, there was no denial of the strip search, just some ambiguous language of what a 'strip' search might mean to various people but no denial of the evidence given by the Doctor, or associated various exhibits involved, the swabs, the body chart and so on.
Most people would leave it there, sprung. But not the JFRB, CS nutters. They needed to find out who had the information, applied for it and gloated on line about what they expected to be able to reveal about the identity of the recipient of the OIA material. In other words reverting to the old tiger spots of 'stalking' and beside themselves with the thought that they might discover who the correspondent was and begin to harass them. Of course the Minister's office was going to have none that, accepting the recipients position that they would be concerned that anyone from the hate-sites had their details based on a long history of stalking and threats by members against those that 'rejected' that the hate-siters were right and that the Privy Council, a Jury and Binnie were wrong.
So the pattern of the hate-sites continues, twist or omit the truth, personalise the 'opposition' by finding out as much about them as possible in order to take 'action' against them, their families and friends. All of this working on 2 fronts, one from the pen of van beynan, the other bile and hate from the twisted sisters, yet still the truth wins.
Collins and Reed.
Not quite the title of rebellion at first glance but what is Michael Reed doing by calling out the Minister of the Crown Judith Collins?
First of all who is Reed? A migrated Englishman, a pom by another name - arrived in New Zealand as seaman I seem to recall. Perhaps from memory settled here by romance. A man who ventured on to become Queens Counsel. One that might advise, fierce to his task - of the true and clear stones that build a bridge between what is right for both the throne to which he serves yet also to the people that make the throne and hold it aloft as their own Crown of truth and fairness.
So someone bold to his task, standing unflinching before Collins - looking directly into her eyes. It is the Queens Counsel who delivers the message to Collins that queen she is not even though deliberately absent from the Court she chose to be that day. But save a thought for Kristy McDonald who tells the Court during the recent discovery of documents hearing in the Auckland High Court - when explaining the Minister's role needing to be neutral, unbiased and so on, relating all the things the Minister should have done but which she didn't.
Then of course was the dramatic disclosure that there was not a 'shred of evidence' to support Reed's claim that the Minister had been biased or prejudiced against the application of David Bain for compensation. Clearly Ms McDonald had been listening to her 'tunes' on an I pod when Mr Reed read to the Court an email in which a personal secretary of the Minister, Ms Bowie. Where she described what steps should be taken to mislead Ian Binnie to ensure they had a window of opportunity to avoid Binnie 'going feral.'
None of us should not mistake, that email alone, as showing that the Minister was operating with bias against David Bain, let alone the 280 other communications that the Minister seeks to keep secret from David Bain. As the week finishes the country has seen a remarkable demonstration of Judith Collins not having the wit, or foresight to not walk into a haymaker. One tossed roundhouse at her and which she and her advisors must have known for weeks was on its way, because of the release of that particular document to the Defence and what the implications would surely mean.
I've written earlier that Judith Collins had no option but to take a pragmatic approach in settling both the Judicial Review and also the application for compensation because it is obvious the way she has acted in launching her campaign against Binnie, looking to destroy his credibility, using 'contacts' within the media to attack his report. A report that was initially distributed to over 30 different parties but not to the applicant. It's a sign of arrogance, or a type of 'power' madness that Collins could plot against Bain and Binnie in such a public manner and think that there would not only be no reaction from those parties, but also that the wider public would not be able to grasp the misuse of the Royal Prerogative as a weapon against the rights of Bain and ultimately the freedom of all NZers.
In a Country where politeness is considered normal and where Legal terminology is diluted to niceties and subtleness it was reassuring to hear Reed telling it like it was. For him to call out that not only did the self-assumed Queen have no clothes but there she was blissfully unaware as to her state of undress. Unknowing it seems that NZers have the ability to recognise 'Executive' arrogance and a bare naked butt when they see it. That's what it's become folks - farce from The Crown and an insult to due process, Natural Justice and the NZ Bill of Rights. Stood all over by jackboots, stood over arrogantly in full public view and sought to be placated by the unpalatable and untruthful claim by Kristy McDonald QC that there is not a 'shred of proof' of what most NZers, saw and heard. A Minister of the Crown taken upon her self Powers that should never be or have been misused. So thanks to Reed for voicing what many felt. Those who could see and understand what it might be like to have all their rights stolen from them, stolen just like 13 years of David Bain's life and who remain offended by a Government that won't make amends as a Minister mocks them from on high.
First of all who is Reed? A migrated Englishman, a pom by another name - arrived in New Zealand as seaman I seem to recall. Perhaps from memory settled here by romance. A man who ventured on to become Queens Counsel. One that might advise, fierce to his task - of the true and clear stones that build a bridge between what is right for both the throne to which he serves yet also to the people that make the throne and hold it aloft as their own Crown of truth and fairness.
So someone bold to his task, standing unflinching before Collins - looking directly into her eyes. It is the Queens Counsel who delivers the message to Collins that queen she is not even though deliberately absent from the Court she chose to be that day. But save a thought for Kristy McDonald who tells the Court during the recent discovery of documents hearing in the Auckland High Court - when explaining the Minister's role needing to be neutral, unbiased and so on, relating all the things the Minister should have done but which she didn't.
Then of course was the dramatic disclosure that there was not a 'shred of evidence' to support Reed's claim that the Minister had been biased or prejudiced against the application of David Bain for compensation. Clearly Ms McDonald had been listening to her 'tunes' on an I pod when Mr Reed read to the Court an email in which a personal secretary of the Minister, Ms Bowie. Where she described what steps should be taken to mislead Ian Binnie to ensure they had a window of opportunity to avoid Binnie 'going feral.'
None of us should not mistake, that email alone, as showing that the Minister was operating with bias against David Bain, let alone the 280 other communications that the Minister seeks to keep secret from David Bain. As the week finishes the country has seen a remarkable demonstration of Judith Collins not having the wit, or foresight to not walk into a haymaker. One tossed roundhouse at her and which she and her advisors must have known for weeks was on its way, because of the release of that particular document to the Defence and what the implications would surely mean.
I've written earlier that Judith Collins had no option but to take a pragmatic approach in settling both the Judicial Review and also the application for compensation because it is obvious the way she has acted in launching her campaign against Binnie, looking to destroy his credibility, using 'contacts' within the media to attack his report. A report that was initially distributed to over 30 different parties but not to the applicant. It's a sign of arrogance, or a type of 'power' madness that Collins could plot against Bain and Binnie in such a public manner and think that there would not only be no reaction from those parties, but also that the wider public would not be able to grasp the misuse of the Royal Prerogative as a weapon against the rights of Bain and ultimately the freedom of all NZers.
In a Country where politeness is considered normal and where Legal terminology is diluted to niceties and subtleness it was reassuring to hear Reed telling it like it was. For him to call out that not only did the self-assumed Queen have no clothes but there she was blissfully unaware as to her state of undress. Unknowing it seems that NZers have the ability to recognise 'Executive' arrogance and a bare naked butt when they see it. That's what it's become folks - farce from The Crown and an insult to due process, Natural Justice and the NZ Bill of Rights. Stood all over by jackboots, stood over arrogantly in full public view and sought to be placated by the unpalatable and untruthful claim by Kristy McDonald QC that there is not a 'shred of proof' of what most NZers, saw and heard. A Minister of the Crown taken upon her self Powers that should never be or have been misused. So thanks to Reed for voicing what many felt. Those who could see and understand what it might be like to have all their rights stolen from them, stolen just like 13 years of David Bain's life and who remain offended by a Government that won't make amends as a Minister mocks them from on high.
Monday, August 5, 2013
If you'd like to help Teina Pora win his freedom you can sign here....
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/support-an-urgent-independent-inquiry-into-the-conviction-of-teina-pora#share
Only takes a couple of minutes and may help provide a blue print for the removal from the tangle of the legal straight jacket which the wrongfully imprisoned face. As well of course as giving Teina his life back.
Cheers
Only takes a couple of minutes and may help provide a blue print for the removal from the tangle of the legal straight jacket which the wrongfully imprisoned face. As well of course as giving Teina his life back.
Cheers
Friday, August 2, 2013
Burgess on Pora - I hour of saying nothing.
I don't know if it was because of the questions that possibly could have been asked of Deputy Police Commissioner Burgess during the 3 Degrees interview and weren't, but I think we saw an hour of evasion. Putting that aside the police have to be praised for finally making a representative available to be interviewed on the Burdett case.
Burgess may have explained 20 or more times that the status quo, 2 trials and 2 convictions was where the case now stood. Almost as though if he were the master of a sinking ship he would be smiling and telling the crew or passengerst benignly that the ship was sinking and nothing else. What I was hopeful of hearing was his reaction, not only as a police officer, but also on a personal level of how another human being might feel when hearing that whatever the problems were with the Pora conviction, qualified of course as Burgess did with just about everything he said, to read: 'if' there were problems with the conviction that it was up to Mr Kreb, Pora's lawyers, to take the necessary steps required, than in his opinion (Krebs) were required. So, back to the 'spectators' role again as though the Deputy Commissioner was so out of touch with an issue of intense public interest that he couldn't say as a 'citizen' he was concerned, that he intended to be pro-active in helping resolve the issues apparent in the Burdett case.
Burgess lamely hid behind a hint that he was erring on the side of caution in releasing material to Kreb because of the potential harm that might be caused by other victims unrelated to the case. Thinking about that a little he was in fact saying that all material that might be requested by Kreb needed to weighed against harm to 'victims' unrelated to the case. That can't be correct in Law or under the Official Information Act. But it sure as hell summed up everything that Burgess was trying to say: that apart from the 2 convictions nothing was straight forward, everything was obscure, or an opinion or something Mr Kreb could do something about if so inclined. As an Officer of the Court Mr Kreb should be entitled to the entire file, every last page of it. Particularly so because of the revelations that the Crown knew that a police officer, 2IC Williams, had 'concluded' before Pora's 1st trial that the rape, and therefore, slaying of Susan Burdett was the work of a serial rapist working alone.
Putting that into perspective, both Williams, and the OIC of the Burdett case, Rutherford knew at the time of both of Pora's trials that conclusions had been drawn by police, and profilers, that Burdett had likely, or possibly, been killed by a lone wolf rapist. Forgetting for a moment what is now known that at the time of Pora's first trial tests were underway to link the Burdett murder to two earlier rapes by the same offender, something which was later confirmed. We are talking about 2 'convictions' that Burgess is happy to stand behind and which the argument is obvious that had the Court or Jury known those facts there might never have been a single conviction.
Burgess was unable to confirm that witnesses were paid for giving evidence, he described the very same thing a length in some convoluted way that he told the public was the way police like to describe such payments. It must be right over his head that somebody giving evidence and been rewarded results in them actually being given money, no matter what the process is called. In another area he described the work of a current police employee and expert profiler whom the police have relied upon to give evidence on their behalf in the past as 'only an opinion.' And if I could just slip into the role for a moment then if it was more than that 'it was an issue, or might be an issue, that Mr Kreb could do something about.
Not only did Mr Burgess rely almost solely on the 2 convictions (faulty as they might seem now to many in the general public) but he had to point out that the case was 20 years old, as though that somehow compensated for Rutherford in particular, not informing Pora's counsel that tests were being undertaken to link the Burdett crime with others. Tests, which it prevails, would have potentially seen charges against Pora thrown out and a serial rapist caught much earlier than he was. Of course Mr Rutherford was 'helpful' to Pora in other ways, holding him incommunicado for days without charges being laid, 'heavying' him, showing Pora where the offence took place because he didn't know and so on. So as always, the victim of a miscarriage of Justice gets the short straw when 'mistakes' are made that result in unsafe convictions.
Paula Penfold has continued to expose why Pora is not guilty to the point one could almost sense her frustration or anger that the benign Burgess was simply going to smile, mention the 2 convictions again, Mr Kreb again, pretend that it was all out of his hands. Paula Penfold gave him the obvious answer as to how police could help, but no it was up to Mr Kreb a smiling Burgess told her. He also responded with a smile when she pointed out that Mr Kreb had needed to take the police to Court to have paperwork released to him. All bases are covered in why the conviction of Pora should be set aside, the only time Burgess looked a little rattled was when he found out the number of serving police officers that agreed with that, but back to the point - that was up to Mr Kreb do something about.
What Mr Burgess was telling the NZ public was that the police Commissioner's office had no role to play in looking into why it was acceptable for Rutherford and Williams not to be held responsible for not revealing critical information to the defence at Pora's trials, why it was acceptable for a youth to be held incommunicado and 'assisted' with getting the details of his crime 'correct.' Or indeed why, police had 'parked' their pursuit of a serial rapist while the Pora trial and appeals took place. That was the only occasion when Burgess showed any passion, saying that it had never happened and that he was sure 'inquiries' had continued into the 'individual' crimes despite them not being looked at as a series of crimes for which the killer of Burdett was later convicted, along with other rapes he continued with, as one might say, with 'the heat off him.' So while Pora was framed for the crimes of Malcom Rewa, Rewa was able to continue on as the series of crimes he would later be convicted of were re-consigned as individual crimes with no connection to one another and certainly not to the rape and killing of Susan Burdett. 3 Degrees say that Pora's conviction is NZ biggest or worst miscarriage of Justice. I disagree with that by saying that Rewa's crimes being suspended as connected while an innocent man was railroaded is a far bigger miscarriage of Justice. If asked about that I predict that Malcolm Burgess may have said that was up to Mr Kreb to do something about.
Burgess may have explained 20 or more times that the status quo, 2 trials and 2 convictions was where the case now stood. Almost as though if he were the master of a sinking ship he would be smiling and telling the crew or passengerst benignly that the ship was sinking and nothing else. What I was hopeful of hearing was his reaction, not only as a police officer, but also on a personal level of how another human being might feel when hearing that whatever the problems were with the Pora conviction, qualified of course as Burgess did with just about everything he said, to read: 'if' there were problems with the conviction that it was up to Mr Kreb, Pora's lawyers, to take the necessary steps required, than in his opinion (Krebs) were required. So, back to the 'spectators' role again as though the Deputy Commissioner was so out of touch with an issue of intense public interest that he couldn't say as a 'citizen' he was concerned, that he intended to be pro-active in helping resolve the issues apparent in the Burdett case.
Burgess lamely hid behind a hint that he was erring on the side of caution in releasing material to Kreb because of the potential harm that might be caused by other victims unrelated to the case. Thinking about that a little he was in fact saying that all material that might be requested by Kreb needed to weighed against harm to 'victims' unrelated to the case. That can't be correct in Law or under the Official Information Act. But it sure as hell summed up everything that Burgess was trying to say: that apart from the 2 convictions nothing was straight forward, everything was obscure, or an opinion or something Mr Kreb could do something about if so inclined. As an Officer of the Court Mr Kreb should be entitled to the entire file, every last page of it. Particularly so because of the revelations that the Crown knew that a police officer, 2IC Williams, had 'concluded' before Pora's 1st trial that the rape, and therefore, slaying of Susan Burdett was the work of a serial rapist working alone.
Putting that into perspective, both Williams, and the OIC of the Burdett case, Rutherford knew at the time of both of Pora's trials that conclusions had been drawn by police, and profilers, that Burdett had likely, or possibly, been killed by a lone wolf rapist. Forgetting for a moment what is now known that at the time of Pora's first trial tests were underway to link the Burdett murder to two earlier rapes by the same offender, something which was later confirmed. We are talking about 2 'convictions' that Burgess is happy to stand behind and which the argument is obvious that had the Court or Jury known those facts there might never have been a single conviction.
Burgess was unable to confirm that witnesses were paid for giving evidence, he described the very same thing a length in some convoluted way that he told the public was the way police like to describe such payments. It must be right over his head that somebody giving evidence and been rewarded results in them actually being given money, no matter what the process is called. In another area he described the work of a current police employee and expert profiler whom the police have relied upon to give evidence on their behalf in the past as 'only an opinion.' And if I could just slip into the role for a moment then if it was more than that 'it was an issue, or might be an issue, that Mr Kreb could do something about.
Not only did Mr Burgess rely almost solely on the 2 convictions (faulty as they might seem now to many in the general public) but he had to point out that the case was 20 years old, as though that somehow compensated for Rutherford in particular, not informing Pora's counsel that tests were being undertaken to link the Burdett crime with others. Tests, which it prevails, would have potentially seen charges against Pora thrown out and a serial rapist caught much earlier than he was. Of course Mr Rutherford was 'helpful' to Pora in other ways, holding him incommunicado for days without charges being laid, 'heavying' him, showing Pora where the offence took place because he didn't know and so on. So as always, the victim of a miscarriage of Justice gets the short straw when 'mistakes' are made that result in unsafe convictions.
Paula Penfold has continued to expose why Pora is not guilty to the point one could almost sense her frustration or anger that the benign Burgess was simply going to smile, mention the 2 convictions again, Mr Kreb again, pretend that it was all out of his hands. Paula Penfold gave him the obvious answer as to how police could help, but no it was up to Mr Kreb a smiling Burgess told her. He also responded with a smile when she pointed out that Mr Kreb had needed to take the police to Court to have paperwork released to him. All bases are covered in why the conviction of Pora should be set aside, the only time Burgess looked a little rattled was when he found out the number of serving police officers that agreed with that, but back to the point - that was up to Mr Kreb do something about.
What Mr Burgess was telling the NZ public was that the police Commissioner's office had no role to play in looking into why it was acceptable for Rutherford and Williams not to be held responsible for not revealing critical information to the defence at Pora's trials, why it was acceptable for a youth to be held incommunicado and 'assisted' with getting the details of his crime 'correct.' Or indeed why, police had 'parked' their pursuit of a serial rapist while the Pora trial and appeals took place. That was the only occasion when Burgess showed any passion, saying that it had never happened and that he was sure 'inquiries' had continued into the 'individual' crimes despite them not being looked at as a series of crimes for which the killer of Burdett was later convicted, along with other rapes he continued with, as one might say, with 'the heat off him.' So while Pora was framed for the crimes of Malcom Rewa, Rewa was able to continue on as the series of crimes he would later be convicted of were re-consigned as individual crimes with no connection to one another and certainly not to the rape and killing of Susan Burdett. 3 Degrees say that Pora's conviction is NZ biggest or worst miscarriage of Justice. I disagree with that by saying that Rewa's crimes being suspended as connected while an innocent man was railroaded is a far bigger miscarriage of Justice. If asked about that I predict that Malcolm Burgess may have said that was up to Mr Kreb to do something about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)