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.