What's in store for Kent Parker.

It seems the reserved Judgement is unlikely to be released this year leaving Kent the unwelcome opportunity to consider his 'fate' longer than he might have hoped for. The delay in itself is very interesting and something upon which speculation might be built. I personally think the Judgement may in some ways be a landmark. The reasons for that are numerous. First of all it's unlikely there has ever been a sustained defamatory attack of this nature and over such a long period of time before in New Zealand. Additionally, the fact that the offences took place on the internet as well as else where will likely be giving The Court pause for thought.

Kent, like all the sisters, has shown a remarkable ability to shoot himself in one foot then the other. It would be only a naïve sister who would consider that Kent's undertaking to the Court to take down his hate-site, only to do so and then reinstate it, would not have been brought to the Court's attention. There may in fact be definable elements of Contempt of Court in those actions. Whether that is the case or not, Kent has demonstrated how far he and the sisters are off the planet once again by showing their 'concerns' for justice actually, and at will, become straight out law-breaking. If Kent, wanted to further aggravate his situation (as if it needed it,) then misleading the Court was a good choice. How he might imagine that the Court would happily be deceived and not response was about as silly as the sisters swallowing the cover up of Robin Bain's suicide. That is not the point here however because Kent has 'successfully', along with Aunt Fanny and other dimwits, managed to get himself, The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax sued - and in style. They alone have been singularly responsible for 'cyber space' starting to be 'clean up.' It was they and others that thought 'cyber space' had no borders. The word space must have confused them by comparison to the great empty space of their own minds where any bewildering thought could take flight and somehow become real.

The only thing real now is their fall to earth, and contemplation as to 'who else' will be legally brought to task. These, I think, could be observations contained in the Judgement when it is finally released. A construction, or definition, spelt out in simple terms not only of the damage done by Kent and the sisters but where those borders and boundaries of cyber 'space' fit within conventional Law to the point it is finally realised the reason why daily newspapers don't post anonymous attacks, or indeed threats, anticipating that it is legal. Or indeed why, they don't simply publish as 'facts' something which they read elsewhere, heard 2nd hand or indeed print anything that can't be established without doubt as being true. As I have written before, I had these conversations with Kent earlier. The fact is I also had them with TradeMe in particular as long ago as 2009. Nothing has changed about the 'argument' only the acceptance that legal precedent and principle have always applied in cyber place and that it was only 'space cadets' without boarding passes who were unable to understand that.

So what is in store for Kent Parker is literally unknown, he may have fled, may be thinking of doing so, pulling some psychiatric stunt who knows. He could simply be anticipating his fate feeling like a martyr without a real cause beyond his own aspirations. What is in store for the rest of the community is the possibility of a 'growing up' of use of the internet. Possibly 'class' actions against Facebook and others who for many years attempted to absolve themselves of their users care with a type of self-indemnity that is showing cracks and continuing to splinter. In that respect Kent Parker inadvertently may have done a good thing,

Where Scott Watson finds himself at Christmas.

Think a little of a man or woman with a grievance, some dispute over land or property that has left them feeling wronged because they know, that some part of that wrong is obviously unjust. Transpose that land or property to freedom and particularise that grievance to evidence of guilt and you may come some where near how Scott Watson may feel this Christmas.

When a person considers the considerable merits of a Jury trial it is because of the vast range of character, perception, prejudice, bias, sympathy that individuals bring to their task of judging the innocence or guilt of one of their peers. All of those human characteristics based on life's experiences brought together to bring a balanced and blended view of the guilt or innocence of another human being. But what if some of that evidence is wrong, or no longer supported in it's certainty? Well in New Zealand we have a system where a representative of the Crown, the prosecuting body, will 'investigate' that evidence. Such is the situation with the Queen's Counsel Kristy McDonald. She was tasked to 'look into' various matters as to the safety of Scott Watson's conviction that has seen him imprisoned for over a decade.

Two specifics of that 'looking into' were a 'confession' attested to by a prison inmate who was virtually a stranger to Watson but to whom he apparently confessed in gross details sure to disturb or convince any peer. The other was 'forensic' proof, 2 hairs found on a blanket which were not 'found' during a previous search, and which, at very best may have at best been from 1000s of others of which none may have been one of the victims Olivia Hope. Imagine now the 'war' as the prosecution advanced its case against Watson in his trial. They were able to contend that Watson was a murderer who had confessed to, yes, a prison inmate he didn't know. After keeping 'mum' for months and many years since, he coughed to a prison inmate who just happened to gain some benefit from the police for his coughing.

Thinking about that might be a little disconcerting. Most people realise the some sing 'for their supper' and therefore what they sing must be closely scrutinised, particularly where a man or woman may become falsely imprisoned. Any troubling concerns about that could be overcome for example of a positive test for dna of one of the victims in this case being found on a blanket taken from Watson's boat. 2 hairs found there, that might fill the gap. It could fill the gap, resonant over doubts that  a man might mysteriously confess to another he did not know.

So this is what we have with Watson - a confession supported by doubt. When I say doubt, I mean the two hairs that are not proven to have come from Olivia Hope and which by some disturbing reason were not 'found' in the beginning but only in a later search. That's broadly 2 things until the prison inmate, rewarded for his 'evidence' says, hold on what I said wasn't the truth. The prison inmate recants. The man whose evidence the prosecution held aloft as they marched to 'war' has said he wasn't telling the truth. So Watson goes 'inside' the system to find a remedy, Mercy in fact.

However, 'inside' the merciful system is a waste land. The promised 'hope' for the vanquished is an empty place as empty as a fleeing debtor's past promises. More so, apart from being largely abandoned all the counters to which Watson might go are 'manned' by the same person - Ms McDonald. She is investigator, Judge, Jury and Court of Appeal. Of course she is awfully busy, too busy in fact to appreciate that a potentially innocent man, one whom has had telling evidence withdrawn against him should have his plea addressed in a timely manner. In fact Ms McDonald takes several years to complete the file, perhaps because she needed time to shift from counter to counter and role to role. No doubt a particular mind set is required to assume each role that can't be rushed. Watson waits, of course he has no choice. Then a few months ago after several years Ms McDonald's report is finally released.

She hasn't been able to 'find' the witness. In her acute wisdom, she feels that is not a problem, just because the evidence of the witness can no longer stand the conviction can be 'upheld' by the hairs the origin of which are in doubt. I've written before that McDonald's report and her undertaking the role of the Appeal Court in particular is Constitutionally wrong but it is wrong in another way - it is neither fair nor merciful.

Scott Watson finds himself in prison at Christmas for the 11th or 12 time at least, held by evidence that no longer exists,  that which is no longer at the forefront of the prosecution parade 'a confession' but which now however, is replaced by doubtful and speculative evidence upon which the 'confession' once rested in a mutual embrace of doubt.

The hate-sites hit a snag, again.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9498504/Joe-Karam-Defamation-claim-settled

 

The devastating defeat of the hate-sites continue. Since the Crown decided to pursue a second trial of David Bain after the first was determined to be an 'actual miscarriage of Justice' it's all been down hill. A verdict of innocent by the second Jury in record time, a finding of factual innocence by a Jurist tasked to inquiry into an application by David for compensation, then a Judicial Review of the Minister's decision to 'interfere' with that decision and a series of defeats as to the honesty and truth of those that have attacked Bain and Joe Karam for years.

 

The New Zealand Herald settled a defamation claim quite quickly on, Trade Me followed, so now have Fairfax - they have all retired from the 'truth' of the claims made against Karam and his simple analysis of a case of murder suicide from which a innocent young man spent over a dozen years in prison. If one was absolutely crazy they could believe that the failure of The Crown to prove a case against Bain, both at trial and again as part of a exercise to argue against compensation for him, was of no significant merit. Accordingly, they could look toward the Civil courts for The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax to prove that they were not insane, batty or even delusional - the big guns would 'prove' the truth, reveal what the sisters knew as true.  All good, except the Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax couldn't prove the un-provable either, odd that. Boringly predictable unfortunately.

 

There has been some significant public benefit however. Fairfax have not resisted the proposition that what is posted on their sites, or linked to their sites, is there responsibility - whether the posting was the work of a bunch of nutters or not. The wider benefit of this is the development of the understanding on the use on the internet. The word should be out, that abusing or threatening others on line in a public forum is not only the responsibility of the persons posting, but of the publisher or medium. This is very fair, and to this point 'escaped' from The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax. What they allow to published through their mediums is there responsibility, they are not somehow remote from it.

 

The message is out that while some dodo bird might 'speak their minds' on the net in a public forum the host remains responsible. So Facebook will be responsible for teens urging other teens to commit suicide or for abusing others on line. This is a clear and precise development in the use of the net, also very obvious. The New Zealand Courts have supported these settlements and others under the Harassment Act where there has been online stalking, threats and intimidation. The Law has caught up. Congratulations to Joe Karam and The Courts for understanding the net with it's apparent new frontier.

 

In the meantime, more bad news for the sisters - they've created a place in history for themselves and it's not the one they first imagined.

How Kent Parker explained the blood on Robin Bain's hands.

In all fairness to Kent things didn't go according to plan in his recent trial for the defamation of Joe Karm. First of all, his 'expert' witnesses were rejected as 'irrelevant' before he got to Court.
Having his 'experts' opinions rejected, Kent relied upon the arguments his experts would have tried to bring home to the Court anyway. Kent couldn't work out with the bulk of evidence being of no evidential values there was no point relying on it any longer. That was a hard one for Kent until he came up with the notion that he was out smarted by a smart guy and that wasn't fair. Of course we can't forget Vic's role in all this, he was second in charge after Kent. Unfortunately when Kent traversed the distant landscape he merely saw some settling dust resulting from dear Vic doing a runner. Way to go Vic, nothing like sticking with your mates when the pressure is on.

Seriously, because Kent's witnesses didn't make the grade - it might have been better if Vic had arrived to show if there's not one born every minute, then there's two. Credit's due though, if Vic thought 'f this, I'm goff and I'm off' he sure got his point across. Sometimes it seems that Kent has a competitive nature, if Vic had considered he'd dropped Kenty in it - then Kent admitted to the Judge he was a liar, just to make it a draw. In fact nobody was going to drop Kent in it better than himself.

Confused? Well don't be. There are some politically aspiring 'psychologists' who think any attention is good attention. For example they might tell the Judge at a defamation trial that that they were sorry for the harm they had caused and they were taking their hate-site off line, throwing in a few tears to boot. All good for awhile until old Kenty baby realises he's a 'forgotten' sister and no one loves him anymore, in fact people have even given up disliking him because he's such a dick so what does he do? Goes back on line of course. But wait a minute - he's 'removed' all the defamatory comment.

This is of course is the guy who firstly was an expert on defamation and then wasn't. I think that's kind of funny, if he's isn't an expert how can he 'decide' what is defamatory and what isn't? Tricky question. Not as tricky of course as to how the 'dear daddy' got blood and cuts all over his hands from praying in the lounge that morning not wearing any underpants. That's so tricky Kent can't answer it and nor could any of his hate site sisters so the Judge didn't want to know about them. Perhaps the Judge was concerned that having so many nutters in the Auckland High Court at once might create a black hole in the atmosphere causing hazards for planes flying in and out of Auckland. That's despite them all having little badges declaring they are fully qualified space cadets and refugees from the most distinguished asylums.

Well of course Kenty is fretting. He's not getting any attention and voluntarily sitting in the naughty corner naked except for panties on his head probably isn't much fun for old Kenty. Because he is really such a fun guy, why he once managed to put a forefinger in each ear and flick his nails to the tune 'Only the Loonies know the way I feel tonight.' I guess they do.

Protecting 'injustice' in New Zealand.

Everything arising from a common denominator will have similar elements, often simple, expected characteristics that quickly reveal any construction of deception and lies. So it is with Miscarriages of Injustice in New Zealand. It's one thing to point them out, as simply as they were the missing clothes of the Emperor, yet another to grapple with why the 'system' allows them to repeat, then treats them as if they were novel and not simply paragraphs from the tried and true 'Book on how to frame a suspect.'

Take a look at some well known examples, just as one would look at 'evidence' in isolation and then later in continuity.

#The shell casing found in the 'Thomas' case, first it wasn't there then it was. 40 years have passed no police action, apart from some promotions and awards in the decades that followed.

#The 'Weir' glasses lens in the 'Bain' case, it was there 3 days without being seen but however was said to be visible in a photo taken at the time, then after 3 days 'discovered' after hours by Weir who later admitted misleading a Jury about it's position. So a lens that couldn't be found, but which was 'photographed' only to be 'freshly' discovered under a ski boot. 20 years past, no police action against Weir, no police action against the Officer in Charge of the case who so willingly accepted the 'find' without question, and no comment by the various Judges involved directing that a criminal investigation be launched as to whether or not there had been a Conspiracy to Defeat the Course of Justice.

#The Teina Pora case where he tried to claim a reward for a murder of which he lied about knowing the perpetrators. His claim was dismissed as fantasy. Around a year later he was held for 4 days incommunicado by ex Detective Rutherford, refused a lawyer and 'assisted' to admissions which resulted in his being convicted of a crime he clearly didn't commit. This while at the same time allowing the true perpetrator, 'lone wolf' serial rapist and killer Malcom Rewa, to escape conviction. Case still before the Courts, no investigation into Rutherford, no Judicial 'interest' or public comment about a case of a clear Miscarriage of Justice whilst Pora remains in prison having served 20 years.

#Lundy, convicted on 'witchcraft' a 'smell test' on digested food to determine time of death, 'hidden' advice that suspected DNA was too de-generated to test before going abroad to find a now discredited Scientist, with a now discredited 'search' approach to gain a conviction where it might safely be said no convicted would have otherwise resulted. Still before the Courts, the Prosecutor responsible for the file in which the evidence was hidden promoted to a high position in Crown Law.

#Watson. Many witnesses key to Watson's identification now saying, that following the proper and lawful procedures of identification, they would not have identified him as having been with the missing couple. A series of inconsistencies - over the identification of the yacht onto which the deceased couple boarded - most critically that they 'stepped up' to board the yacht which they were dropped off to, rather than stepped across or down onto Watson's yacht. A central witness recanting his evidence of a 'confession' by Watson, some how now unable to be 'found' by The Crown but the evidence recently 'allowed' to stand by a QC commissioned to investigate a petition for clemency, and who took it upon herself to 'test' fresh evidence, and evidence going to the 'safety' of the Conviction, in a manner at odds with that applied by New Zealand Courts and the Privy Council. The 'reliance' on 2 hairs, to uphold the conviction, that were from the same 'gene pool' as one of the deceased but not necessarily belonging to the deceased,  and which weren't found on a blanket from Watson's yacht 'before' some hairs were removed from hair brushes in the home of Olivia Hope. Then, coincidentally, 'found' during a 'further' search of the same blanket in the laboratory to which the hairs had been delivered . Case dormant at the moment whilst Watson remains in prison. A reasonable chance of success if a Judicial Review was sought, as to the 'manner' of the QC 'findings' and the extra judicial approach taken. In 'fairness' a case which ought to be before The Court of Appeal to be argued either for the conviction to be quashed or a retrial ordered. A 'campaign' was waged against Watson before he was ever charged, it was put in the public mind that he was guilty. Personnel involved in the Bain case were also involved in the Watson case and importantly, like Bain, one person was targeted as being guilty to the exclusion of others that might have been guilty.

Of course all the above cases have other aspects than are not mentioned here. Possibly only in the Watson case was their immediate public disquiet about the verdict, generally in the others it was considered that the police had got the right person until, as it invariably does, the 'wrong' evidence began to emerge. Motive in all of the above claimed by the police were never straight forward, and in some cases bizarre - note here the tendency that when a person is 'framed' the continuity of the allegations against them is stretched to incredulity. David Bain 'apparently' ducking in and out of bushes, a liar one minute and truthful the next when it suited The Crown. Thomas, happily married, but 'disgruntled' by a gift that was never opened, his alibi witnesses discredited by the same police who would plant evidence implicating him. The Watson motive 'revealed' by a prisoner in bizarre and incredulous detail even though he was a stranger to Watson and a 'friend' of the police.

What can be said about all these cases as time has passed is that there is a situation alive in NZ where 'injustice' is protected, where the perpetrators of those injustices are protected and in many cases rewarded. It can also be said that the police or Crown take passively the news that officers have 'lied' under oath, so to the Courts. It appears that never once has a Judge ordered the evidence of lying police officer to be investigated, or that police willingly have done anything other than ignore people such as Jones in the Bain case admitting that he 'lied' to help the Jury. So why did Jones lie 20 years of so after Hutton framed Thomas? Because he knew no person in his situation before him had suffered any consequence for 'planting' evidence or lying to a Jury, that in fact such actions were not
'unsettling' to the respective Judges and in some ways might be seen as being later possible passages to the reward of promotion in some way. There is an immunity abroad in the administration of Justice in New Zealand for those that take part in injustices, those that lie, hide or plant evidence and the Courts that don't speak out.

If Jones for example was charged for perjury in the Bain case, if not by the Police then by the venerable McCready of Wellington, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment - a message would be broadcast. One which says that the police are neutral gatherers of evidence and the truth, they don't have 'positions' or 'stances'  and no investment in their work beyond the oaths they take to serve the New Zealand public, that if it is 'too hard' to find evidence to convict they don't some how 'find' it, or if there is evidence showing an accused person's innocence. or likely innocence, they do not hide it, or 'promise,' as Weir did, to 'correct' it on the record. The Courts, Crown Law and the Police Administration are guilty of turning a 'blind eye' to an environment where actual miscarriages of Justice are happening, right now, today.

Approaching this another way, as MOJs are so small represented in overall conviction rates, proving that police get it right something like 99.9% of the time then what benefit if for them to 'fight' from a 'neutral position' the few times when MOJs emerge, not just fight for months, or years, but decades.
Fight, a long time long after some of the original participants are dead. There can only really a few people responsible for that the Minister and Commissioner of the Day and the attendant Government. It is them that take up the 'cudgels' of the indefensible, who get dragged down to the common denominator. It is safe to assume such individuals never imagined that their professional, or political lives, would morph into denying common sense, turning a blind eye, and supporting the dark arts of solving mysteries by trading with the devil or conjuring evidence in a place that would circumstantially 'prove' a case that might otherwise be un-provable.

Of course there a public pressure on police to 'solve' certain crimes, but no crime is solved by framing somebody, in fact more crime is committed by doing so. In the middle somewhere it is grey, no doubt villains are sometimes successfully framed for crimes that have committed. But looking at the cases above none of those falsely convicted were villains, 3 had no convictions, one was basically a truant school kid who even at seventeen had the mental development of a child under 12, while the last had minor brushes with the law. What we do know, is that in framing Thomas and Pora the real culprits escaped conviction, Demler in the first instance and Malcom Rewa in the second.  Whilst in the Bain case the father Robin's hands were conclusive proof of his guilt and the primary reason his son should never have been charged. With Lundy it has become in some quarters that he must be guilty because no one else would have done it, well hello on that one. If he's guilty where's the proof because speculation means nothing. In Watson if the police no longer have the confidence of one or more of their prime witnesses why isn't that tested before a Jury, it proves that the first trial was a counterfeit version.

As far as the real culprits escaping conviction, it can't be underlined enough where the blame lies for that. The blame is with the 'blinkered' approach starting with investigating police, the Officer in Charge and Crown Law for not being able or willing to test the questionable, they as Lawyers must be aware of - such as items missed on earlier searches, scientific advice contrary to the thrust of the police case, the production of witnesses ready to sing for their supper, a credible narrative, the application of common sense - as in Bain where one suspects hands told of his involvement in the murder of his family, while the others were free of evidence that might link him to the crime. This is really at the second stage where The Crown are buying into a hypothesis, one that clinically often will not make sense. They have begun to make the case 'work.' The 'correct' person has been arrested or is about to be arrested, the ducks lined up. Will common sense prevail, a Judge perhaps asking a telling question when the matter is before him or her - the answer is no - the decades of an injustice are just beginning and the police, The Crown and The Court will see in many cases witnesses commit perjury, knowing, confident that they will never be charged. It has become institutional.

Is there an answer? Yes, deterrent. Imprisonment for perjury, conspiring to defeat the Course of Justice and all the elements that allow police like Weir and Jones to 'admit' lying or misleading and suffer no consequence. Hutton for never pursuing Len and Heather Demler by exploiting the obvious flaws in Heather Demler's account of arriving in the Pukekawa district and ultimately exercising proprietary rights over family holdings in the area. Of course Hutton was never interested in how that cartridge case came to be found in that garden bed despite having a red hot trial to its time of manufacture and transport to Pukekawa because he was the 'architect' and officer in charge of framing Arthur Thomas. Would Weir and Jones been more careful with their evidence, nonsense about skin sharpening in profile when under pressure, if it were a fact that Hutton had been brought to task? If the big things are to be fixed it is the detail of the smaller picture - that which is blatantly revealed in the belief that good can follow from a bad common denominator.

Daniel Mac Kinnon.

Sending he and his family support.

Scott Watson, short changed again.

If the McDonald QC report looked like an abysmal, made to order, white wash into Watson's application for an Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM) on first reading, that was confirmed in spades when the Lundy decision was released by the Privy Council a few weeks ago.
,
Before turning to that decision it is a good reference to read the analysis of M. Travis, May 1998 into the exercise of the RPOM in New Zealand in which it is revealed that the whole concept of the RPOM is fundamentally misunderstood by the Justice Department and it's advisors to the point that it has at times relied upon 'advice' from within the Department as virtually anecdotal reference. In the mean time taken from M. Travis's paper is the fellowing conceptual grasp that McDonald didn't bother with and failed to even reference it seems:

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.

While the points of view discussed above are regarding the opportunity to seek Judicial Review, an important observation is made by Lord Diplock as to what mercy in fact is in the concept of the RPOM - it starts where Legal rights end. That is where appeals may have been exhausted and there in no other route for a petitioner to take - in practice in New Zealand the venue for a way back to the Courts for fresh evidence, or any evidence going to the safety of a conviction may go back to the Courts. Although the scope is wider than the legislative 'right' to have a case referred to the Courts, that would have been the proper recommendation for McDonald to have made. Immediately upon reading McDonald on the Watson application two clear 'positions' become obvious.  Firstly, McDonald does not address, apart from in the barest way what her 'appreciation' of what the RPOM is, normally in a report this would be done at the outset and again in the conclusion. McDonald should have spelt out what her 'job' was and how she understood it should be done, and the way in which it was performed to meet public expectation of the exercise of a Royal Prerogative. In fact she has produced an opinion contrary to not only the concept of Mercy, but contrary to the Law. Reading the text of her report the second erroneous 'position' becomes clear. Also, probably inadvertently, explaining the first 'error' - she reveals her  an apparent 'duty' to conduct a trial or review of the application as if she were a Judge in an Appeal Court - but even there, as both the Lundy and Bain Privy Council decisions show, she got it wrong in her 'Judgement.'

There are three striking errors in the McDonald report, even overlooking that no description was given of the RPOM in operation or how the author understood, with references, what the RPOM is in essence. It appears she feels the Royal Prerogative extended to her own whim giving her free reign to act as an omniscient Judge.

# Secret Witness A who reportedly recanted his testimony of a gaol house 'confession' by Watson. Despite all the Government resources behind her, McDonald was unable to locate this Crown witness. As far as I'm aware she never sought the help of The Crown to find him, leaving speculation that the Crown, or McDonald in fact on contract to the Crown, didn't want to find the witness.  It remains that The Crown have been 'unable' to locate their own witness, a witness upon whom they relied to gain a conviction. McDonald did not offer that as a discount against Watson's conviction but rather allowed the discount to The Crown who were unable to produce their witness in an attempt to disprove or confirm the recantation. One can only wonder if the Crown already knew their witness was no longer 'pliable' to inducement. That's neither fair nor merciful for a conviction to stand on evidence that has essentially been withdrawn, or put another way - no longer exists. This was not an unimportant witness but one whose evidence went to the heart of Watson's conviction and a person for whom it can be argued 'sold' their evidence to the Crown in order to obtain favourable treatment,  evidence which wouldn't have been admitted in some other jurisdictions.

# McDonald never once tested the totality of the weakened aspects of the Crown case against the conviction. Of course that wasn't her job, at the very least she needed to report that the various advances in favour of Watson to those whose job it is, the Court of Appeal. As witnesses crucial to Watson's identification and proximity to the deceased at particular times were no longer resolute on their previous evidence in became a matter for the proper consideration by The Court of Appeal. Rather than noting Diplock's assertion that mercy 'begins where legal rights end' she dismembered the petition denying Watson the test of evidence which goes the 'safeness' of his conviction, singularly and in totality. This despite the manner spelt out in both the Bain and Lundy PC Judgements as to how such evidence should be treated. McDonald effectively set herself up as a Judge, who had a 'right' to use selectively, or omit, legal precedent - in each instance that was to the detriment of Watson and to the 'benefit' of a Crown case that if not in tatters has lost crucial pieces of it's narrative. McDonald papered over the cracks of a 'story' gone wrong and one which now there is considerable doubt a Jury would convict upon.

# In essence the 2 failures above (which are more expansive than is traversed here,) where 'nestled behind' a 'catchall.' Two hairs on a blanket. The public got to hear the Minister of Justice Judith Collins say that the 'two hairs' sustained the conviction. In other words, witnesses who now say they wouldn't, or couldn't now identify Watson as a person alleged to have been identified in company with the deceased, a critical witness who had recanted having heard a confession, extreme doubt about the vessel the couple boarded in the company of a man (no longer clearly Watson in the now fractured dialogue) were swept aside on the basis of 2 hairs. As to those 2 hairs, and anticipating that a new Jury would hear the amended evidence of eye witnesses who could now not put Watson with the couple where formerly they could, the abandonment of The Crown case by one of it's most important witnesses, a more specific examination of sailing times that do not 'assist' the Crown version they can not, and are not, 'a catchall.' There is no evidence that they were, as is alleged, from Olivia Hope, but were rather from a broad genetic pool that may have included Olivia. Not only that they 'had a history' of appearing 'when they were needed,' the two hairs were 'not found' on a earlier search, they were found after the 'delivery' of bag containing hair samples taken from the Hope home in a bag which it appears had a split on one side.

The evidence of the hairs needs support of other evidence, ie positive identifications, the 'right' (in fact sadly the wrong) people boarding the 'right' vessels in the harbour that morning. Also, of course a 'genuine' witness attesting to a 'confession.' All of these things would make up the short fall in the credibility of the case against Watson that the Minister and McDonald have said can rely on 2 hairs from an unconfirmed source. Instead we see the 'fallen short' evidence supported by other evidence similarly short of the mark. How it goes in a 'real' Court is that Judges look at the weakened points, new evidence and indeed any evidence which goes to the centre of a conviction  which is then individually assessed, then collectively assessed firstly to the mind of Judges, duty bound to consider the 'safety' of a conviction, then also by the same Judges as to how a Jury might consider the points individually and in totality with the caution that they are not the Jury and can not undertake the function of a Jury.

Watson has been hung out to dry. If McDonald, indeed the Minister now needs to rely parts of a case to hold together others which are fractured, that plank, or construction steel cannot itself be of suspect condition. It must be of absolute certainty, even then, with so many 'grey' areas now evident in the Crown case it is for a Court of Law to rule, not a defacto Judge working at the behest of a Minister on a narrow scope that is contradictory to the Law, precedent and practice as to how the concept of 'Mercy' is available to citizens for whom all other avenues toward their freedom are closed. I anticipate the Scot Watson may now be waiting for the Judicial Review process in Bain to be completed so as to learn what the Court's view is in contemporary time as to the rights of us all to know there is something to be found 'where legal rights end,' that is not merely paper to cover over the cracks of injustice.

David Tua gloves up to a man mountain.

This is truly 'Tua Time.' The meeting of heavyweights, the meeting of David against his critics, and himself, in the shape of Ustinov ranked 8th in the World and a veritable giant. By all reports Ustinov will 'lean down' on David in an effort to wear him out, clinch, push and lean. For the fans the question will be if Ustinov can absorb the body punishment David will look to work on the bigger man.

There are most often signs to read from David Tua before a fight. Before losing to Lewis he spoke about his destiny and never really delivered in a fight, that a spectator might have imagined that the winning of, belonged to Tua because  he believed it was his 'destiny.' So much for that and so much for the menacing Tua who entered the ring against Shane Cameron to destroy him, and the many times overweight David who seemed to go into the ring with a bag of problems epitomised by his weight.

'This' David Tua is lean and focused. I saw him recently and he was bleeding power and aggression, the 2 greatest assets of the Tua arsenal. By all appearances he looks together and focused, determined. Age also now enters against his natural disadvantage in height, but a boxer loses his power last when speed and footwork has already declined. Tua though has always been an 'on off' fighter, this week he has mentioned his 'own' demons. I suggest that it means he's looking into himself for triumph, not looking outwardly for what he thinks should be his or what might be his 'destiny,' focused on the fact that he can only bring what is in himself, that he can control nothing except himself, focus his mind there, not on his demons and not on his destiny.

I expect, hope, to see an honest fight and effort. I expect that David will be mindful of the death in the last week of another great Samoan warrior, Pita Fatialofa only 14 years David's senior and a mentor and inspiration, that this fight may in someway be for 'fats.' Tua was the boy pitched in to fight men by his disciplinarian father, he had no way out, no escape from his father's ambition that he should, and would be a fighter. Well a fighter he is, sometimes locked in a battle with himself showing all the fragilities of nature where maturity and fear of punishment has been forced upon a child. This Saturday evening there will be no shadows of the past stepping into the ring with him, only months of training that have seen him drop over 30 kilos, the mountain is before he and his raw power, the aspirations and goodwill of 1000s around the globe will be behind him wanting to see the mountain fall.

Salem, in Auckland?

The following from a correspondent:

And now we see the witchhunt mentality in action, fired by the police apparent inaction, over this ‘roastbusters’ thing, facilitated by facebook and the media. The police have not acted, for whatever reason – I think their claim they need a complaint is a bit feeble. But so the vigilante groups have taken it into their own hands. Today there’s a report of a man killed in Burnley Terrace in Auckland, and it’s being said it’s one of the roastbusters. The older brother of one of them (the other Parker boy) has lost his job (he had a new baby at the weekend) just for being the brother of one of the pair in the media. This is real harm being done.

While this roastbuster gang are beyond despicable, it should not be something that vigilantes take into their own hands.  That in itself shows a loss of trust in ‘the system’ – the Police and justice system. And they are being egged on by social media – the TradeMe threads are cranking people up, the comments sections on various media reports are. The readiness to assume that the police are holding back because one of the boys involved is a cop’s son also suggests that society at large does not trust the police to act properly.

 

Salem, Auckland….

 

Whether the death in Auckland last night is in fact linked to this latest misuse of the internet will be revealed in the fullness of time. There is no doubt however about the vigilante aspect at this point and Trade Me should and Facebook should not be allowing misuse of their message boards or other facilities in this way.

 

On the question of 'nothing being done' it seems again that lack of using the existing Laws, as in the case of using The Harassment Act, rather than waiting for the 'new miracle' Act advanced by the Minister of Justice is again evident. In so much that both Trade Me and Facebook are 'public places' there are various sections of current NZ Law that would allow public 'offence' charges of various types to be laid by police. The Courts are the right place for it to be determine if the Facebook and Trade Me postings are offensive to the public or a threat to public order. Some of the posts readily display offensive material, others incite public disorder.

 

Again we see the authorities unable to grasp the concept that cyber space is a 'reality,' in fact a public place and not somewhere in 'space.' These are offences conceived and committed from behind computers electronically linked into the homes of other New Zealanders, just as shouts may be from a street corner into a private address. Any member of the public has the right to complain about this to police about this and there is already precedent for New Zealand Courts to accept that harassment can and does take place in 'cyber space.'

The Dunedin Police - how to not solve a murder.

With all the evidence available to the Dunedin Police when Robin Bain was found in a highly probable suicide situation, rifle nearby, upward shot to the head, they found it easier to lay the blame elsewhere. Not only for his own death but for that of his wife and three of his children. Some 'easier' time would prove it to be.

Those police were not going to be duped by obvious evidence, they were going to search deeply into evidence which made no sense and use that. Just because Robin Bain had bruised and bloody hands,  with blood smears on the palms, a nose bleed and his blood vacuumed into the rifle from a close contact shot, allegations of incest made against him, observations of a deterioration in his mental health, the fact he was 'closed' out by his own family and living 2 nights a week in caravan outside his home and the other 5 some distance away at his school where he just happened to also live in caravan which by no means would be unusual for a school headmaster on the rocks, just because it was plainly obvious that he had killed himself, his wife and 3 of his children it was 'obvious' he couldn't be guilty.

Except that's not what a Jury decided. The only reason a Jury decided that Robin didn't kill his family, in fact overlooked the forensic proof against him was because of a Lawyer. These days if the police try to frame somebody and it doesn't work it's a Lawyer's fault. If you've not been able to make similar observations I suggest you consider the 'power' now being attributed to Michael Reed QC defender of Robin's son David, a Lawyer with experience primarily in civil cases but somehow able to 'mersmerise' a Jury with common sense rather than fantasy. Now it is Reed that is to 'blame' for Robin being guilty of killing his family. Primarily because he bewitched the Jury with uncomfortable facts that police ignored and expected a fully informed Jury to also ignore.

Well it must be very difficult to ignore such simple things as comparing two men's hands to determine which of the two had likely been involved in the killing. That comparison obviously influenced the Jury, Robin's hands battered and bruised with blood smears on his palms indicating he'd been in contact with blood before his death. David on the other hand had no cuts, bruises or blood to his hands, so unlike his father was not a candidate as to having been involved in the tragic fight his younger brother Stephen fought in a vain attempt to save himself. Of course such evidence is no magician's trick, not skilful oration stitching together some illusion but hard, bitter evidence as to who was the killer.

Equally, when Kent Parker and the now 'run away' Victor Purkiss chortled with glee that they were going to easily defend Joe Karam's defamation suit against them on the basis of truth and honest opinion, citing having taken advice from a 'defamation expert' it wasn't some magic trick that saw those 'defences' dissolved into inanity - it was Parker himself agreeing that his opinions in defaming Karam were not based on truth, nor indeed could 'honest opinion' be based on absurdity. Absurdity such as the Crown case against David Bain.  Immediately Parker's followers said that he was being victimised by a 'powerful' Lawyer Reed. Of course that overlooks the fact that Parker had been assisted by what Reed termed as 'academic' Lawyer Price from Wellington. Moreover it overlooks that Parker has claimed to be a professional person with a professional education along with political aspirations - in other words no naïve babe in the woods.

So where does it start? In the lounge at Every Street of course where a man lay dead with a rifle nearby, a bullet risen into his brain from close contact that left gsr and soot around the entry wound to his forehead, a man whose hands told the story of his own death and that of his family. That's where it started, only to later divert into absurdity when the officer in charge of the case, now retired Detective Inspector Peter Robinson, overlooked years of police experience and ignored the hands of the dead Robin Bain to the point of not even sampling and testing the blood on his hands, or the 'fresh' blood on a towel in the laundry that years later proved to be Robin's. The same man of course who never questioned 'mystery' evidence showing up 'after hours.' The very same person said to be involved with prostitutes in a city brothel and under whose watch Laniet Bain's electronic diary of clients disappeared.

Is any of that the work of a mesmerising Lawyer? No, none of it at all. Just as a fingerprint 'expert' lying to a Jury to help them 'understand' is also not the work of a Lawyer defending a man for his stolen freedom. It wasn't Reed that came up with the laughable assertion that David Bain interrupted 'his' murdering spree to do a paper round. A paper round during which he 'ensured' that he was seen as to prove an 'alibi.' In fact it was some lunatic in the police that thought that one up and considered the Courts and the New Zealand public so stupid that they would not connect the fact that 'needing' to be seen was incongruous when measured against the physical proof of papers in letter boxes that morning 'proving' their delivery. So who was mesmerising who, who indeed.

Kent Parker and the hate-sites devastatingly beaten.

Four years in the making and Kent Parker was beaten before his trial for defamation even began. Oddly enough Victor Purkiss never showed, nor did 30 odd witnesses also earlier scheduled to appear. Kent blamed that on money, proving  that even at the end he was lying. A great swathe of his 'witnesses' were declared to have irrelevant testimony of no value to the now failed defence of Kent.

Kent was batting a double defence of truth and honest opinion. I had this debate with he and other of the sisters on line years ago. Their arguments were flawed then and by the third day of the Trial the Judge had ruled that Parker had no defence of truth. That needs to be put in context Parker and his group's attack on Karam had no basis in truth. That is a devastating indictment against the now defunct site 'Counterspin' and the facebook site 'Justice for Robin Bain.' They were founded on lies with the purpose to lie. These groups lied and continued to lie. It has only been in the last month or so that Trade Me have finally recognised that people like 'jeeves', Ralph Taylor and 'cookingwithgas,' Catherine Kennedy have defamed Karam and Bain for years on the TM boards by continuing to lie about 'facts' of the case. Trade Me had for some time difficulty following the 're-defined' subtleties as Kennedy and Taylor found new ways to defame - largely with the assistance of Trade Me failing to recognise the pattern of the defamation, it's changing style and its fuller context. Trade Me would simply remove posts and these two and others would 'rephrase' their attack. No excuse for that by  Trade Me and they may yet have a sleeping giant of a case brought against them.

Of course the 'larger' framework was the two hate-sites, and their members, who deliberately published false information in order that others would believe David was guilty,  was that Karam knew of that guilt and so on. The frustration is that the msm have taken so long to appreciate the 'work' of Parker and the others, despite the fact that it was glaringly obvious. During some of my first experiences with the 'sisters' I quickly discovered their modus operand. When I asked an obvious question - the condition of the deceased Robin's hands. The answer was no blood, no injuries but that David was 'covered' in blood. Absolute lies as I was soon to discover. I was also to discover the currency these claims had with people who simply accepted they were true without satisfying themselves of the facts. Quickly, it would be added that David had scratches to his chest consistent with being in a fight with Stephen, but by the time of the re-trial in 2009 it was clear David had no injuries to his chest when strip searched by the police doctor only hours after the murders/suicide. Even the strip search would be lied about and continued to be lied about in particular by one disgusting person from Palmerston North. A 'man' who among various other lies claimed that he was going to support Parker and Purkiss financially - so much for that with the news from Kent himself, no money.

Despite promises of funds from people such as Kennedy and Deb Coates, none of sufficient amounts arrived. While at the very same time the public defamation, asides and subtleties of hate continued. Kent however wasn't taken advantage of, he too kept up the diatribe right until the trial. Last Friday he confessed one evident fact: his campaign wasn't built on truth, soon he would also relinquish honest opinion. Some irony in that, I've read 100s of posts where the 'sisters' carefully say 'in my opinion' as though that protects them from being liable for defamation. I doubt that Kent gets that even now.

Yet what a devastated figure he is now that it is recorded that he wasn't supporting Robin Bain but attacking Karam and David with deliberate lies. Moreover, that everything he did was based on lies and lies is neither truth nor 'opinion.' Same goes for Cameron, Curran and others - in fact for all of those now crept off to the shadows, including the sicko school teacher Williams. Others will have noted that the Courts view arguing 'truth' is an aggravating feature of defamation, clearly because it shows an unwillingness to be truthful and is simply a matter of an excuse if the truth can't be proved as is the case in Karam v Parker and Purkiss.

Consider for a moment the way that Kent has been abandoned by those that promised him help. It's hard to like Kent for any reason, but the now shadowy figures such as Bill Rodie and others are the possessors of a bigger evil because they not only breath hate but retire from and abandon their own kind.

There are many issues left unresolved, not only the obvious efforts of Purkiss to 'run' but also of that Parker preparing the way already to declaring himself as unable to pay. I'm particularly interested in Van Beynan, somebody 'set up' by Fairfax and himself as the New Zealand media expert on the Bain case with the 'famous' phrase of 'sitting through nearly every minute of the retrial.' Does Van Beynan live in some kind of vacuum? Why did he never report the strip search of David Bain despite the controversy that surrounded it and how it was used literally 100s if thousands of time to present David as killer and Joe therefore of 'knowing' that David was guilty. Why didn't he step forward and 'clear' the matter up, he was after all a leading 'expert.' Why wasn't it important to him to make the truth known. After all it was he that sat at the top, he whose articles and facts were quoted. Whoops and he that 'stalked' jurors and travelled in a conference in Perth to ask a question of David in front of the world media that had no basis in truth. At least twice Fairfax have defended the reporting and 'opinions' of Van Beynan to the NZ Press Council. An opinion, much like that of Parkers, not built on truth.

It could yet be that Van Beynan is challenged on both his opinion and honesty because the inevitable conclusion of Parker's trial is also the inevitable conclusion of reading and believing that Van Beynan was, is, the foremost media authority on the Bain case - the man who 'sat through almost every minute of the trial.' I can clearly see that Van Beynan's writing on the Bain case, his obvious knowledge of how that writing was used by Parker and so in a way that he must have known bore no resemblance to the truth, was therefore a campaign against both Karam and David. He's caused a lot of harm, the hate-siters have quoted him for years in what has accumulated in Parker's defence of 'truth' and 'honest opinion' being rejected in the High Court. Van Beynan had the opportunity to put things wrong but instead chose to say that paying David compensation would be a travesty.

More of interest to come on Parker and at least one of the men taken to the shadows since the truth has become known. Will there be one pro-active and positive move by the sisters, or just sullen silence as they continue to creep away holding their purses.

Teina Pora, an imperfect man caught in an imperfect system.

One thing for certain about Teina Pora is that he knows how to talk himself into trouble. It was his attempts to frame somebody else for the murder of Susan Burdett to claim the reward that saw him being framed for her murder. I used the word imperfect for both the man and the 'system.' The officer in charge of the Burdett inquiry knew that he had an imperfect and pliable youth on his hands when he began to 'assist' Pora to confess to a crime that there is plenty of evidence he didn't commit. One of the former detectives on the Pora case now advocating for Pora's freedom recognised the imperfection and said that rather than being charged with murder Pora should have been charged with wasting police time. How could two men have such opposing views? The answer is easy, one man saw the imperfection, naivety and cunning of a 17 year old with the intellect of a young child as a pliable tool to 'solve' a murder that had been on 'the books' for some time, the other man was a thinker who worked toward the truth and not toward relieving pressure.

20 years of prison later and who is Pora? Well, no doubt there is a public expectation for some that he is 'matured,' of reasonable intelligence, someone willing to work and so on. But how can it be that a person of impaired intellect, street 'cunning' and poorly educated is somehow 'improved' by 20 years prison for a crime he didn't commit. It's hard, very hard to imagine how a 'street kid,' probably once a solvent sniffer with no education should some how be improved on the mere basis that it generally recognised that he is in prison for another man's crime. Thinking about that is important. Pora is on struggle street, just as Dougherty was before him because they have a background of neglect and crime - they are not somehow 'remedied' into good citizens just because the system finally acknowledges that they're are or were falsely imprisoned - their problems remain, in fact are deepened. These aren't good luck stories with a nice ending, they're bad luck stories with uncertain endings because the product (the men) have not suddenly been made good, rather they've been let out of a cell for a crime they didn't commit but which cell they may have entered for other reasons. These men are not the David Bain, Arthur Thomas or Allan Halls of this world, they're are refugees from a troubled life.

Looking at that imperfection of human kind brings into focus the imperfection of the 'system.' People like Pora don't generally get let go unless they acknowledge their crimes - even though they may have not committed the crime for which they are imprisoned. Follow this, 'even though you didn't do it, you must say you did or we won't let you go.' A type of 'doctrine' that is hardly of assistance in helping Pora, for instance, in developing a sense of what is right and what is wrong when viewing the system that has stolen 20 years from him. Get a little closer on that. The system demands a lie to let an innocent man go, whilst at the same time demanding the 'truth' as the Parole Board did in questioning Pora about a recent home leave. On the one hand they expect a lie, on the other the truth. Hard to keep up with, imagine then the difficulty for someone with the intellect of a pre-teenager.

Pora apparently had his parole denied for using the services of a prostitute whilst on home leave, and for meeting or spending time with an ex prisoner. When questioned about both he apparently wasn't 'truthful.' Well, not of  the expected standard. That is lying by admitting a crime he didn't commit, but being truthful for spending some time with an ex prisoner. How terrible, after all he's only spent the last 20 years every day with prisoners. The following is from the Board in respect of them denying Pora parole.

'This information was not given to the board by Mr Pora until he faced extreme questioning," the board said.
"Significantly, we find as a fact that he endeavoured to hide, deflect or evade explaining how and why he breached his conditions, and only revealed this as a consequence of careful questioning from the panel."

I written a blog earlier about Pora being in prison for 20 years for being a liar - the same reason it appears as to why he can't get out.

Greg King - some of the things he taught us.

One of them was to look deeper. He was an engaging showman in some respects, he could entertain, held humour and sharp insight in a most polite way. If kiwi speech is the key to opening doors his revelation that he was 'canvas kisser' during his amateur boxing career invited him into a nations heart. Self-depreciating, while holding a royal flush at the card table. That winning poker hand was a razor sharp intellect, a masquerade of drifting from character to character, reading the subtleties of life as though from a written page in order to chart a passage into a new world.

It seems to me that Greg King was an adventurer, looking forward so as to see how things might be made better, how understanding could prevail and open doors. Like all adventurers he was perhaps looking for himself, who he was and where he was going. Greg King was among the best lawyers in New Zealand, of anytime it seems to be in broad opinion. I think the Law excited and frustrated Greg by turn. His was the ultimate challenge, a duel of the intellect to oppose the resources of the Crown and give his clients what the Law decrees they must have - a fair trial. It's been noted elsewhere, even in recent days how many New Zealanders confuse the role of defence Lawyers, in fact have an almost middle ages view that there is no difference between an accused and his or her advocate. That in fact if the advocate was any good, or moral, they wouldn't be defending criminals - taken to its natural conclusion no one accused of a crime would be innocent and no trials would be needed.

I think that is the reason, or at least part of it, why Greg reached out to the victims of Crime to help break down the type of thinking where some of the public 'hate' the lawyer that got someone 'off' that the hater 'knew' was guilty, and therefore the Lawyer must have known was guilty as well. Fairly tough task for a compassionate man to have to deal with. A man apparently always able to appreciate the human nature in the most reviled of people and unafraid to reveal so in order to also foster wider understanding.Taken from another view, Greg King, doing 'his job' against all criticism was a very strong person. He showed that strength by doing his best for clients and by not becoming bitter or nasty toward the 'magical' few in society who some how 'know' how events took place without being there. Difficult task.

By now we at least see another of the sides of Greg's character, his complexity and by turn simple view toward others. He was a benevolent man toward others, despite what inner feelings he might have had. It could be said he 'hid' some of feelings behind the complexity of characters he played and was to various people. Greg was dying of cancer, either in the shorter or longer term despite having the life he undoubtedly loved, along with a family he loved. For all that has been written or spoken about in recent days in respect of what has been revealed of Greg's suicide note, it has focused on his revelations that the was 'haunted' by the dead. Very easy to forget, when considering that claim, that Greg was depressed - yet hard for me to consider the comments as super imposing themselves over a man realising he was perhaps at death's door and soon to depart from his family, a family he may have been unable to bear the thought that they would see him suffer as they suffered too.

In those feelings Greg King would not have stood apart from few other New Zealanders, realising toward the end that things loved or cherished were family and kindness above all else. He may have been a great Lawyer, a defender of the apparently indefensible, someone willing and able to take on cases where he considered a person truly innocent and the victim, or potential victim of an injustice - but he was as he admitted, a 'canvas kisser.' I don't recall having heard the self-depreciating term before Greg used it, that despite all it's potential humorous nuances belied a fighter of great strength. A man it seems who, faced with his own personal and final battle, was unable to bear the thought of what would be his greatest loss, that of his wife, daughter and wider family.

Kent Parker - it did get crazier.

I got the answer to my question yesterday about whether things with Parker could get any crazier, because they sure did today. If I have the framework correct Kent Parker swore or affirmed an affidavit, which is the same as giving evidence under oath, in which he admitted today that he lied. The legal term for that is perjury, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The chances are that someone may lay a complaint with police, or indeed the Judge may order that it be brought to their attention that Parker has admitted perjury.

Many people have known for years that Parkers whole campaign has been built on lies but to learn that he acknowledged it in the Auckland High Court is 'out there' by any definition. He also apologised. It seems that Parker was always going to fold but what is inexplicable is the fact that he didn't do so years ago when the cost to him would have been less. Now even his freedom is at question. It's difficult to imagine how he must feel, no doubt sorry for himself, but it is bewildering to consider how he possibly sees the evaporation of his own hate campaign pass in the dock at the High Court. The man obviously has a martyr's type complex, but one he generated from his own ambition without the apparent ability to see that an argument cannot survive on foundation of lies. It is almost as if he pushed the envelope as much as possible knowing full well he was headed for disaster. I've often written of my belief that he has unfortunate psychiatric history and today seems to underline that.

That is not to forget that he attracted, or was attracted to like minded gullible people who bonded for a 'noble' cause, a cause that they have effectively destroyed. They have added to the ignominy of the memory of Robin Bain, not only as killer of his family, but as someone capable in death of becoming the figure head of a cult. Consider how many of Kent's 'good people' are disturbed that Robin couldn't defend himself of the charges, when in fact he made the decision not to defend the charges but kill himself instead, along with the allegations of incest from his daughters. Robin wanted out. Parker and co wanted his 'salvation' even though by their efforts Parker's 'crew' have forever underlined that which Robin wanted hidden.

I've been told that Parker has taken his 'site' off line, this on the same day he apologised and agreed that he was a liar and perjurer. So what now? I'm unsure but no doubt there is 'exposure' on the way for a number of people. Parker has handed over the 'secrets,' he has coughed and the prize of what went on behind the scenes is now in Karam's hands and from there a new journey, I suspect begins.

Kent Parker - can it get any crazier?

I know a number of people have looked forward to today with some anticipation of finally seeing Kent and Vic Purkiss's defamation trial start. It was long ago predicted that the trial would not become a venue for Kent's ego and wacky ideas. In fact much of his intended defence was struck out earlier, some of the dimwits he intended to call weren't considered either credible or material to a defence against defamation. I've suggested in the past that maybe Kent or Vic would do a runner, and it appears that Vic Purkiss has indeed 'hit the toe.'

I have mixed feelings about that because of reports that his wife is poorly. Taking into account many of those that objected, or do object, to Counterspin and JFRB is because of attacks on family members or threats of attacks against the children and families of those that oppose the hate-campaigners - I feel with certainty that there is no pleasure felt for the difficulties Parker and co have caused their own families because that would make those that oppose them no different than them. An importance difference between the sides has always been to observe the truth knowing how dangerous, and what harm lies can cause. When Auckland school teacher Christine Williams threatened to send Mongrel Mob members to my house, or to 'rescue' my children and wife to the chortles and glee of other hate-siters there was no response in kind. No debasing a protest that it wasn't right to 'stalk' and threaten others to prove who was right and who was wrong. When Williams and others laid false complaints raised from their imaginations with police, and anyone else who would listen, it was important not to be drawn down to that level. To have done so would not honour an interest in Justice, in fact it would dishonour it in the same way the hate-siters have done.

Another reason I have mixed feelings is because of how unworthy an opponent Parker and co have shown themselves to be - something which has been indicated throughout by their lies. If somebody is right, why do they need to lie? Detective Jones showed that during the retrial where he admitted to lying in order to help the Jury understand the truth. How apt those words were for the description of what Parker, Williams and others have done. Here now is the reason not to have responded in kind because the very argument used to persecute David Bain has been a lie, and to respond with lies would have been the same as using the logic of Jones. The same also as Martin Van Beynan stalking jurors and demanding information from them, writing about the trial but leaving out key evidence that would have exposed that he too was on a campaign. Elsewhere in this blog are shown links between the hate-sites, their members and Van Beynan. Make no mistake the machinations of the hate-sites was wide spread, used as they often were by those that 'fed' them lies to compliment their own

By now it will have been decided if a summary Judgement has been entered against Vic Purkiss and no doubt tomorrow or soon after the Judge will find against Parker. It seems, predictably that Parker was cautioned many times today not use his opportunity to cross examine in order to make statements - read speeches. So a prediction of mine that he may well be placed in Contempt of Court may still happen. Michael Reed expressed in his opening what has long been obvious: that there was no campaign for 'Justice' for Robin Bain but that it was a vehicle to express hatred against Karam, Bain or anyone that might not agree with that expression of hatred.

I started off this blog by asking the question as to whether or not Parker can get any crazier. Of course he can because we have already seen a lunatic leading a bunch of other nuts on a hate-campaign, culminating in a High Court Trial where a defendant(s) is given the attention so desperately craved. One who sits looking a paperwork with interest as though the written word and truth were the currency of his endeavour, rather than spite and evil.

Tough week for the 'hang bainers.'

Started out promising enough with police 'rejecting' the suggested evidence from David Giles that there was the probability of the gunshot residue showing on the thumb of Robin Bain in a crime scene photo. The rejoicing became somewhat muted when the nutjobs read the released reports instead of just salivating over the 'headlines'. There it was revealed that the ESIR scientist was unable to rule out that it was gsr and the police confirmed lines that were visible (but said not to exist by many of the gabbling sisters) were possibly from aged injuries. Of course the police didn't have the support of their own pathologist who had earlier said there were no marks present on the thumb in the morgue. So more on that to come.

It was with some excitement that a recycled 'mama' with a thing about donkeys was a candidate for mayor, as she, it, her, had done many times before only to discover that her previous rejection by her own town wasn't a transient situation but permanent. Now there may be questions for that same person as to whether a stalker and member of a hate-site is a fit and proper person to be at the Bar. The sisters were being rejected all round while one of their number again publicised a paedophile bent on line, only to snivel off and complain when the natural accusations were levelled against him or her, that attempting to excuse acts of paedophilia are actually supporting such acts. The dirty side to the sisters revealed once again., not one of them taking umbrage that the dirty old coot should express his 'benign' acceptance of acts that don't warrant mentioning here.

As these ducks of failure line up, hovering above has been the spectre of the ultimate betrayal of one another that is the 'sisterhood' - the defamation trial of Parker and Purkiss which begins today. For the man who considered he would start a political party on the strength of the number of members of his hate-sites his support has largely gone. He's been left to it, used and abused by those that now slink back into the shadows, some of whom have changed not only their cyber identities but their real identities, one such person being Annette Curran who introduced 'stalking' as a tool for the twisted sisters.

Today has been put aside for Legal argument and pre-trial matters. With large swathes excised by the Courts from their original defence Kent and Vic will have even less by the end of the day. While due process must be observed at all costs it sees inevitable that the 2 men will have little  of any substance to offer as a defence. Even a late swerve away and putting some of the blame on other members of the group will be too little too late. The words 'right thinking New Zealanders' will be consigned to history as the catch cry of modern day witches and a lynch mob fascinated by fire at night and the hangman's noose. No wonder they now cringe from the light. Does just one of them have the fortitude or strength of character to apologise. the ability to accept their own short comings and accept that it was self-hate and inadequacy that drove them on in their lust for blood and violence - I wouldn't bet on it.

Do they ponder now the 'mountain of evidence' now evaporated into tearful mist, the lies about strip searches and the planting of evidence, the leadership of the garbage written by Van Beynan as he stalked jurors and omitted the truth that always proved Robin's guilt - certainly not, because those with that capacity long ago left the ranks realising the mistake and the bizarre surroundings of 'right thinking New Zealanders' who saw it as right to lie, threaten to take away children, employ gang members to sort out the families of those that dared to reject the sister's threats, to sabotage family and work situations even lay false complaints with police - and all for what, to be proved wrong and to slink away after dropping Parker and Purkiss in it facing dire financial forebodings.

Mark Lundy - what happened to him?

By one account he had a deliberate plan of murder, creating an alibi and killing his wife 'quietly' with a tomahawk, dressed as a woman and oblivious to his own daughter asleep in the house and able to hear the screams of her mother as she died. What did he do, killed his daughter because she recognised him dressed as a woman and continued on with his perfect plan. I suppose you have to think that if he so willingly killed his daughter because she woke to hear the awful slaughter of her mother, why he hadn't just killed them both from the outset instead of malingering over a fine detailed plan that required a bludgeoning and chopping to death of Christine without Amber being woken from sleep.

It's a hard picture to reconcile. Which is no doubt part of the public response to him, ridicule about his weight, his looks, his 'amateurish' acting and so forth. None of that however is proof of murder. It is proof of some in society that convince themselves of the guilt or horridness of others based on how they look - we may be able to call it the Bain 'phenomenon.' Few, 'thoughtful' on line debates about the Bain case don't contain an element of ridicule to compensate for the lack of evidence proving David guilty and his father innocent. Of course others joining in that ridicule, or supporting it, are betraying an emotion that has coloured not only their thinking but all their opinions. These will be people that have a deeply held belief upon which all their judgements are made, that belief is that Lundy or David Bain are guilty formed by impressions, antagonism, hate and so forth that advance to become shrouded in 'facts.' The very reason why some Bain detractors years after various pieces of key evidence have been disproved, or explained, repeat them ad nauseum as though they are fresh points which other people somehow don't know or understand.

Those 'beliefs' are important because they hide, at least to the mind of the individual, that their motivation is little more than hatred against what the late Harry Cohen would describe as a 'public whipping boy.' What the malevolence against David Bain and Mark Lundy displays in today's society belies that haphazardness of Justice 100s of years after the Salem witch hunts. For we have a man apparently hurling abuse as Lundy is released on bail, a person who no doubt has a core 'belief' in his guilt but who I'm sure would not have read or properly understood this week's Privy Council decision. That's at one level, another is the hate-campaigns self described as campaigns and which it seems even Ministers of the Crown become susceptible, fearing, or sensing, that it is 'public opinion' that must be heeded for political purposes - the most vocal of those being the Sensible Sentencing Trust and it's 'crossed' over membership in the Justice for Robin Bain group and its associated shadow Counterspin.

So if, as it seems, there are a flood of cases of Miscarriages of Justice on the books why is their no political leadership, no control over a whole picture that impacts on the Public? It is political forbearance or indeed is it bowing to the basest political tool of all - fear? I have written about the clear venom the current Minister of Justice betrayed against David Bain when she 'warned' that she wouldn't release the Binnie report because David may not like the contents. When the report was released there was nothing for David not to like that was not overcome by the lucid reasoning and decision that he was not guilty of his guilty his family, was in fact innocent of the balance of probabilities.

At the 'end' of all these 'attacks' that disguise hatred are in fact real people, most of whom ultimately are proven to be innocent and the victims of a corrupt state unable or unwilling to accept blame, in other words the state has become, or is seen to have become, an institution disproving of Bain or Lundy's looks, their 'acting' of 'evidence' against them which in many circumstances is either fabricated or in fact evidence of nothing at all but a fillip to ignite that shroud that is 'carefully' built to hide the black heart of hatred. The sort of hatred that insulates a tortured individual from their belief or fears about their shortcomings, looks, awkwardness, personality traits that they wish to project away onto the 'public whipping boy' in order that they themselves will not be looked at closely but seen in the ranks of those marching off to a modern day execution where words and logic are smeared with bile.

Walsh and Police support the Giles evidence?

Has been a dramatic week in the New Zealand Justice arena since Monday. It seems likely that the release of the report into the claims of gunshot residue being on the hands of the late Robin Bain was timed to coincide with the release of the Privy Council decision in another controversial case - that of Mark Lundy which I shall blog about later.

Firstly to that report. In essence ESIR scientist Walh hasn't been able to discount that Robin Bain's thumb was photographed with gsr at the murder scene. He has confirmed the method of transfer shown on the show 3 Degrees is possible, though his opinion that it was unlikely in this case. By any estimation that falls into the category of reasonable doubt that David was not the killer but rather that it was Robin Bain. Unfortunately, and I don't know the reason why, but there was no mention of the corroborating evidence of Robin being the user of the firearm that morning, also discovered by David Giles and mentioned below in other blogs along with photographs of the same. I know that information was sent to the Minister, it is strange it wasn't covered in the report released last Monday. The public need to know how Walsh has or will evaluate that evidence. It seems likely that the 'coincidences' of the marks on Robin's hands from what seems to be handling the rifle will make a conclusion that he was the killer highly probable.

As to the police response. It seems Deputy Commissioner Burgess has 'out smarted' himself. He sticks with the tried and 'true' marks from home handy man 'work.' However, he has no support for that from the police Pathologist in the case Dr Alex Dempster who has said, unequivocally, that he did not see or record the marks in the mortuary when further examining the body of Robin Bain after a preliminary examination at the scene. In fact by the time Dempster was allowed to examine the scene the gsr may have already degenerated and no longer been visible, or simply been 'wiped off' as the detectives moved the body, rifle and magazine about the scene of Robin's death. But what Burgess has 'agreed' is that at some point there were marks on Robin's thumb, hardly a concession by virtue that many in New Zealand have also now seen them. Burgess has hung his hat on the fact there were marks but they were from injuries, of course those 'injuries' were unable to be seen by Dempster in the morgue and unable to be photographed by either Dempster's staff or police. How odd that Burgess did not explain that.

It's safe to agree that the allegation of marks of gsr on Robin's hands has not gone away. It has further support because Walsh has agreed they could have transferred there from the magazine and Burgess that they were present in the morgue but are not 'revealed' in photographs. It's steady as she goes, two Crown specialists on side that there might have been gsr and to this point no apparent report on associated marks on Robin's hands likely corroborating one another.

Think of the theory's already dismissed, that the marks were wrinkles, from playing a guitar, that they didn't exist to now agreement, even from police, that they did exist but somehow disappeared to the eye and weren't revealed in morgue photographs. Photographs, many will remember that showed recent cuts, bruises and blood on the hands of Robin Bain. As I say above the gsr hasn't gone away it has come closer.

More proof against Robin.

Well actually not proof against Robin but proof of David's innocence. For some respite in the venom that surrounds aspects of this case, it has to be remembered that Robin never set his son up for murder, it was the police that did that either inadvertently or carelessly, because of  the poor case management of Detective Inspector Peter Robinson and the oversight by Detective Sergeant Doyle at not looking at the fundamental core of this case - the hands of Robin.,

At the moment others are looking into any possible comparisons of the nicks in the white opera gloves and the injuries to Robin's hands, also the stain patterns compared to where Robin had blood wash on his hands. Perhaps for the first time, Robin's hands, as they always should have been, are the focus. The following are two photos taken from the show of the 'super sleuth' Bryan Bruce, which unfortunately reveal why he doesn't get a tin badge or even a plastic one.

Excuse the apparent horridness of these photos and others to do with the case which have been put on this blog. However, in as much as the photos are in the public forum now, they never would have been if Mark Lodge, had not only written down in his note book about the blood smears on Robin's palms, but that Peter Robinson, had scratched his head on receipt of the information realising the significance of that blood, and done what he needed to do anyway, investigate Robin's death in isolation. Remembering that puzzled look that Robinson had on his face during his cross examination at the retrial? He may have been considering, as any investigator in the world worth their salt would have done, that a 'murder' victim, shot by stealth, doesn't have blood smears on their palms. To relieve himself of any further confusion, he may inquired in all detail about injuries to Robin's hands, saving the country millions of dollars and David unbearable horror.

One has to be concerned about Robinson, ultimately he is responsible for the investigation. Did it for example never concern him that in the 2nd photo below, where there is no circle drawn around the body of Robin, that there is no magazine in sight! Then looking at the first photo and the entry wound above Robin's eye (and not in his temple - thanks Lee) why didn't Robinson see the very obvious fact that there was no link (blood trial) from that wound to Robin's right cheek where, in other photos, is seen a trace flow across the cheek. Two things on that, the blood flow from the wound is all upward, giving weight to the argument of the blood nose. Secondly if blood from the wound is going upwards, obviously by gravity, how can there be other blood reversing the laws of gravity be present, when it is not from the same wound.

Nobody should be mistaken for a second that if David Bain was found to have injuries to his hands, it would have been said they were consistent with his having been in a fight with Stephen. Similarly, had he had blood wash on his hands, red material under his nails it would have been claimed as proof of murder. Yet in the Bain case the 'suspect' with both blood on his hands and several injuries to them is 'considered' a victim. Contemplate also that if he'd had what was possibly gunshot residue seen on his thumb that 'just happened' to match the ridges of a magazine used in the killings, or a round impression of the same diameter of the hole in the side of magazine, along with an impression consistent with the base of the magazine as would be made by pushing it home into the rifle. All of these things would have been proof of murder, as would the finding of his fresh blood on a towel in the laundry, or indications of blood having been coming from his nose that morning. All of it, evidence against David, yet because this evidence was found to be connected to Robin in every sense - it means he was a victim. A big logic failure there. Are we to assume the police are so incompetent that they are not only unable to see the wood from the trees, but indeed be unable to even see the trees or the forest. There is something ticking in the Bain case and more evidence will continue to emerge against Robin, to the point that the 'mountain' of evidence once said to show David's guilt will not only have completely disappeared but be revealed to have left a mountain of evidence against the man who took the lives of his wife and children.

Footnote; I shall add a picture of the right side of Robin's face taken in the lounge later.

 

 

All that blood and gunshot residue.

As it happens, the defence team of David Bain, the police and Dr Dempster, the Crown pathologist, are all in agreement about one fact - the blood found on Robin Bain's hands. Detective Lodge recorded it first as is shown in the third video below. I'm unaware of any plausible explanation from Lodge or his commanding officer of the time, now retired Detective Inspector Peter Robinson, as to how from the finding of smeared blood on the hands of a murder suspect who had suicided, an innocent young man could emerge being convicted of his father's crimes. It defies all logic and basic policing, it is the very core of what went rotten in the investigation of the Bain killings.

I vouch for the authenticity of all that it is contained in these videos at their core base, proof of
Robin Bain as the killer of four of his family and of his suicide. I invite any of the Justice for Robin Bain, or Counterspin 'campaigners' to bring a civil action against me that can ultimately deny the key truth revealed in these videos. I also invite Robinson,  Lodge, or the most public of those that campaigned or continue to campaign against David Bain, the 'reporter' from The Press, Martin Van Beynan to sue me over the contents of these videos which I republish at my own will, because what this narrative implies, the subtext, the photos and conclusions is that they were all instrumental in one of the most, if not the most, significant Miscarriages of Justice in New Zealand history. A Miscarriage of Justice which shall echo for decades to come, against not only David, but his mother Margaret, sisters Arawa and Laniet, little brother Stephen, and his dad Robin who lost his way with no one to help him.

Part one  http://youtu.be/ZLhyLVrxnpc

 

Part two  http://youtu.be/9QmUiirPQIg

 

Part three  http://youtu.be/kOqKyyedoW4

No scientific arguments against the thumb magazine marks.

Something of recent consistency about the Bain case has been the 'investigation' into Robin's hands. There are 3 short videos now on the internet showing how much progress has been made which I will link to separately later. Firstly however the main debate has been about the 2 'David Giles' marks discovered in a photo of Robin Bain's thumb that are argued to be gunshot residue, consistent with Robin Bain having loaded the magazine that morning. Of course there is more evidence that has emerged in the last couple of weeks that creates and environment of credibility of accepting the 2 marks as being gsr. Before answering some of the criticism of those marks I urge readers to consider that 'environment of credibility.' In doing so consider what Binnie showed us in his report - the 'stepping back' to look at an overall picture.

The 'environment' surrounding the thumb is to me conclusive of Robin's suicide and David's innocence. Look and see Robin dead on the floor, quite easy because of the number of photos available. Note the blood flow higher in close relationship to his temple, then another low across the jaw and also the blood on Robin's moustache. He had a nose bleed that morning. Consider the reason for that, knowing that he was bleeding before his death and that his blood was found as a heavy saturation on a towel in the laundry, that his hands were smeared with blood (evidence from Detective Lodge and Dr Dempster,) also that a 'red substance' was found under his nail, which, like the smeared blood was never tested. Michael Reed, when cross examining Doyle, put to Doyle that if the blood was shown to have been from Stephen or  Laniet it would have implicated Robin - Doyle agreed. However, I say the blood implicated Robin regardless of it's source - he had blood on his hands that morning that was present before his death.

That environment includes a rifle, a pattern of splatter, a magazine but it also draws us back to the hands, they were battered and bruised as well as being bloody. Now we discover that there were lines most probably gsr on the thumb and the right palm, there were skin impressions likely to have been caused by handling the magazine. In all too much to escape, the Crown agree to the blood and the cuts (despite trying to minimalize them,) many in the country have seen what are said to have been gsr marks on the thumbs. Those are disputed because of size and other arguments, what follows below is identical examples of the lines replicated as a test on another persons hands who use the magazine and they match Robins. The Crown case is lurching to the deep. Remember the environment and the stepping back, blood, cuts, bruises, marks, blood loss from the nose and fresh blood on a laundry towel and on trousers found in Robin's van, think about the upward trajectory shot, the powder burns around the forehead  wound, the spatter on the curtain, going in two directions on the trousers, the uninterrupted splatter across the floor toward the curtain and the height of the spatter on the curtain - all of this is the 'environment' of what I use to call 'the final death scene,' the place where Robin died leaving all the proof in the world of how it was done. Proof, not even considered worth testing by Robinson.

There are a couple of enduring scenes of Robinson, the first was of him walking in Every Street surrounded by his officers, a big confident man in the middle of his 'men.' In time one of those men would be off side with police after accusations that he planted evidence, but consider Robinson. He is the man that accepted that 'evidence' without hesitation - it was he that never questioned how it could have possibly been found in a situation like that in the Thomas case - from a place already searched. It was also he, as ex Detective Weir described to Binnie, who had  a 'stance' on the Bain case. It was he, Robinson, upon whose watch evidence was not tested or destroyed. The man also in charge when Laniet's electronic diary 'disappeared.' The man who never ordered Robin to be investigated when such a situation is a given in all homicide investigations. A lot was hidden under the watch of Peter Robinson bringing me to the point of mentioning the second enduring image, when he was being cross examined he had a perplex almost bewildered look on his face as though the questions put to him by Reed about what the proper course of the inquiry should have been - he came across as somewhat dumb. Of course that was an act, 'dumb' men don't get to become Detective Inspectors, but they may very well play 'dumb' when they need to do so in order to protect themselves, when a point is reached that a decision might be made about their own 'skins' compared to sending a young man to decades of imprisonment and public vilification despite being innocent.

Finally consider Karam, Reed, and Giles. None of them desperate men in anyway. Reed blunt and logical, Karam a thinker with an obstinate determination, Giles a 'looker' and questioner, none of these men have put, or would put their reputations at risk over anything they were not 100% sure. So to the fanciful and hysterical hate-siters, van beynan and the smirking Burgess - here are the lines, that 'might' have been from doing 'handiman' repairs on the roof in the middle of the night, or playing a guitar (how desperate was that one from old van derbum,) and they are conclusively, on the Balance of Probabilities (the 'enivronment' given some detail above,) gunshot residue from Robin preparing to kill himself having first killed four of his family. An argument has always been that he was driven by fear of discovery of being involved in incest, but what if simply he had become a wretched soul confused about his relationship with his own daughter, who was growing out of 'his' control of her, but who had learnt some of the secrets contained in the 'lost; diary of Laniet Bain.

The following from a contributor:

 

The colored lines are exact copies of each other

The left image –Robins thumb

The right image- a photo from the retest

Each photo also contained an image of the magazine, the photographs were resized so that the magazine dimensions were the same in each photograph.