Comparing controversial murder convictions in NZ

The following cases have all  been  controversial and it is an interesting exercise to see what they have in common. My data relies on memory but does show significant similarities across a number of the cases, some of which have had trials determined by the Courts to be have Miscarriages of Justice.

Arthur Thomas. Farmer, convicted twice of murdering Jeanette and Harvey Crewe - later pardoned and compensated.

Motive: Said to have harboured resentment against Jeanette for not opening a gift he sent her years before both were married. There may be an explanation of how Arthur allegedly knew that the present was never opened, however it remains a insignificant motive with little to substantiate it, in other words not a motive at all.

Evidence: Circumstantial. Feeling about this case resulted in a number of people working voluntarily to help Arthur. This was the first time in NZ history where it was determined that police planted evidence in order to get a conviction.

Other suspects? The father and stepmother of the deceased couple were never investigated. On record is a letter from the then Commissioner of Police instructing staff not to investigate the stepmother who one deceased witness identified as having been on the couple's farm between the time the couple were killed and some days later when their bodies were discovered.

Evidence from paid informants or 'prison stoolies': Although no witnesses were called at Arthur's trials who fit this category, one such person was called to give evidence at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Arthur's conviction. He was a prison inmate, a lifer who claimed Arthur had confessed to him.

Current status: Has been free for over 40 years after having been pardoned and receiving compensation. Spent around a dozen years in prison, was assaulted and divorced by his then wife Vivian who spent many years fighting for his freedom.

David Bain. A student with an interest in the performing arts accused of killing his entire family, mother father and 3 siblings.

Motive: No motive was ever advanced by police. However members of groups claiming to support the late Robin Bain, David's father and the alternative alleged killer, have made numerous unsubstantiated claims of motive. On the other hand, as this was a case the Crown presented as it having to have been either the father or the son as guilty - there was significant evidence of a motive for Robin Bain having reacted to concerns that his daughters were about to make allegations of abuse against him.

Evidence: Circumstantial. The Privy Council in England was required to recognise on appeal that there was much evidence material to David's innocence withheld by the Crown. Much of that evidence was deeply significant and included proof that he was not at home when a computer on which a message a suicide note was left and which when 'closed down by an expert' had the actual shut time presented to coincide with the misleading time claimed to have been the point at which David arrived home from a paper round. Evidence of when David was seen arriving home was also distorted, as was proof that glasses allegedly used by the killer were not David's but rather his mothers. David was found guilty in a first trial later termed a Miscarriage of Justice and not guilty at a second. There is the general conclusion that not only was evidence hidden from the 1st Jury but also that evidence had been planted.

Other suspects? There was always acceptance that it was either David or his father who had killed the family, with the later suiciding after having killed his wife, 2 daughters and youngest son. The groups that appointed themselves to 'protect' the name of Robin Bain claimed that the father had no injuries or blood on his hands consistent with having killed the family. In reality he had both, whereas his son, David, had none at all. This case continues on to test David's innocence using a antiquated and odd procedure. His current claim is likely to centre on an independent and peer reviewed study carried out specifically on evidence surrounding Robin's death and which reportedly indicates a figure of around 98% probability that he took his own life.

Evidence of paid informants or 'prison stoolies' There was no evidence from any such sources although there had been discredited 'confessions' by David claimed by the groups supporting Robin. One of those confessions ultimately was shown to have been written by a administrator of the site, a defacto and futile effort to fill the gaps in the lack of evidence against David in order to manipulate the compensation process.

Current Status: Found not guilty at a retrial, found innocent by International Jurist Ian Binnie who recommended he be compensated. The recommendation was set aside because of claims that Binnie did not give some involved in the case a chance to respond to criticisms of them in his report. In fact the criticisms had been around long before Binnie's report. A second claim is now underway. David now is married man with a family. Like Arthur above he had never been in trouble with police and took a somewhat naïve position that the police were 'helping' him.

The following cases have all controversial and it is an interesting exercise to see what they have in common. My data relies on memory but does show significant similarities across a number of cases some of which have had trials determined by the Courts to be Miscarriages of Justice.

Arthur Thomas. Farmer convicted twice of murdering Jeanette and Harvey Crewe - later pardoned and compensated.

Motive: Said to have harboured resentment against Jeanette for not opening a gift he sent her years before both were married. There may be an explanation of how Arthur allegedly knew that the present was never opened, however it remains a insignificant motive with little to substantiate it, in other words not a motive at all.

Evidence: Circumstantial. Feeling about this case resulted in a number of people working voluntarily to help Arthur. This was the first time in NZ history where it was determined that police planted evidence in order to get a conviction.

Other suspects? The father and stepmother of the deceased couple were never investigated. On record is a letter from the then Commissioner of Police instructing staff not to investigate the stepmother who one deceased witness identified as having been on the couple's farm between the time the couple were killed and some days later when their bodies were discovered.

Evidence from paid informants or 'prison stoolies': Although no witnesses were called at Arthur's trials who fit this category, one such person was called to give evidence at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Arthur's conviction. He was a prison inmate, a lifer who claimed Arthur had confessed to him.

David Bain. A student with an interest in the performing arts accused of killing entire family, mother father and 3 siblings.

Motive: No motive was ever advance by police. However members of groups claiming to support the late Robin Bain, David's father and the alternative alleged killer, have made numerous unsubstantiated claims of motive. On the other hand, as this was a case the Crown presented as it having to have been either the father or the son as guilty - there was significant evidence of a motive for Robin Bain having reacted to concerns that his daughters were about to make allegations of abuse against him.

Evidence: Circumstantial. The Privy Council in England was required to recognise on appeal that there was much evidence material to David's innocence withheld by the Crown. Much of that evidence was deeply significant and included proof that he was not at home when a computer on which a message a suicide note was left and which when 'closed down by an expert' had the actual shut time presented to coincide with the misleading time claimed to have been the point at which David arrived home from a paper round. Evidence of when David was seen arriving home was also distorted, as was proof that glasses allegedly used by the killer were not David's but rather his mothers. David was found guilty in a first trial later termed a Miscarriage of Justice and not guilty at a second. There is the general conclusion that not only was evidence hidden from the 1st Jury but also that evidence had been planted.

Other suspects? There was always acceptance that it was either David or his father who had killed the family, with the later suiciding after having killed his wife, 2 daughters and youngest son. The groups that appointed themselves to 'protect' the name of Robin Bain claimed that the father had no injuries or blood on his hands consistent with having killed the family. In reality he had both whereas his son, David, had none at all. This case continues on to test David's innocence using a antiquated and odd procedure. His current claim is likely to centre on an independent and peer reviewed study carried out specifically on evidence surround Robin's death and which reportedly indicates a figure of around 98% probability that he took his own life.

Evidence of paid informants or 'prison stoolies' There was no evidence from any such sources although there had been discredited 'confessions' by David claimed by the groups supporting Robin. One of those confessions ultimately was shown to have been written by a administrator of the site, a defacto and futile effort to fill the gaps in the lack of evidence against David in order to manipulate the compensation process.

Scott Watson. Convicted of the deaths of a young couple Olivia Hope and Ben Smart on board his yacht.

Motive: An alleged sexual attack after which the couple were killed, possibly dumped at sea and whose bodies were never found.

Evidence: Circumstantial. The Crown relied heavily on a pre-trial campaign that pointed toward Watson. 2 significant witnesses material to a identification of Watson in the company of the 2 deceased later recanted, claiming to have been shown misleading photos by police. The strongest or weakest evidence depending on a reader's neutrality would be hairs found on a blanket said to belonged to Olivia (but which could have come from other female members of her family and been placed deliberately, or arrived accidentally where they were found,) hairs which were not found on an earlier search of the blanket, thus configuring with the Bain and Thomas cases where in Bain a lens (never able to be tied to the killings other than by allegation) was found several days after initial searches by a Detective not tasked with the job and who admitted at the retrial having misled the 1st Jury. In Thomas it was a shell casing found in a garden that had not been made at the time of deaths of the married couple, this casing had been 'missed' in earlier searches, no doubt because it had not been manufactured at that time.

Other suspects? Police were given reports of a mystery ketch consistent to that which one eye witness recalls being similar to the boat to which he dropped the couple. Police abandoned this line of inquiry to concentrate on Watson.

Evidence of paid informants or 'prison stoolies'. The Watson case had 2 such witnesses from memory. One of whom claimed to have been given explicit details by Watson as to the deaths of the couple. This witness later recanted, despite this and in the review of a recent petition for mercy by Watson where the witness could not be 'found' by police, the petition was rejected despite a reasonable argument that the Crown could both no longer rely on the evidence of the 'stoolie' or indeed, somewhat helpfully, even find him. The nature of the alleged confession was thick with perversity and as it is now recanted, also able to be said thick with claims likely to prejudice the Jury
against Watson.

Mark Lundy: Alleged to have killed his wife and daughter in their own home after travelling 600 ks to and from the scene without coming to the notice of any other party, apart from a witness who the Crown did not call at Lundy's recent retrial.

Motive: Said to be financial pressure despite Lundy's own accountant saying that the Lundy's business was not in terminal decline. It was argued that he killed his family to gain insurance on a policy instigated by his wife but not confirmed at the time of her death, I have read in one report.

Evidence: Circumstantial. There are plenty of details in the most recent following blogs on Lundy that show reasons for doubt regarding the reliability of his second conviction after a retrial. There is considerable conflict over brain stem cell material found in 2 small spots on his shirt. This material as in the cases of Thomas, Bain and Watson was not found during initial inspections of the shirt. There is a strong argument that the amount of material found was not consistent with the blood spattered room in which Christine, Mark's wife was killed.

Other suspects? A number. DNA of 2 persons not identified but probably males were found under the nails of Christine and Amber. Christine's brother had DNA of both the deceased found in his car and bathroom. 3 Men were seen in the vicinity of the house  contemporaneously with the killings. One man was considered a suspect but none of his details could be revealed in Court.

Evidence of paid informants or prison stoolies:
.
Mark Lundy: Alleged to have killed his wife and daughter in their own home after travelling 600 ks to and from the scene without coming to the notice of any other party, apart from a witness who the Crown did not call at Lundy's recent retrial.

Motive: Said to be financial pressure despite Lundy's own accountant saying that the Lundy's business was not in terminal decline.

Evidence: Circumstantial. There are plenty of details in the most recent following blogs on Lundy that show reasons for doubt regarding the reliability of his second conviction after a retrial. There is considerable conflict over brain stem cell material found in 2 small spots on his shirt. This material as in the cases of Thomas, Bain and Watson was not found during initial inspections of the shirt. There is a strong argument that the amount of material found was not consistent with the blood spattered room in which Christine, Mark's wife was killed.

Evidence of paid informants or prison stoolies: This case is remarkable in that at retrial, after a the Privy Council found evidence of a Miscarriage of Justice, the Crown presented a remarkably different case against Lundy. Part of that change scenario was a 'prison stoolie' who in fact 'introduced' a claim that Lundy had told him that he had killed his daughter Olivia because she 'happened in' on Lundy killing his wife with an axe or similar weapon. In the earlier trial Lundy was said to have been wearing a disguise, which like the murder weapon, was never found. Why Lundy would chose to kill his wife with a blunt axe or tomahawk knowing the likely noise and blood spatter was never explained credibly by the Crown.

Current Status: Resentenced to life in imprisonment with no prospect of parole for a further 8 years. A man with no history of violence and described by both his late father and mother-in-law as a loving father to his daughter Amber.

Teina Pora: Convicted of killing Susan Burdette in her home when he was aged around 16. First cleared on involvement in the crime the young Teina, now known to have suffered intellectual development problems because suffering foetal alcohol syndrome, confessed the crime to police, not actually of killing Susan but of being a party to her death with others. Notably he was unable to show police Susan's house nor indeed able to give a description of her. This didn't deter police who were desperate to solve the crime, the senior investigators deliberately switched their bullshit detectors off in order to 'solve' the crime.

Evidence: Circumstantial. This entire case was a dogsbody. Teina had 'convinced' willing police that he was the watch out for 2 gang members who killed Susan. The gang members were charged but not convicted because of alibis, Teina who began as a potential witness seeking a reward was however convicted. At the time of Susan Burdett's death a serial rapist had been at work in the South Auckland district where she lived. The first Pora Jury was never told of that, nor was there any cxplanation for unidentified semen taken from Susan's body. She had been attacked about the head. Ultimately, the rapist was caught and convicted of 17 rapes and identified as the person responsible for the semen taken from Susan's body. He (Malcom Rewa) was charged with her rape and murder, convicted at a 2nd trial of only having raped Susan.

Evidence of paid informers or 'prison stoolies' Unfortunately, and perhaps a mirror in this case and some of the others above, showing the desperation of investigators, Pora got the double whammy, ie paid for evidence of informers in his own family and a 'prison stoolie' who attempted to prove a link between Rewa and Pora which never existed, but which however the police needed when it became clear that Rewa was not only the rapist of Susan but highly probably her murderer as well. Some of his other rapes showed his attacks to the heads of his victims and that he always worked alone. He was an older gang member and rival of the gang with whom the very young Pora had associated. To this point he has never been tried without the false cloud hanging above him that someone else had been convicted of the murder.

Other suspects. Malcom Rewa, the lone wolf rapist who raped Susan Burdett the night she died by being attacked to the head.

Current Status: Teina is a free man. His conviction for murder was overturned by the Privy Council in the last couple of years putting him in the same category as Bain and Lundy in that respect and in the same category as Bain, Lundy and Thomas as having suffered a Miscarriage of Justice because of the Crown withholding material evidence supporting the innocence of all 4. The Privy Council took the unusual step of seeking submission from both the Crown and Pora's defence team as to their positions on a retrial before recommending that no retrial take place. It's likely that the Crown will accept that recommendation.

Other cases of note:
David Tamahere: Convicted of the deaths of 2 Swedish tourists. Either 'verballed' or had evidence given against by a 'prison stoolie' as to the explicit nature of the deaths of the tourists and where they were buried. One of the bodies later discovered a considerable distance from where the 'stoolie' claimed and wearing a watch that a late detective testified as to have taken from the son of Tamahere and presented as evidence at his trial. This man had an extensive criminal history, is now free and it is unknown if he is pursuing having his convictions overturned.

Rex Haig: Captain of a fishing trawler convicted of killing and throwing overboard a crew member. A cousin and fellow crew member of Haig gave evidence against Haigh. From memory he was paid and given immunity from prosecution. Haig eventually had his conviction set aside but was able to progress compensation on the basis of a determination that he had been involved in the killing even if not the principle offender.

Allan Hall: A small middle aged man of limited intelligence who lived with his mother convicted of killing a Papakura man at his door. The assailant was identified as a tall youthful dark man who suffered some injuries in a fight with the man's sons and who was seen running from the scene. Hall is short and white. Last known information that he was the first recipient of help from an Innocence Project based in the Capital City.

Summary on the 1st four cases. 75% of them had material information withheld from the Jury. 75% of them relied on paid informants or 'prison stoolies' with that occurring with Thomas at the Royal Commission stage. 100% of them saw a combination of either evidence withheld from the Jury, found after initial searches, or relied on 'prison stoolies' or paid informants. There are other cases such as these but in the interests of the higher profile of such cases those discussed here all show a 100% failures of police or Prosecuting authorities to complete their work either according to the Law or to comply with practice of frank disclosure. In other words failures didn't happen accidentally they were all contrived. It's notable here to mention that not a single prosecution as resulted from any evidence which was shown to have been intended to mislead the Court or (known to me) any complaints made to the Law Society about practitioners who deliberately did not disclose evidence material to the defence. Often following such Miscarriages of Justice some of antagonists receive praise or promotion, in the case of Thomas the chief Prosecutor was later made a Judge. The Governmental oversights to such Miscarriages of Justice are not owned by any particular party but they do have in common an acceptance along the lines that such cases are said to bre rare, time has moved on etc. In fact many of the recent revelations are contemporary even if the case is somewhat aged.

It's probably fair to say that no Judicial or Legislative changes have occurred at the result of any of these cases, in other words the status quo is endorsed. It's hard not to accept that Government resists the obvious with Miscarriages of Justice, passing them off to one side to gather dust with others already placed there. I was of the opinion very early on after the Bain retrial that the Courts were really the only place where meaningful change was going to take place. Arguing on this blog and elsewhere that the Bain compensation should immediately have been taken for Judicial Review which at the time had never been used in such a way but was however a way to 'step back' into the system from 'no man's land.' Similarly, I argued here that Watson should have been considering JR over the Government's endorsement of a report by Kirsty McDonald to do nothing about the 'stoolie' who had recanted and been unable to be found for 2 years or more but whose evidence was still allowed to stand against the imprisoned Watson.

I'd like to be surprised to see the right of going to the Privy Council to be re-instated for those cases following it's abandonment in favour of the new Supreme Court. It does have to one or other but can be both. I'd also like to see the abandonment of immunity from prosecution evidence, that from paid informants or 'stoolies.' That is also unlikely to happen but with the high incidence of such evidential failures in the above cases arguments, say in Watson and Lundy, against such types of evidence or the warnings given about it using some instances from above might well be entertained by the Courts and become part of the Common Law. In the Watson case initially through a JR and in Lundy at the Court of Appeal. In both these cases the Crown argument against both men is considerably weakened. As written earlier the primary 'stoolie' in Watson has in fact recanted, in Lundy on the other hand it was only the 'stoolie' witness 'X' who could introduce the absurdity that Lundy killed his daughter after she woke by 'surprise' at the time (perhaps) her mother was being killed. Arguments could be supported using the Bill or Rights Act, namely as to due process and receiving a fair trial.

What also could be done without any legislative changes are for complaints to be made to police when their own witnesses admit misleading the Jury to be routinely investigated and prosecuted. The same with prosecutors who knowingly withhold evidence - either prosecuted or investigated by the Law Society all of which rely upon complaints being made by members of the public, police, Lawyers or the Courts.

Lundy, Watson and Hall are not settled. It suits the powers that be that all these cases are treated individually when the facts emerge they all have much in common - being Miscarriages of Justice for which no one pays the price except the accused.