Resolving Miscarriages of Justice in New Zealand. Watson and Lundy.

I've blogged little this year, not because I have lost interest but rather because I've had the chance to open the door further in 2 current New Zealand Miscarriages of Justice both of which have gathered interest from off shore. That is Lundy and Watson of course. I am not in the position to say what I have discovered, or been privy to what others have discovered in these 2 cases but it is very significant. Over time I think both these cases will fall apart. Rather than go into detail now I thought I'd generally talk about Miscarriages of Justice and trying to think them through. There are a few clear rules.

1/ Never start from a position other than that of having an open mind and being objective.
2/ Never believe anything because you want to, or because someone else has said so. If it doesn't make sense there will be a reason.
3/ If you discover something which you think is significant always be prepared to reconsider it or to accept that with clear evidence that you may be wrong.
4/ Never (and this is possibly the hardest) be influenced by the details of the crime or information about the person who allegedly committed the crime. To do so is hazardous, hold the particular person away from you as far as possible when considering aspects of the case. This to ensure your subjective views do not take control. Both the Lundy and Watson case involved horrific crimes that for many influence them in their opinions. That can be seen on message boards where the cases are 'discussed' often mostly about the alleged character of the accused persons and what it is said they did. This is by far the most frequent trap as I found in the Bain case where most arguments against David's innocence revolve around personal attacks against him. So it is also true in Watson and Lundy.
5/Where I have said don't be influenced by details of the crime. I am not saying to ignore the details because indeed they are the most important clues. But rather don't consider them personally, they are in fact evidence which must be understood objectively and without anger or feeling.
6/As far as possible get right into the crime scene. No aspect is more important. Once in the crime scene don't accept other people's interpretations but work on your own. Test your own conclusions ruthlessly to ensure you are being dispassionate and not driven by subjective analysis. If you are able to conclude a genuine objective about the crime scene then move onto other aspects but not before. When and if you find you can move on, always go back to the crime scene when under any pressure or confused about other evidence. If the crime scene is interpreted correctly, all else will follow, you just need to reconsider and search your mind for the potential answers.
7/ Don't readily accept your own conclusions and always reconsider them as you learn more about the case.
8/ Look to put a logical narrative together. Every crime starts and finishes in some way - the beginning and end of the facts.
9/ Never be afraid to be wrong, in fact welcome it because then you know you have invested in being right and become closed minded as a result. You are functioning properly when you are not afraid to be wrong.
10/ Search, search and search. Not just for facts but for logical progression of the narrative. Always ask questions even of apparently established evidence because you may find a lot of people have made wrong conclusions and are afraid or unwilling to change them. Some will have possibly fabricated, fudged or hidden evidence - even planted evidence. You need your wits about you at all times.

These are but a few of the rules but hopefully they give the information, or at least part of that which is required.

I can say with Watson and Lundy, as I also reached with David Bain, Pora and Ewen McDonald earlier on this blog and later with Jeremy Bamber on a blog overseas that the 2 men are innocent and that they should be freed. In fact must be freed.

Before concluding I say again as I have before do not forget Allan Hall.

Over a period of time I may be able to open up a little more about the Watson and Lundy cases and many folks will be surprised if they have failed to be objective in considering those cases.

Cheers for now.