Wrongful Convictions Deprioritised in New Zealand?

                                Wrongful Convictions Deprioritised in New Zealand?

Well, I'm never going to be a Judge so I will never know if there is an effort to control the dialogue in the NZ cases of wrongful convictions or some other reasons why Judges sit back when incorrect scientific facts for example are given to a Court. Or indeed when evidence that even a young child might believe as not being credible is used to uphold a conviction in a case where there may have been a wrongful conviction. It all matters - and so if not to the Court then who?

Recently I listened to a radio interview with Paul Henry in what the Herald calls a podcast. It was recorded last month and while Paul was relatively well informed there were instances where he gave details more in-depth than previously. Part of that was around the infamous 2-trip theory. Paul presented it as a spontaneous event pulled by Prosecutor Davison at the last minute. When in fact there is a tonne of evidence police were trying to prove a second trip from the outset. Why? Because there was no evidence of Scott ever being with the couple and certainly as Paul said in the Wallace Naiad with them.

I think there is a critical interest in that for those following the case who must wonder why the Court isn't. The public doesn't expect the Court to be enveloped in a vacuum, not reading about these cases or informing themselves about details before Appeals. Yet to this point, although there was always evidence police had been totally unable to prove the point of a second trip before Davison spoke to the Jury about it. I think Davison knew, as did his off-sider who reappraised all evidence before the trial in what was called the Crutchley report. That report had been done with neutrality and according to rules that apply to the Crown and its prosecutors as duties to the Court, would have meant that Davison was obliged to tell the Court well in advance that there was no proof of a second trip despite police trying to prove that since the month of the alleged murders of Ben and Olivia.

Yet even if we get past that which is a complete indulgence of the Crown's malfeasance in hiding it, there does not seem to be one NZ Court in this case that asked Davison how extensive the search had been to prove a second trip. I know how extensive it was and how people were threatened about it because it is on the file and is now followed by confirmatory information provided by people who were asked to essentially perjure themselves and provide circumstantial evidence that "proved" a second trip.

I think I have said enough about this now apart from this evidence is documented and in the hands of Scott's Lawyers but may never be heard because of limitations put on Scott's appeal. It's bloody madness. As was Paul Henry offering excuses for Pope. If Pope couldn't handle the pressure of this investigation in an honest way he should have opted out instead of leaving 25 more years of misery for Scott and his family.