Injustice threepeat; Thomas, Pora, Bain.

There was publicity on the Pora, Thomas and Bain cases this week. Nothing deliberate, but rather the rare consequences that continue to arise in a country where Miscarriages of Justice are largely mishandled to the extreme.

The week started with the news that Teina Pora was going to the Parole Board for possible release for a crime few, if any New Zealanders now believe he committed. Pora like others before him is disadvantaged in his parole attempt because he hasn't admitted a crime he didn't commit. There is something notably sick, medieval in fact, about that. All that is needed is a trial by fire of some sort as were 'performed' on 'witches' in the dark ages. There is no construction of the case against Pora that shows he should have even been charged. That the real murderer and serial rapist whose DNA was found on the body Susan Burdett is already in prison only adds to the bizarre torture that the state has inflicted upon a young orphan who was encouraged by police, a particularly officer notably, Rutherford, to lie himself into prison believing he was going to get a reward.

It was another now deceased officer, Hutton, at the center of a second controversy this week, when his victim Arthur Allan Thomas called a press conference in the Pukekawa Community Hall where he blasted Deputy Commissioner of Police Mike Bush for speaking out about the integrity of Hutton at his funeral last week in such a manner that it clearly stated that police management, currently investigating the Crewe murders, yet again, believe that Thomas, long since pardoned, is guilty. On a personal note it was great to see the 75 year old farmer speaking publicly about his false imprisonment, few would realise how difficult it was for Thomas to spend 10 years in prison, see his marriage dissolve and being still getting kicked in the teeth 30 years later by a 'progressive' Commissioner with 'no baggage.' The very same man who offered qualifiers that police might have only been speaking about the early years of Hutton's career when saying that he had integrity beyond reproach. Additionally, the Commissioner added that Hutton's family had asked them (police) to attend as though Commissioner Marshall was implying fault with Hutton's family. Mike Bush could have chosen diplomatic language, simply asked his comments not to be published, qualified them in someway - or even pointed out  the obvious that it wasn't appropriate for him to speak while an inquiry into the Crewe murders continues. An inquiry Thomas says will be another white wash.

By Thursday the Bain case was back in Court, among pre-hearing matters being discussed was where the substantive hearing should take place. It seems the 'impartial' Minister of Justice is offended beyond extreme and can't digest the idea that Bain wants his case heard in Auckland, the same city in which the Minister lives.  Kirsty McDonald represented the Minister pointing out that Bain wasn't 'special' that he'd brought the proceedings and so forth. Well hello, The Minister and her counsel, don't think a person spending 13 years in prison for a crime he was acquitted of isn't 'special.' Judging by the cases above I guess people spending decades of their lives in NZ prisons for crimes they didn't commit isn't 'special' after all. In fact as the 3 cases demonstrate, an all too common event. Pora landlocked for not admitting something he didn't do. Thomas convicted a 'third' time by a Commissioner speaking highly of the officer who was named by a Royal Commission as having planted evidence leaving the conclusion in the air that the farmer was guilty anyway. Bain facing a vindictive and petty reaction from the Minister of Justice for 'daring' to stand up for his rights.

I should say the Pora case is an absolute mess, one demanding to be sorted out immediately and not in the antiquated process of a Petition to the Governor General. I believe his counsel should seek Judicial Review of progress of the Petition, pointing out that justice delayed is justice denied. I note that our highest Judge has previously made comment about the Pora case, one that equally applies to the Bain case, where the accused are liars in everything they say other than that which might incriminate them or be twisted to incriminate them. In the meantime there have been other developments. Details of material released to one of the hate site members we'll call Aunt Fanny show that Aunt Fanny lied in great detail about information claimed to have been given to him by the police. Information which he went onto to fill the blog sphere with as if it were gospel. The Minister of those departments, yes Collins, the same person who despite taking advice by Binnie, was alarmed by knowing more about the case and the Law that an international Jurist, and secretly called for a government 'pet' to do a second report to confirm the Minister's observations - happens to have admitted being a reader of the blogs on which Aunt Fanny published the lies he claimed came from police but without any sanction from the Minister or anyone in her department. All part of the plan no doubt. The same plan that is now confirmed that a 'Minister friendly' media outlet got access to information controlled by the Minister's secretary in record time, and able to scoop a headline. How very convenient. Yet if the Minister was looking for the convenience of a 'friendly' press to deny natural justice to David Bain she should have thought a little deeper because not only was Aunt Fanny making purchase out of misrepresenting released information on a blog which the Minister reads, other things beyond the Minister's imagination were underway, findings that will eventually bite even harder at her credibility because they go to the very heart of the failed case against Bain, possibly more so than at any point earlier - more 'egg on face' for the 'hangbainers' coming.

I've called this a threepeat by virtue that all 3 cases were back in the press for various reasons this week. But the title could have equally applied to the mindset of 'nothing's wrong here keep going' that comes with such cases. Or explanations that time has past and such things would happen 'these days' when in fact it is happening 'these days.' It's happening right now, exposing in the extreme a mindset that hasn't changed since it became obvious Thomas was framed - denials and the apparent hope that things will 'die down' or indeed some of the players in these tragedies will die, is it Justice? - no, a thousand times no.

The Bain case: another seed of deceit.

In so much as the Bain saga was played out in the media from the very beginning, very much a conditioning of the public mood to ensure that David was convicted and stayed convicted.

Think of some of the clichés that have proven to be false:
David's fingerprints on the gun in blood.
The use of the paper run as an 'alibi.'
The scratches David got from the massive fight with Stephen.
All the sinister connotations of his deja vu experiences that we now know to be common among young men.
That 'who ever heard the gurgling of Laniet was the killer.'

And the list goes laboriously on, one false fact after another, one insinuation presented with support from another.

Then think of what we didn't hear:

Robin had blood smears on his hands.
Robin's blood was found inside the rifle.
Robin's hands were bruised and bloody.
David was not home when the computer was turned on.
That Robin had been a firearm user all his life.
That Robin's footprints were found in the murder scene.
That the glasses said to be David's were in fact an old pair of his mothers.

Another list which goes on at length until we invariably reach the 'reliable' mantra Robin was the suspect, then later suspicion fell upon David. What a thoroughly convenient message from the investigators. Something which allowed the public to think that police thoroughly investigated the possibility that Robin was killer, were able to disprove that and turned their attention to the 'right' person, David. The very thought of this was a comfort I imagine for some, that the right person was arrested and charged despite  the unprecedented circumstances of a crime of this nature of which the son was the killer.

But this 'story' of the 'thorough' investigation into Robin is pure fiction, a deliberate lie. Over the years people have realised that the allegations of incest, and therefore a motive, against Robin were never investigated. Put by ex DS Doyle as they (the investigators) had no time for that because they 'had a murder to solve.' The same man would later agree that the thorough investigation did not include samples of the blood taken from Robin's hands even being tested despite the 'extensive' scrutiny of him as the main suspect.

Often in the Bain case the real truth was hidden by a lie, one of those was the 'strip search' which allegedly uncovered scratches on David's chest. This assertion was later covered over by another lie in the public  forum, that no strip search happened because David 'wasn't' a suspect. Well, now we know a strip search was conducted, the results recorded on a serialised form and handed to ex DS Doyle showing that David had no scratches on his chest the morning of the killings - but the 'scratches' were long celebrated right up until now by some of the seriously bewildered.

I always wanted to know if the 'main' first suspect's body was also searched for bruises and if, as one would presume, intimate tests made on his body to determine if he'd recently had sex for example. He was after all the 'main' suspect, the one  found on the ground with a rifle nearby that suggested suicide but no, now I discover no such tests were conducted on the body of Robin Bain - proving to be one of the biggest lies of all that he, Robin, was ever considered a suspect and his body treated in such a way to search for the forensic evidence that would have helped solve the crime.

How could a police investigation so poorly staged, one that overlooked all normal investigation procedures result in a Miscarriage of Justice if not every facet of it, as we now see, wasn't corrupted by an effort from somewhere near the outset to frame David Bain? Might this explain why the police pathologist Dr Dempster was kept waiting outside the scene for many hours, and might this also explain the continued disappearance of  Laniet's electronic diary that was said to contain the names of some of her clients. What could have held up a serious police investigation for hours, where one of the senior forensic experts critical to the investigation was kept away, where normal and known procedures weren't followed, unless it was an order from senior police who it can also be assumed steered the investigation away from the 'main' suspect.?

Going further along this line. If, and once, the diary was recovered weren't those that might have been named in there safe? Presumably yes. So what could have been the motivation to 'protect' the memory of Robin and falsely imprison his son? Why do others that know these answers not reveal them, why have they gone to such lengths to pervert the course of Justice.

Amanda Know appeal, it's contemporary fit with MOJ's in NZ..

When the Amanda Knox appeal was previewed in November 2010 an ex FBI investigator referred to 'golden bullet' evidence. That being evidence not found initially, but found sometime later and by all appearances when it was most 'needed.'


This of course is similar to the Crewe case here in NZ and also the Bain and Scott Watson cases. The spent cartridge cases 'missed' in the Crewe garden despite a grid search but discovered weeks later and finally years later revealed as having been planted. So to the Bain case where despite days of searching a lens was discovered in one of the rooms by a Detective not tasked with the job of searching, making the 'find' after hours in what ultimately proved to be a discredited link between David Bain and that room on the morning of the killers. So to the Watson case, hairs somehow missed on an early inspection found later. On each of these occasions the 'event' of the discoveries led to strengthening already weak circumstantial cases. The FBI retired investigator called that 'golden bullet' evidence and it also occurred with some DNA samples found in the crime scene of what I'm calling the 'Knox' weeks after the initial searches.

But reading more details of the Knox appeal there are other familiar 'issues' with the evidence. One of the prime witnesses happens to be a convicted drug dealer who has given 'important' evidence in 2 earlier murder trials no less. So too for Watson, a convenient gaol house informer pulled in to provide evidence of 'disclosures' made by Watson to a complete stranger. Thomas in the Crewe case verballed, David in the Bain case, leading questions put to him during is statements and later magnified to other 'significant' meanings.


Then we have the suggested 'motives' in all 4 cases, each it could be said deliberately prejudicial and of no probative value. In effect too prejudicial and without enough verified substance to be put to a Jury. In the Knox case it was 'sex' games gone wrong despite there being no proof of that. Arthur Thomas had to overcome the sinister suggestion that he had harboured a long term affection for one of the victims which might have driven him on to murder - a bloody big might, with no real place to be put before a Jury. David Bain had levelled at him the suggestion that he was in a girlfriend boyfriend relationship with his sister Laniet. The two deceased in the Scott Watson case provided an 'opportunity' that the crime was sex driven, a young potential couple, handsome and beautiful by turn, a purity destroyed by someone, anyone and Scott would do.

So common also is the motive of sex in some way intended sex, or denied sex, wrongful sex - all bases covered. The mere idea to reside in a Juror's mind where doubt might surface - 'oh yes sex, I shall convict.' If there is no viable link, nothing strong enough to overcome the potential prejudice as to why the beautiful young women, or partners might die then call the 0800 sex line, that will be worth a call but it won't be justice.

The choice of whom is to be railroaded.

There are as many definitions of those that might falsely fall foul of the law. Arthur Thomas, and David Bain were cleanskins, among the similarities as to what happened to them was 'evidence' found that had earlier been 'missed.' A distinguishing feature between the two was that Arthur was 'verballed' whereas David was not. When I reflect on the fact that David was not 'verballed' (claimed to have made some kind of confession) I think that might have been uncertainty within the Dunedin Police or fear that ultimately the wheels might fall off the prosecution despite one or more officers claiming a 'confession.' Or it may simply be that their Auckland counterparts at the time had more readily as a tool of trade 'confessions.'

But to move to 3 others who were not clean skins when arrested. Haig, Dougherty and Watson. Haig was necessarily going to be of interest because the was the boat's skipper on which the murder happened. Dougherty was a burglar and well known to the Police. Watson was a 'rare' catch in that he brought with him a criminal past that would always be used predjudicially against him, another Police tool of trade. As much as the evidence is argued about Watson there always remains the argument that he was of less than desirable character, allowing short falls in evidence therefore to be bridged by 'character' and insinuation. So the 'choice' of Watson is evidently a 'good' one where the evidence against him seems far from clear.

Bringing us back to Dougherty and what I sensed was major disappointment for those that had helped him win his freedom. I fully sympathise with those feelings of disappointment but I feel they're unrealistic because Dougherty or anybody doesn't have to be perfect to be the subject of a miscarriage of justice, and the further they are from being perfect the easier to administer the moj. His life was a struggle before his false imprisonment, and sure he was paid money, but he unfortunately remained probably an inadequate person who had led a life of crime the issues for which remain unresolved. It seems that we expect things to be in black and white and easily understandable when dealing with the complexities of life, and the individuals that might suffer moj.

I remain aware that Arthur still gets maligned, even though without any doubt he is innocent. The same happens to David whom in my opinion has equally strong proof of his innocence, but there are others trapped in the system, chosen as targets to solve a crime, because a informer was ready to snitch on them for money and say whatever was necessary, or evidence was 'found' or the man or woman 'confessed' and as a country we need to be quickly able to get to those moj's no matter who is the individual involved, by an agency with lawful power and the appropriate distance from the Crown.

What makes the Crewe and Bain cases similar.

One striking similarity is the 'golden bullet' evidence. The evidence for some reason which is not originally available but which 'happens' along to connect a picture for the case under investigation and drive it toward an unsound conviction.

Firstly take a look at the protagonists, David and Arthur. What they share in common is that they were 'clean skins' with a healthy respect for the law and a naivety about the role of the police, the type in fact to co-operate in their own demise. In the beginning both men freely answered questions, often without regard for the consequence of their answers and how those answers might be used against them. They were both genuine men who thought highly of the system and respected that the law and justice would prevail. Though I'm sure if they were asked now they would acknowledged that they had lost faith in the system long before the good ship justice was righted for each man individually. I'm sure they will admit under pressure to expecting to never fully recover from a situation that stole so much from them, so much that can never be replaced or compensated for.

But back to the golden bullets, to name the golden bullets in the Crewe case was the discovery of cartridge case that was missed in the first searches and when found was ultimately proven not to have even been manufactured at the time of the Crewe deaths. And of course the axle with a 'positive' match for parts found on Arthur's farm. Golden bullets, breakthroughs of injustice by the men tasked to uphold the law.
When pressure mounted on the evidence after the trial, suddenly material was dumped at the Whitford Tip as would also happen with evidence destroyed by the Police in the Bain case.

And similarly with David. A small room searched for days, then several nights later, an officer not tasked with the duty of searching, returning to that room virtually after hours and 'finding' a lens somehow apparently 'missed' by his colleagues. Then the frame of the glasses found in David's room and to span 13 years an officer revealing for the first time that David had asked for those glasses on the morning of the murders (despite they being of no use to anyone because they were without lens) but the officer had not wanted to mention the 'truth' earlier because he didn't want to criticised. The quality of truth rendered to the reaction possibly made to the speaker, rather to unequivocal honesty regardless of any impression, favour or disfavour.
But these are only a starting point to build on those others have made which show these two cases to be chillingly similar. I used the words 'golden bullet' taken from today's Herald where an ex FBI investigator comments about the conviction of Amanda Cox where he says 'any time that you go back to a crime scene six weeks after the event, and suddenly come up with a piece of evidence that is effectively the "Golden Bullet," that is suspicious. At best it is contaminated. In the UK or the US it would never have been admitted as evidence.' Of course in NZ, as in the case of David and Arthur, the 'golden bullets' once discovered were 'put in context' by the Judiciary who allowed the Crown to carry on and there is probably the key similarity between the two, even with things wrong with substantially important evidence, Miscarriages of Justice were allowed to 'carry on.' Even today idiots like Mike Stockdale, cobble together apparently un-discredited evidence from discredited witnesses, from a discredited investigation to carry on persecution. That is what will stop when an OIC of an investigation or an Area Commander or a Commissioner of Police, or Minister of Police will find abhorrent, poison and toxic anything with a hint or a smell of being a 'golden bullet,' anything found which was 'apparently' missed earlier, or not mentioned for fear the witness might be criticised. When those same men or women at the top rightly act with cynicism and not excitement or satisfaction that at last a 'breakthrough' is made on an important case.