Scott Watson and other recent Miscarriages of Justice.,

The police and the Crown have for a long time have kept an advantage they have no right to exploit. That is the separation of Miscarriages of Justice (MOJs). In any filing system in the world appropriate things go under a single heading. In New Zealand and no doubt in other jurisdictions MOJ's are not put in a pool or a single file of other similar cases, but deliberately separated and never further looked into. That serves a purpose of attempting to ensure the public (or indeed a Jury) don't associate one MOJ case with potential other MOJs, and serves to dilute the fact that police and Crown are a constant entity that has never changed in its response to MOJs. In fact sometimes public debate on the cases  serves a purpose for authorities where people vehemently support a conviction despite that there may be obvious flaws apparent; or concerns about a fair trial. Firstly authorities always delay remedy by denial, misleading evidence or statements and the absorbing of time while the victims of MOJs remain in prison and isolated, secondly they treat the results of each proven MOJ separately rather than cumulatively by saying police have learnt things, updated systems and claim certain things would not happen 'today.'

Not true as time shows.  There is solid proof that evidence was planted or tampered with in Thomas, Tamihere, Bain , and also in Lundy and Watson -  although these cases are in some instances separated by decades so the claims of 'would not happen today' are weasel words and there is no authority to overlook what police hierarchy will not do themselves, that is remedy MOJs - successive Police and Justice Ministers have failed to intervene when police go to sleep on MOJs. Sometimes citing as we will see later, the number of trials or appeals in which an MOJ is upheld.

In terms of the denial we saw the classic example a couple of years ago with the OIC of the Watson case, Rob Pope, 'explaining' that other people did not appreciate 'all the evidence.' All the evidence is for the Courts not for police to pretend, when a conviction looks shaky, that there is other evidence the public don't know about - we are democratic country with supposedly open justice system so what evidence was Pope talking about? The only hidden evidence that exists points to Scott's innocence, not guilt or it would have been crowed about for 21 years, like the '2 hairs' was.

First of all lets see some of the cases that should be in the pool of information on MOJs, to enliven comparison and scrutinise police methodology in suspect cases that has never changed:

Arthur Thomas, the planted shell case was made after the Crewe murders, but police never bothered to trace it to where it was sold and to whom after a private researcher tracked it down to the factory of manufacture. The reason, more probably than not, was because it would have led back to police so no doubt an investigation was never considered and no one independently ordered one. An unopened present is this case became the alleged reason for murder, (and how would Arthur know it was unopened or why would he care as by then both Jeanette and himself were in happy marriages), and does not compare to a shell known to be planted, and considered to have been planted by the Royal Commission of Inquiry that followed Arthur being pardoned for a crime he plainly didn't commit.

David Tamihere, there was evidence given that Urban Hoglen was killed and his body and that of Heidi Paakkonen dumped at sea. Urban's alleged watch was found in the room of David's young son. David was said to have had confessed to inmates in prison, one of whom he had never met. The inmates revealed horrific stories of the alleged sexual abuse of the couple before they were killed, (same as in Watson). Then the body of Urban was found buried on land, the watch still with his body, autopsy showed that his death was caused in a different manner that what the secret witnesses had claimed. David's appeal was turned down, no effort was made to trace the watch. Why, because we can imply that it had been planted, just like the shell case - in any event the body when found showed there had been perjured and planted evidence, but the Courts turned a blind eye. Advance to 2017 and a primary secret witness found guilty of multiple charges of perjury in the case after, not a police prosecution, but a private prosecution by Arthur Taylor and Mike Kalaugher. Tamihere is then left to have his convictions overturned while his captors, Crown, police and the Courts watch and offer no assistance.

Reg Haig, convicted of murdering a crew member on his fishing boat using the evidence of a witness granted immunity from prosecution, David Hogan. It would later be revealed that before the immunity was granted police properly (credit to them) provided evidence to the Crown that other witnesses had told them that Hogan had admitted the crimes, but the man still got immunity from the office of the Solicitor General in exchange for his evidence. The Crown solicitor that handled that case is now a judge, and the number of alleged confessions have been increased. Even after Rex's recent death the Crown will not disclose the full file to Jonathan Eaton QC see here:

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/crime/rex-haig-case-concerns-over-how-immunity-was-granted-to-crewmates/

Surely that Judge has an obligation to speak out.

Peter Ellis, children had suggested to them by investigators using a method of auto- suggestion that Peter has abused them at a pre-school where he worked.  Peter spent a decade in prison and would not admit the crimes (just like Thomas, Lundy, Pora, Bain and Scott Watson). The auto suggestion method was later abandoned worldwide as witnesses were seen to have been 'primed' as to what to say. Yet NZ police and Crown do nothing apart from ignoring the falsely imprisoned Peter Ellis - implication that it's up to him to undo the harm caused to him by the state.

We still have the case of a Dunedin woman since released on life parole and believed to be not guilty but who has said that she is afraid to speak out in her own defence against one of the police believed to have planted evidence in the Bain case. (This was in a book published by Ian Wishart that included these details, although I have also read about it in the mainstream press, and a recall a documentary.)

These cases are all symbolic of people being put in prison using great energy from the Crown, police and at times wilfully blind Courts, then when the case falls apart it is upon the victim to fight the system, rather than the system come to the rescue it just watches, one could say like a vulture. There are others - Pora also being an extreme case, a young man with learning difficulties 'helped' to confess to a crime committed by a police informer. Pora served 20 years for essentially trying to get a reward with a concocted and transparent story full of holes no police officer worth his/her salt would have believed. No help from the police or Court or Crown but rather an ex policeman Tim McKinnell who now says that another case, that of Gail Maney, convicted of murder when no body, was found 'could be bigger than the Pora case.' There has been no attention from authorities to aid McKinnell in looking at the Maney convictions, just the same old, 'nothing to see, none of our business' from the authorities.

'https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/in-depth/378282/gail-maney-case-could-be-bigger-than-teina-pora-s-investigator-tim-mckinnel

In the article McKinnell describes the way police 'find' evidence, and also the way old cases are rejected by police because of the previous hearings:

He found some concerning similarities to Teina Pora's case too, particularly when it came to the way police managed witnesses. "We have what appears to be a rather prolific use of deals, inducements, threats; potentially offers of rewards, relocation and pay-outs."

McKinnel holds a map of the Whatipu car park where Fuller-Sandys' car was found. Photo: RNZ / Luke McPake

Told of McKinnel's opinion, police said, "This matter was tried twice in court and Gail Maney was convicted both times. In general, police do not relitigate historical matters that has been through the courts and therefore we have no further comment."

Those comments by police are 'self imposed' rules or laws. Nobody would expect police not to reopen cases where there are problems or new evidence. But above shows that is exactly what police are saying they won't do 'in general'. One exception has been the Pora case where, after public pressure, police charged their 'own boy' Malcolm Rewa who has since been convicted of the rape and murder of Susan Burdett for which the young Pora spent his youth and early adult years in prison. So the police statement of not 'relitigating' historical matters is not estopped by Law, but rather by police themselves and uninterested Police and Justice Ministers. One would be correct in saying, no interest has ignited any response from police or the Crown since the star witness in the Tamihere case was convicted of 8 counts of perjury, in fact they just sit on their hands, as they did when Urban's body was found inland and still wearing a watch.

So a pattern is evident which stretches back 40 years, and no doubt further. Though the Thomas case remains contemporary point and Arthur has never received an apology. The man believed by many in the public to have planted, or to have had a hand in the planting of the shell case was spoken highly of by the current Police Commissioner Mike Bush at the man's funeral. Bush only withdrew or modified his comments after public pressure.

I add here Watson and Lundy who both have strong exculpatory evidence in their cases never heard by a Jury. Scott is in his 2nd year of an RPOM review and 21st of imprisonment. Independently during that time more critical evidence indicating his innocence has been found. At this point David Tamihere's case is under a similar review arguably with the strongest evidence possible - perjury. Mark Lundy has his case currently being considered for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, during a submission hearing on that case this week the Bench remarked that IHC (a junk science according to Jonathan Eaton QC) has a 'unhappy history'. These 2 cases, Lundy and Watson, both have hidden evidence, or evidence that was never investigation to a conclusion - in Lundy the evidence of 2 unknown men being in the death scene and whom left evidence there including fingerprints, DNA as well as hairs and fibres. In Scott's case the strongest evidence against him is now the strongest evidence of his innocence and has been on file for 21 years. In Scott's case the newer exculpatory evidence is hopefully now part of his RPOM but in the last few weeks it was bolstered immeasurably by evidence found  accidentally in another NZ case raised from an ESR file which has also been sent to Scott's lawyer, Jonathan Krebs

So the question is in Scott's case, what is the delay? One of things we are asked for is patience, yet there was no patience shown in the police inquiry to ensure they got the right man - they simply got the man they targeted with false evidence and ignored everything else. In Lundy police 'lost' scientific evidence and could not find the 2 strangers, there is no indication they looked. The support of that is that police 'lost' evidence that pointed away from Mark Lundy, and that a specialist who knew a way of potentially exculpating him from existing evidence before it was 'lost', didn't do the tests despite having almost a year of time to have done so - that was no accident, was in fact deliberate.

In a report that I recall reading last year, the Government have said they will create a Criminal Case Review Committee this year. Meanwhile people like Chris Watson, Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter, Warwick Jenness, Tim McKinnell and Geoff Levick soldier on from outside the system to get it right. A large portion of the public know that Arthur Thomas, Rex Haig, Teina Pora, Peter Ellis, Allan Hall, Gail Maney, Scott Watson, Mark Lundy and others never had fair investigations into their alleged guilt let alone fair trials.

A fair trial can never follow an unfair investigation. I'm impatient about both Mark and Scott's cases, Mark's case fortunately (although I don't believe he should be in custody) is at least before the Courts though we can't know the outcome. Scott's with equally strong evidence continues as he remains in custody after 21 years (4 years overdue for parole) and still not back within the Court system, despite a failed Court of Appeal Judgement (on the 2-trip theory) that may well have negatively influenced a Privy Council decision along with the now discredited hair evidence and an previous RPOM turned down without the hair evidence used to support the refusal, looked at again for changes in forensic process, or indeed in view of those case notes I mention. If someone else could find out about them, why couldn't a QC appointed by the Crown? No doubt because no one in authority encouraged her to do so and she didn't look,  giving meaning to the lack of encouragement or proper instructions. The same goes for the 'finding' of  the Thomas shell never fully investigated  right back to the Australian factory where it was made. Same with the 'confessions' made in Watson,  Haig, Mahey and Tamihere. None of these cases are isolated from one another as the same police force, Crown and Courts were involved and many times the same personnel both in police and prosecution.

Scott has asked his supporters for patience and that of course must be respected. To me that hopefully shows the seriousness with which the new plea is being treated but in another way it reminds me how poorly treated the wrongly convicted are, both when in prison and upon release. Scott's brother Tom has said that people should still write letters to the Minister or the Governor General if they so wish - encouraging a speedy result.

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.

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.