Milton Weir: Police speak?

There's no doubt that ex Detective Sergeant Milton Weir was a fiercely loyal police officer before being effectively shoved out the door by police. The study between he and controversial evidence in the Bain case is unique in that in terms of such evidence it is probably he that features the most. The lens being the foremost issue, the 'lost' electronic diary another, along with Mr Sanderson's request to have his statement to be read to the Court corrected, being others.

First of all the following in blue from a correspondent that highlights the cross examination of Weir in respect to the  evidence of Sanderson which got buried and which featured as a supporting beam in the Miscarriage of Justice perpetuated against David Bain.

When you read it there is to me a subtext of language coming across where in fact I think Weir is saying that the evidence wasn't put before the Jury because of a 'stance' of the Crown. The correspondent suggests, rightly that the 'stance' was made by Weir - certainly in the cross examination but I believe it came from some where else. Something which was an instruction to Milton Weir (MW.) I say that because he wasn't in charge. I further say it because the revelation that the glasses were not Davids threw strong doubt on the entire case against David. In fact the Jury asked a question about the glasses in the first trial and we can assume Detective Sergeant Doyle, Weir and others sat back despite knowing that Mr Sanderson had already said that the glasses were not David's but in fact his mothers, and they didn't want the Jury to know that.

The 'stance' to which MW refers and which also the correspondent draws attention to is in fact much larger than the glasses. The stance in my opinion is the mindset, and determination to frame David - the glasses being only one aspect of that. All these aspects of the 'stance' fitted into the MOJ. See here '

 that information was passed on to the Crown and the Crown had a stance in relation to the glasses and that was their stance.

Q.          Well the stance, if that is the case, must have been taken by the Crown prosecutor Mr Wright?

A.           Correct.'

Weir effectively putting the blame at the feet of the Crown Prosecutor. Of course that was after the prosecution began. We've read earlier however of the 'stance' taken by DS Doyle. He didn't investigate the allegations of incest against Robin Bain and therefore the likely motive in this tragedy because 'he had murder to solve.' Reflect also on the fact that we've seen no record of Doyle or Robinson being in anyway alarmed when MW 'finds' the lens 'after hours' and in a room already searched by those that were tasked with the job. Not a single word on that, why? Because the 'lens' fitted in with the stance, and the placement of the lens and evidence that it was from the glasses of David (and not his mother's) also fitted with the stance.

Consider also the samples of blood smears taken from Robin's palms but not tested, that also fitted with the stance as did the 'disappearance' of Laniet's electronic diary which was last said to be in the hands of MW and which may have contained contacts of Laniets - some of who might have been police members. On that aspect alone we might also see keeping Dr Dempster out of the house, on the morning of the murders, may have been because of concern by Doyle, Robinson or others about what may have been found rather than preserving the scene. So the stance may have begun even on the morning of the murders. It could have started innocently with the report that the 111 operator or supervisor thought the call may have been a hoax, whatever the reason a 'stance' prevailed long before MW made the admission in 2009.

Someone has commented to me that Detective Inspector Robinson was very much 'hands off.' In this inquiry and I wonder, if like Doyle, Weir and others he was ensuring that the investigation operated according to the 'stance' set by himself or someone higher in the police hierarchy. As I've said before MW wasn't out working as a rogue cop on this case, he was fully supported - that is why nobody questioned his discovery of the lens, the loss of the diary, or the hidden evidence. Also the reasons why he didn't face internal pressure over the 'hidden' lens evidence, because he was told to hide it. In this case he is in fact saying Bill Wright knew of it but it was against the framework of the case.

News footage showed us that while it was said that Dempster was kept outside to ensure that exhibits were safe guarded the reality was that exhibits were thrown in blankets and carted out from the house by officers wearing unprotected shoes. The reality is also that no other investigator had the experience of Dr Dempster and many entering the house that morning before him had no experience at all. I think that tells us enough of when the 'stance' was begun despite seeing others that carried it on rightly criticised, the real criticism and the criminal intent began at the top somewhere. Maybe Robinson or Doyle should tell the public now.

 

While on the subject of Bill Wright misleading the jury at the first trial,  Weir  at the retrial had an interesting euphemism  for bullshitting  to a jury. See if you can find it in the following exchange between Weir & Mr Reed….

 

 

Q.          All right well that’s a movement on from before, let's investigate that.  So now you are admitting that Mr Sanderson was right when he asked for his evidence to be changed?

 

A.           No I'm not, when I showed Mr Sanderson the glasses that Margaret Bain was wearing, that information was given to the Crown and the Crown had a stance in relation to it.

Q.          Mr Sanderson says that he came to you and asked for his evidence to be changed and you agreed you’d take it up and do something about it, that’s his evidence in my words.

A.           Right.

Q.          You’ve said that you had no present recollection of that yesterday?

A.           And that is the case.

Q.          Now are you saying that you do have some recollection that he might have said that, is that what you're saying?

A.           No I'm not.  What I'm saying –

Q.          Well you were saying  that you took it up with –

A.           – what I'm saying was, in relation to when he was shown the glasses that Margaret Bain was wearing in the photograph, that information was passed on to the Crown and the Crown had a stance in relation to the glasses and that was their stance.

Q.          Well the stance, if that is the case, must have been taken by the Crown prosecutor Mr Wright?

A.           Correct.

Q.          David Bain at that trial was asked questions as to the ownership of the glasses.

A.           I believe so yes.

A.           objection:  MR RAFTERY

 

 

Did you see it? Yes thought so, it’s hard to miss isn’t it?  Bill Wright “HAD A STANCE”

Now  when I went  through school I thought  stance  was a particular position one took when standing, you know, like Robin did when he shot himself.Or maybe it could mean taking a particular line of argument.

However I had  absolutely no idea it could also mean withholding vital  evidence from a jury  causing a miscarriage of justice.

So there you have it-a useful new euphemism thanks to Weir.Next time I  screw up , I can  just say … “ yes but I had a stance on it, end of story ” or  “hey it’s not my fault , it’s just that I had a stance on it”  & of course if the twisted sisters hook up with the silly old men I sure they will  put on some of Kents nice music &  “stance”   the night away.

Isn’t that just wonderful?

Why David Bain is innocent: borrowed from a correspondent.

The following was forwarded to the blog on here titled 'More stuff the hate-siters don't want to know' as comment in reply to one from Lee Hinkleman. I think it is an excellent contribution to the architecture of how a Miscarriage of Justice was imposed upon David Cullen Bain.

The writer firmly touches upon the 'grey' area, the point where the Courts rather than intervene in  a dangerous conviction look to strengthen it in a white wash fashion. Bill Wright implored the Jury to overlook inconsistencies, things which didn't make sense in context but which he insisted they still view in the fuller picture. Those words asked the Jury to convict even if the evidence was implausible, frayed or planted. The narrative lacked substance and credibility but the Crown continued on rather than withdraw. We can see it today, but why didn't Appeal Courts in New Zealand see it a dozen years ago. The MOJ is demonstrated and the task is upon the state to remedy not only this case but others as well, to be alert for blankets of guilt cast over an accused which in the cold morning light are thread bare and as empty as a fisherman's drying net. Our Courts need to have the backbone to not only recognize a failed case but to let the accused go rather than search for reasons not to do so. The onus is always on the Crown to prove guilt and for the Courts to be ever vigilant to that and not to conduct a prosecution itself to put the grounds for conviction 'back in order.'

Yes, Lee, that's easy. They accepted it because the Crown prosecutor told them it was so. According to the transcript in McNeish's book, Bill Wright in his melodramatic and imaginative closing said:

"During the struggle [with Stephen] the accused's glasses were dislodged, so was the plastic cover belonging to the telescopic sight. A lens belonging to the glasses was found in the room three days later."

He also said 
"Don't fall into the trap of taking the evidence piece by piece and examining each little bit individually, it's not that. Sometimes pieces of evidence by themselves carry no great weight but put them all together side by side and the result can be overwhelming. It's the totality of the evidence - the overall picture - that counts."

The people who argue for David's guilt, and cite unreliable evidence like the lens (and wasn't that one a convenient beauty for Weir?), are doing as Bill Wright told the jury. They are ignoring anomalies, inconsistencies and lies that undermine or negate individual pieces of evidence, but they are still including that evidence in their 'big picture'

Painting that 'big picture' uses the evidence as paint. It's like a paint by numbers kit, where each piece of evidence is a numbered colour. In painting that picture, unreliable or negated evidence should be left out, and the 'picture' that should be looked at is what is left. Bill Wright's 'big picture' was virtually blank. Of Wright's 10 points of what he described as 'hard, factual evidence', when the unsustainable evidence is set to one side, we are left with:
1) David owned the gun.
8) David said that he was the only person who knew where the trigger lock was.

While on the other hand, of the evidence available to the jury at the retrial, but not at the first trial, we have
1) Robin had blood on his hands - residual blood, photographed.
2) Robin's feet were a perfect match for the luminol footprints
3) Robin's death was of a contact shot - independently verifiable as substantially more likely to be suicide than homicide (95% suicide, 5% homicide)
4) taking the blood spatter evidence into account, there was NO position in which someone other than Robin could have fired that fatal shot
4) David was conclusively identified entering his house at 6.45 (time confirmed)
5) David could not have turned on the computer.

This produces a rather different 'big picture'.

To borrow from Van Beynen: for someone who sat through the retrial and heard all the evidence, it really wasn't that hard. 

More stuff the hate-siters don't want to know.

 A mixture of things below. None helpful to the daddy didn't do it crew. In fact most unhelpful seen here from the trial transcript..You'll see I've highlighted things that I always thought the basics of this case. The hand blood smears. The no physical injuries to David despite the chorus that he had injuries consistent with having had a fight. The comparison of bloody and injured hands of Robin, to the clean undamaged hands of David.

Also the young detective looking for a motive in the normal fashion (in this case domestic), but Doyle, ostensibly in charge, not bothering to check motives for Robin.

The truth about the beanie, or suicidee's raising or lifting clothes in order to suicide.

The reality that the police model of suicide was deliberating portrayed as hard, although not the defence model on which Dr Dempster agreed.

Also from Robinson, an aspect I have either overlooked in the past or forgotten - the red material under Robin's fingernails. We heard even recently that it was David that had material under his nails, but indeed we see it was the father. We even heard most recently from hate-site panic - Melanie White an absolute lie that Stephen had David's dna under his nail. But as always the truth comes out to haunt the liars.

Doyle on the blood smears from Robin's hands, the ones according to the hate-siters which never existed.

Q [The record states:] “2 smear and slide of traces on blood on left hand.” What is that
actually? Is it a slide or what is it? A It would be a slide with a blood smear in it.
Q Right. Well it wouldn’t be hard to retain that, would it? A Well, with hindsight no.
Q But you see the importance, Mr Doyle? You were an experienced Detective Senior
Sergeant. That skin sample that was kept for 13 or 14 years proved when it was tested
that it did not come from David Bain. You see the significance of it? A Correct.

From Doyle again - for those that claim David was never a suspect.

Q You have told David and others that it was either Robin or David. That was the view
from the police. There was no-one else suspected, was there? A Correct.
Q So it is a contest. Is it Robin or is it David? Correct? A That is the question?

And of course that Doyle ignored not only testing the smears but was unable to connect them to the deaths;

Q Your case has always been that Robin innocently came into the house, knelt in front of
the curtain [for morning prayer] and was shot by David Bain. That’s been your case
hasn’t it? A That’s the Crown case, yes.
Q And that requires that Robin Bain is not involved in any way in these murders. Right?
A Correct.

Detective Superintendent Robinson

Q But fingernail scrapings in a homicide case, where the fingernail scrapings showed a
red substance, might alert a detective mightn’t it to the fact that it ought to be tested for
blood….? A Yes it could.
Q Yes. Well why wasn’t that done? A I don’t know?
Q And then we had blood from the hand of Robin Bain that’s unexplained. Wouldn’t it
have been wise to test that blood to see whose it was? A In hindsight yes.

The above followed on from evidence from Doyle about blood samples from the hands of Robin not being sufficient for diagnosis in NZ. But which could be diagnosed in Australia. The samples from Robin's hands were not taken to Australia although samples from some other of deceased were.

Below in evidence Ambulance Officer Raymond Anderson in attempting to describe his belief that David hadn't fainted - describes finding no physical injuries. Exactly the opposite of what is claimed by the hate-siters.

Q Now, did you check the patient for any visible signs of trauma? A Yes I did a quick
once-over and then good look all around, because of course we weren’t quite sure what
we were being presented with. But I couldn’t find any sign of physical injury or signs that
medical intervention was required.

From police interview with David; the very basic question of hand damage after an episode of violence.

Q Did you have any cuts on your hands on Monday? A No.

Another basice police question: searching for a motive. David was asked..

Q Do you know of any extra-marital relationships? A No, Mum didn’t have any. I don’t
know about Dad. I knew very little about what Dad thought or did.

Compare the above evidence with that of Doyle who was not interested in investigating motives Robin may have had, unlike his junior officer following normal practice.

Q Why was it not appropriate to find out whether there was a strong motive for these five
homicides? How could you possibly say that Mr Doyle? A Our focus was on the
investigation into the killings.
Q Yes, and you have agreed that, in a circumstantial case, it is important to establish
motive? The trial judge said that himself didn’t he, in his summing up? A On the second
day of the inquiry it was still not clear whether it was a homicide per se or homicides per
se or homicide-suicide.

Just showing critical importance of Robin not being shot through his beanie, and the other answer to the giggling hate-siters how suicidees open clothes, or lift hats when killing themselves. No bullet hole through Robin's beanie.

From Dempster.

If Robin Bain inflicted this wound on himself, one would have to say
that it would be unusual for him to be wearing head gear in my experience. It is unusual
for people to [do so]. I have never come across anybody who shot themselves in the head
who was wearing head gear at the time, and I think it is a pretty uncommon event.
Similarly, if they shoot themselves in the chest, normally they seem to bear the skin.

Q But? A there is also the possibility that he could have rested the rifle say on the chair in
from a standing position. The rifle would still be in the same relative position to his head
of course.
Q Yes, if he rests it somewhere else, it will not alleviate your concern about site of entry
at the moment, but it would obviously be easier to hold the gun? A Yes.
Q And what I am suggesting to you, Doctor, is that yesterday, that demonstration of
holding the gun up to your head and your arm waving around, is just really unhelpful as a
demonstration? Because it’s just totally unrealistic that anyone would ever do that,
Doctor? A I cannot say that it didn’t happen that way. I am perfectly happy to accept that
the rifle may have been rested on a point such as a chair, that’s certainly been something
that I have considered in the past and I think discussed at the last trial.
Q Yes. But the point is that you spent a long time yesterday, through your counsel,
holding that gun up with it waving around and showing how difficult it is to reach the trigger. And what I am putting to you is that no-one, rationally, would ever suggest that
Robin would have done that? Its just ridiculous Doctor? A I cannot comment whether it
is ridiculous or not, I think it is a possibility, I would say it still possible, equally difficult
to reach the trigger even if it is rested on an object. It’s at close to the limit of one’s arm
stretch, depending of course on the length of one’s arm, but it is an awkward position.
Q Yes. But that is not what I am putting to you. I am saying to you, if you are giving a
fair demonstration to the jury, why would you give a demonstration that really is just
totally unrealistic? Why would you do that? A Because I was not asked to step down and
show it in other positions.
Q Right, that it is perfectly feasible to have an entry wound to the head matching the
exact direction of travel of the bullet in Robin’s head? Would you disagree with that? A
Well I wouldn’t disagree because if the rifle is applied to the temple in the way it has
been demonstrated in your photographs, the bullet is going to transit the head in that
direction. But, in my experience, it is extremely unusual for suicidally-inflicted gunshot
wounds to transit the brain in that direction. Robin Bain has chosen, if he has killed
himself, an unusual way of applying the rifle to his head.
Q Isn’t it fair to tell the jury that, if Robin Bain was going to commit suicide with that
gun, it is much more likely he would adopt one of the positions, I have shown in those
photographs than it would with your demonstration yesterday? Is that a fair question? A
Well it is. One has to consider what a person in this situation would do and there’s no
certainty that an individual would follow a particular course.

I can predict one thing Ian Binnie will have noted all this and will not have asked Bill Rodie, Parker, White or others for the real story of what they heard from reporters or important people. No wonder it is so obvious that David is innocent.

Bill Rodie: Hate-Site spokesman.

Bill Rodie has used a number of identities in his years of defending the dead Robin Bain, most notably those of a female relative. By in large I don't think BR has been directly involved in the illegal activities employed by some of the other members and he should be recognised for that. On a topical, at times emotional matter, he has kept things fairly low key. He perhaps surrendered those other identities when it became obvious to him that his style of writing and obsessive points about the case were a give away as to who he was anyway despite adopting a 'new' identity.

His last foray appears to have been on the Listener website where he unfortunately made a comment that could see him in hot water. I don't think the comment was deliberately defamatory as much as showing how much perspective BR loses when writing about the dead Robin Bain. BR is certainly obsessive about the Robin who he now writes about as being seen as guilty because David is apparently to be judged innocent. Of course this is nothing new it was a proposal put to both Juries, was David or was it Robin. Also the police centered on this view from the outset, even to the point of getting David to agree to the obvious fact and later using that against him. In other words if David acknowledged it must have been either he or his father that killed the family then that was a black mark against David - such things are required when evidence points toward suicide but the police take the 'easy' way out and ignore the evidence against Robin.

BR in many ways is among the last standing and although I think I've been fair in saying that he doesn't appear to have been among the most vindictive among the hate-siters, that recognition is shallow because any difference gets lost in translation. The reason for that is the BR continues on with his distorted facts and twisted truth - he never balances his accusations against David or Joe Karam, and continues to use material which simply isn't true or correctly portrayed.

For example he talks about David's well defined fingerprints on the murder weapon, but makes no mention that fingerprints can last for years on a firearm or other parent bodies and that was confirmed at the trial. He also doesn't say that the fingerprints were in the 'carrying position' not in the 'firing position.' If that isn't enough, he provides that Robin's prints were not found on the rifle when in fact many prints were found on the  rifle which may have been Robins, the investigators, or others, but which were unable to be identified because of their poor definition. He simply presents the 'well defined' fingerprints as the complete story when in fact it is no where near the complete story. I have recorded on this blog earlier scientific reports of the low percentage of fingerprints which are ever found on firearms used in crime and the wide range of reasons why, most arising from the gun oil, checkered surfaces and the more obvious that guns are not handled with fingertips anyway. So to make the bald statement and not the persuasive arguments against it is purely persecution. BR is hiding the truth as much as the police hid or destroyed evidence. BR seems unable to understand that is not his imagination or editing of the facts that has any weight on the innocence of David Bain but rather the real evidence, the real facts - included in the trial transcript which BR has clearly never read. Or if he has it has made him sicker than what he already was.

Predictably Rodie has begun attacking Justice Binnie, even before reading the report. Of course reading the report or anything else will never make any difference to Rodie because he only sees what he wants. As an observer one of the most interesting things about Rodie is why he supports somebody who clearly killed their family, he seems tortured about the true event and looks to fabricate another.

In Rodie's latest 'plea' titled 'Is Robin Bain Guilty?' he asks that question as though it were something new and not dating from 1994. It's not all in his writing, and it is clear somebody else is writing it, or some part of it, for BR. I suspect one of the journalist's mentioned in the article.  He asks that 'title' question despite the 2nd Privy Council decision, the 2nd Trial verdict and the apparent finding of Ian Binnie. To his small credit he has dropped the claim that David was covered in blood but when mentioning the small amount of blood on David fails to put out one was an aged stain, the 3 marks were all identified as not being spatter - so again he can never permit the truth. He needs to keep lying by omission or in any other form to convince others that he is right and a whole system wrong.

If BR was in anyway an 'expert' that he claims to be we would be hearing from him the full pictured, not something filtered to allow his attack against Binnie to begin. His astounding view is that Binnie can't have reached the right conclusion because he didn't spend enough time doing so - even though there is evidence of months of work and interviews as well. This despite the obvious features of suicide and conclusive proof that the Crown conceded at the last trial. No, Bill is right because apparently he sometimes where tights - nothing like getting into character by dressing up when one wants to change their sex. Yes, Bill dresses up all sorts of things. He quotes a host of people with dry egg on their faces, but not those that have conceded, that like Bill, they were wrong in their earlier opinions. He drags out the hapless Bryan Bruce, who this week came out with the humdinger that the Crewe case police sought to hide that Heather Demler 'wasn't' the woman seen on the Crewe farm in the days after the murder. He conjures up the image of 'distinguished' journalists such as Martin Van Beynan who hung his hat on Peter Ellis and David Bain being guilty and was both times wrong.

He even quotes lawyers who have said that David needed to find 'silver bullet' evidence to prove his innocence. In other words some 'magical' single event - when in fact a series of events of evidence shows compellingly Robin's guilt. So even to this point Rodie is unable to focus on where the case has reached and rather looks back for where it once was - existing as an 'actual Misccariage of Justice.' How Bill must hate those words, he must shed tears at the thought of them and the dead Robin. He seems not to understand the passage of time. Not to understand that the case has moved light years from the time when the Dunedin police wouldn't investigate the prime suspect because they had a murder to 'solve.'

Dean Wickliffe: From the Badlands.

First time I've watched one of Nigel Latta's 'Badlands' shows but did so with particular interest because of the subject Dean Wickliffe someone who I know fairly well. First off, I'll admit I was surprised by the quality and presentation of the show which had a title 'Badlands' evoking perceptions of sensationalism. Not the case at all.

I knew part of the DW story from both reading about and knowing the man fairly well. I knew about his tough childhood but not the extent of it. I'd no idea about his late father being a returned serviceman, and like for many others of my age there would have been characteristics  recognised for those who had fathers who returned from war changed men, often noticeably changed from once having been happy go lucky, or outgoing, to being introverted. Certainly not a universal situation but one which will be recognised by quite a few, the booze and violence - together or singularly. If we call those returned soldiers the first generation, and those of DW's time, the second, there is an argument that the first passed onto the second problems, again not in all cases -  but in some.

From Nigel Latta's explanation, along with personal experiences, it is easily argued that during the time of Dean's childhood it wasn't well  appreciated that youngsters were absorbing patterns and information that would be with them for the rest of their lives in most circumstances. Hopefully today's generations accept more readily that a 4 or 5 year old that sees his or her mother beaten or abused in someway has to 'adjust' to an enormous horror and in lots of cases absorbs silently something few may escape. The message that violence is king, that violence is acceptable even if very awful and frightening. As one of DW's friends said it was the norm and not much spoken about. Some may think that I am gravitating toward excuses but I'm not. I'm looking at something written about by Steinbeck where he described how child hood heroes when they fall, fall mightily and what might become a child who has seen his or her protector reduced to fallen among the debris of a life once considered to be great and all protecting.

I'm also looking at the failure of one generation, not blame of course - because these were men returned from unspeakable horror with a mind crossed over by what they'd seen and often worried about what they'd come home to and how they would cope. Many of course didn't cope well, and we see them  now as the generation that didn't say much. Virtually a generation that were given no help to come to terms with their time at war. We weren't in those times much fussed about the horrors that had gone on and perhaps were unable to fully appreciate that much like, for a 4 or 5 year old DW, things were buried within minds and replayed often, in some cases without control. Many returned servicemen and women did cope remarkably well, apparently able to understand that the messages given to youngsters was important, for after all it was those youngsters and generations to come who were fought for. The very reason why many of us admired these men and in some cases feared them from understanding they were those among us who had literally killed, in many cases, despite being now dressed in a suit and apparently no different outwardly than the next man.

From the show we discovered that DW's father drank at home. Probably because of the fact that being Maori he wasn't allowed to drink in the pubs along with this white brothers in arms, perhaps feeling he wasn't good enough, or trusted, despite putting his life on the line for his own country. So it would be fair to say a lot was contained within DW's father which he unfortunately expressed in such a way that the wrong message was absorbed by at least one of his children, who from the show, we know was beaten, along with his poor mother, for whatever it might be a 4 or 5 year old could do wrong to deserve the fists of his father.

So Dean eventually drifted off and found himself inside D Block, described for many years, as the end of the road. Nobody we could assume could hurt your feelings in D Block without giving you the opportunity to strike back at some point. If feelings were an issue Dean was safe there, nobody could hurt him or send him further down the road of which he'd already reached the end. I should say now that escaping D Block once, let alone twice, ranks as a superhuman feat. DW spoke about the buzz of it and the training he did in advance. The buzz of accomplishment. Something overlooked by more than a life time of being involved with authorities as a prisoner. D Block is for intractables, those that might be described as unable to be aided in anyway. I think that was a point Nigel Latta was making that despite 40 years inside, the prison system hadn't been able to deal with one man and questioned the point of it all. DW's fight against his murder conviction is fairly well known, and finally the charge was reduced to manslaughter but the sentenced remained the same. Was  DW the only party with an intractable logic or had the system failed to show enterprise and leadership in a case that clearly was close below the hardened surface Dean presented to the world.

I recall somebody on the show talking about Dean being isolated outside, no longer the 'big fish' in Parry with the 'prestige. of 2 escapes behind him and the longest serving D Block prisoner. The recognition of that is also a recognition of where Dean needed assistance on his few releases from prison. His sister said that Dean needed help from somebody perhaps who had walked in his steps. I'm not sure if my memory is correct but I believe Dean has a daughter and obviously has spent little or no time when her on the 'outside.' Her story is another of interest, a son isolated from his father by war, in turn isolating himself from his own daughter by prison. That's about where I want to make a point - the 'handing on.'

DW's greatest challenge was to avoid doing what his dad had been unable to do, a challenge it would seem greater than the high concrete walls of D Block, that of not passing on problems, of being bitter and resolute only enough not to dwell on what can't be changed and accept the 'gift' of making one's own decision. However dire the circumstances, not to pass on hate or turmoil - but rather to pass on love. There may be no place in D Block for love but we saw there was a place in Dean's heart for the love he found with his late partner. Dean would have been smashed to bits more than once in solitary confinement and reacted with his life long armour: hate. Each of those baton blows he may have identified with, because he had understood them from the age of 4 or 5 and would not cower. It was no longer  his father raining blows upon him but a system that could not bend him, not a system that might step back realising that Dean Wickliffe has never succumbed to hate or mistreatment but met it with his own.

Crewe case; Bryan Bruce, myopic reasoning?

Bryan Bruce on receiving a statement witnessed by Detective Inspector Hutton under the Official Information Act, and made by the  now deceased Bruce Roddick, in which he claims that the woman seen on the Crewe farm in the days after the killings by himself had darker hair and so convinced him she was not Heather Demler, BB now says this is 'new' evidence that shows Heather Demler wasn't the person Roddick saw. As reported Herald Monday 17th September 2012 by Rebecca Quillum.

On the face of it this 'evidence' could be convincing, but to be so it would need the informed to ignore a lot of other evidence. In particular that Heather Demler was known to have been in the district years before the time she admitted to the police. There is not just one statement on this but many, including from workers whom she fed on the Demler farm and from others who saw her in the district, statements with specific detail. Why Bryan Bruce chooses to ignore the other evidence is hard to reason. The reality is that someone considered to have possibly been involved in the murder of Jeanette and Harvey, and who made what appear to be contradictory or false statements, as to her time in the district to relevant to the killings raises just concern. Why lie? Why would others say that she was there if in fact she wasn't. Heather Demler might have had obvious reasons to say that she wasn't in the district at the time, however others would appear to have no reason at all to contradict her other than by reason of telling the truth which they had no stake in.

BB uses this to claim that the police with held this statement to help the  spread misinformation by not releasing this document which he claims 'exonerates' Heather Demler. He is using a single document to usurp various other accounts with a consistent theme that HD was in fact in the district. Of course BB seems not to understand that the release of the document actually assisted the police case rather than spread 'misinformation.' Because, if it wasn't Demler, then it could have been Vivian, Arthur's wife - exactly the contention made by the Crown, and which relied on no proof only assertion. BB is trying to tell the public how a square peg fits in a round hole. He is trying to convince the public that there was some advantage to the Crown case by not proving, or showing evidence, than HD wasn't the person that fed baby Rochelle.

Let's look a little deeper. To verify his 'discovery' BB uses the attendant evidence that it was Inspector Hutton that drove Bruce Ruddick  to the Demler farm in 1972 to see HD after which he (Roddick) was convinced that he in fact had not seen HD but somebody else with darker hair in the days after the murders - presumption again, Vivian. Now if that didn't suit the Crown case nothing did, so why would police hide the fact for years. Possibly because of the reasons why I am sceptical about it now. We shouldn't forget that Bruce Ruddick had an 'unhappy' time with the police. He was stood over and bullied by some accounts and from what I've read there remains dissatisfaction within his family as to how he was treated by the police. Make no mistake the police wanted him to identify Vivian and no one else, when he didn't the relationship apparently soured. One detective had accused him of being gay, something which time didn't heal according to an article I have referenced here before by Chris Birt, North and South Magazine June 2011, which on reading makes many arguments against the claim that it was Vivian that was sighted and not Heather Demler. Many arguments not able to be negated by a single statement, inconsistent with others, which did not directly state that it was Vivian that Bruce Ruddick had seen, even on the face of it and believing that the woman had darker hair than Heather Demler.

Closer again to the inconsistency. Not only did the statement promote the original Crown case but it appears to have come late in the piece and by the direct intervention of DI Hutton after the first trial and before the second. This was the exact time when public unrest was high because Ruddick had never identified Vivian as the woman who may have fed the baby at the deposition's hearing or the trial. He did however say that he saw the woman at one of the hearings,  a fair haired woman he saw at the Otahuhu Court in December 1970 during a preliminary hearing. He reported this to a police officer who said what he had to say was irrelevant. Something else again which underlines the police were only interested in the mystery woman being Vivian and no one else. Consider then that the statement, taken between trials, was done so by the Inquiry Head a man to whom planted evidence was later linked. A person who had a strong interest in making sure that even if Ruddick 'wouldn't' say it was Vivian, then having him say, in whatever circumstances perhaps forced upon him by Hutton that day, that it wasn't Demler either - but a person with darker hair. If nothing else, the hapless, Ruddick had been abused into a position that if he wouldn't lie he could easily be made to look like a liar - exactly what suited the police.

Why BB didn't discuss or consider these relevant issues seems odd, particularly that he took on face value a single statement made in very strange circumstances. To support that, or more importantly ignore it, he suggests that it was malpractice by the police - when in fact a ready observation was that it suited there weak case down to the ground and stitched up an important and critical witness in much the same way Arthur was stitched up. There is no ground breaking in this very odd revelation that I can see, and nothing that undermines the very truth that Vivian Harrison should be apologised to - posthumously as it may be.

Van Beynan - Why the silence.

Nobody could ever say that Martin Van Beynan has ever held back in anyway on the Bain case. He is the foremost media person to have written extensively on the case. All of his writing has large characterised his unfailing view of David guilt, much like vb earlier unfailing view of the guilt of Peter Ellis for which I understand he later apologised.

vb has asked the public to accept his opinion that the Christchurch Jury got it wrong but that the earlier Jury in Dunedin who had much evidence hidden from them got it right. vb has been extravagant his use of metaphors that could turn minor or aged blood smears to clothing to being 'covered in blood.' He has written 'vivid' reports on the manner and conduct of the Christchurch Jury alleging misconduct and worse but never explained why he never brought such conduct to the attention of the Court or how nobody else in NZ appears to have noticed the conduct including a High Court Judge presiding over the trial.

It appears that vb is a law graduate, following which he became a Court reporter presumably able to use his training to bring clarity to a day's Court proceedings or some complexity of evidence. But in the Bain case he appears to have done neither. As an example I am still unaware that the man who deemed himself the person 'that sat through almost the entire trial' has ever written about the blood smears found on Robin's hands, never reported that David had no scratches on his chest when strip searched by police Doctor Pryder the morning on the killings - yet he has never seen fit to point this out or contradict that 'David had fresh injuries from the fight with Stephen.' As far as I can tell vb has never written about the preposterous assertion that 'David had used his paper run as an alibi.' He has never look closely at the comparisons between the condition of David's undamaged hands and Robin's damaged hands on the morning of the murders. Some things he has entirely missed out while exaggerating others that have been at the least unbalanced reported, and possibility at its worst biased reporter. Without fail any biased reporting as always been against David.

A law graduate would know not to stalk a Jury. But a law graduate that did stalk a Jury, or Juror, and was only warned to desist by police would give a public impression that he held a confidence that for some reason he was above the law. I'm struck now by the silence from vb, he must know, as surely do most of the country, that it his highly likely that a specially appointed Commissioner has found that David, a target of vb's for over a decade, has been deemed on the test of the balance of probabilities. vb got it wrong. His one sided reporting was therefore wrong, his insulting question at the Perth International Justice Conference was also wrong. The impression he gave of being completely one-sided against David and Karam is shown vividly now as a failure at his feet.

A number of commentators, including lawyers, in this past  week have reconciled their previous views on the Bain case to alignment with the recommendation purportedly made by Ian Binnie the retired Judge and Commissioner to the Crown on this matter. But I wonder why vb hasn't, particularly with his track work against David Bain. One could assume that if the impression of bias was only presumption we would have heard an apology or some kind of recognition of Binnie's report from Martin. Yet on the other hand, reading the hate-sites one sees, that some members continue to send discredited material to vb in a way that suggests that he has been a champion of their cause and they look for leadership.

I'm very interested in this. I see the 'finding' of the lens 'after hours,' the 'lost' electronic diary belonging to Laniet, the partial and corrected evidence of Mrs Laney and Mr Sanderson, no less sinister that the thought that there has been media manipulation against David every bit as significant as the rest of the formula that resulted in the Miscarriage of Justice administered against him by our own authorities.