Robin Bain case: so much for the fingerprints.

 

 

 

Among the hysterics than inundated the Bain case were arguments regarding fingerprints on the murder weapon, David Bain's rifle. No argument that the rifle was used but a simple question as to whom used the rifle was made complex by first a desperate prosecution and then, in turn, by the largely defunct hate-siters who sprang up to support the 'memory' of the late Robin Bain. One of the hate-sites particular area of anguish was that 'nobody spoke for Robin Bain.' I have written about that here earlier, making it clear that it was the prosecution that took up Robin's case, against much evidence that pointed to Robin but which resulted in first a conviction against his son David - that was later deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice, then finally with the Crown case shredded, resulting in the full acquittal of David at a retrial. The Crown decided to have the retrial rather than accept the evidence had always been that Robin was guilty of killing his wife, 2 daughters, younger son,  and in so doing: leaving clear evidence of his own suicide which the police interpreted, in some mind boggling fashion, as proof that Robin's eldest son, David, had killed not only Robin but the rest of the family.

 

This prosecution despite, that Robin's blood was found deep inside the rifle - indicating a close contact shot with an upward trajectory. In fact complete evidence which has now been independently analysed, and peer reviewed internationally, revealing that Robin's death was 98% probable suicide. How did a police force get it so wrong?

 

Firstly, they overlooked the obvious - blood and injuries to Robin's hands. Simple common sense dictates that a murder victim does not have signs of having been in a fight after which he or she is passively accepting being killed by lying his or her temple against the firearm by which they were despatched. It doesn't happen. But with a willingness to overlook the obvious David Bain was subsequently sent to prison, serving 13 years before his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council along with less than subtle advice that he should not be tried again. David Bain had no injuries to his hands despite that his younger brother Stephen had fought for his life, as it now prevails - resulting in the injuries to Robin's hands, probably a nose bleed to Robin all of which was presented as highly visible to investigators who for some reason kept the most experienced forensic pathologist away from the scene for hours, to protect the evidence, while in fact allowing a veritable horde of inexperienced investigators to trample through the house gathering evidence - literally by throwing potential evidence in blankets and carting it away to the police station.

 

When the Pathologist, Dr Dempster, was finally 'permitted' entry, much evidence had been moved and tampered with. Critically, a magazine from the rifle had been moved to allow it to be photographed in different positions without it's original position being noted. Police had even moved the body of Robin Bain in what clearly looked liked a suicide scene. Dempster considered it to be probably suicide in his preliminary work. By then however, Police had decided that it was David. Yes before the scene had been properly examined, potential evidence tested, in fact within hours of arrival to a slaughterhouse where one person was dead beside a rifle with an upward shot having entered his brain, David was being stripped searched for evidence of being involved in the deaths of his family. This strip search was conducted by a police surgeon Dr Pryde who filled out the prescribed form for such procedures and who was careful to warn David that any evidence found during the search, despite that David had not been charged, and would not be charged for several more days, could be used as evidence against him. It was important later for the police to claim that no such strip search had taken place and it would only be years later that ex Detective Sergeant Doyle would admit to the searches and their intrusive nature. Of course the point the police tried to make in vain, was that David was never suspected, therefore he was not strip searched. Following the claim that he was not 'suspected' was to lend weight to the claim that evidence against Robin had been carefully scrutinised.

 

The careful scrutiny would be exposed as a sham when photos were revealed from Dempster's file of blood wash on Robin's palms. Yes Robin had been washing or diluting blood off his hands before his death. He also had blood spatter on  one of his shoes 'occluded' from having come from his temple wound. In a few more years a Waikato farmer David Giles would examined a photo inadvertently supplied by one of the hate-siters which showed imprints on Robin's thumb exactly matching the lips of the magazine that the police had moved around the morning of killings. Robin had loaded the gun which had killed him. The 'Bain case' is far more expansive than which can be discussed here. In fact in the interests of keeping it simple and not launching into the convoluted mire of the Crown case I've simply spoken about some of the forensic evidence that proved beyond doubt Robin's guilt and David's innocence. Included in this of course is evidence key to the final death scene. Part of that evidence was 'non evidence.'

 

The 'non evidence' was the 'lack' of prints from Robin on the rifle. When this not existing evidence was presented by the police or hate-siters it was said to 'prove' David's guilt. In fact for decades the misapprehension by the public generally about prints on guns has been well known to investigators, and, in the Bain case, used to confused a Jury while convincing public opinion that 'non evidence' was in fact evidence against David. The paper clipping at the outset makes a lie of the police proposal about evidence that didn't exist - the best that could be said is that there were no identifiable prints belonging to Robin on the rifle, though there were unidentifiable prints and partial prints of both of his sons one of whom owned the rifle. This was touched upon in the unsuccessful Crown retrial. Prints can exist in pristine condition for years, moreover prints that the police destroyed could under current technology exclude known suspects. Not that Robin could ever be excluded from having killed his family, but the destroyed prints, despite their smudging may not have excluded him from having handled the rifle, for which Gile's evidence shows, Robin loaded the magazine, and which an International Forensic Science paper reveals 98% positive that Robin Bain also used to kill himself.

 

The Bain case will continue in the new year in a fashion little to do with the fact it is reconciled, scientifically, that Robin Bain killed himself after killing 4 of his family - but more to do with keeping the NZ public, and international interest from the truth. Much the same way Dunedin's most experienced forensic investigator was left in the cold the morning Robin shot himself when police first began the attempt of putting a square peg in a round hole.



Auckland campaigner Penny Bright knocks out Council?

The Auckland Super City Council certainly started with a puff and a roar, somewhat like a super fit champion going into a boxing bout. One thing I've learnt about boxing, or enduring fights is the first telling blow. The blow that might give confidence in the test of the opponent and how readily they may be hit. In the bout of Penny Bright against first the Auckland City Council, and its successor, The Super City Council, she has landed heavy blows against both as the fight continues on to their probable defeat.

From the recent hearing on the case in the Auckland District Court a clear picture emerges of the Council against Penny. She refuses to pay council rates because the Council, in her opinion, refuses to have open books on its spending. Thinking about that it may be strikingly clear that not paying for something not delivered is clearly a civil dispute, an allegation of breach of contract in fact. Nobody should pay for undelivered product or services that is the common view on which fair trading is anchored.

However, Auckland Super City wants to sell the house of Penny Bright in order to ensure services and accountabilty she says it has not been provided -  that is transparency of how it spends her money and that of all rate payers. District Court Judge Mary Beth Sharp refused Penny Bright's application to have the case sent onto the High Court saying that it could be decided in the District Court. Hardly a set back when considering that Judge Sharp said that the Council's inaccurate assessment of rates owed by Bright didn't give confidence in the integrity of the Debtors Judgement Ms Bright was appealing. In response Council chief financial officer said the errors with the bill were due to it being a complex case. So a staff of some 11,000 unable to work out the amount of one rates bill is because it is too complex - small wonder that would provide little confidence to over 200,000 other rate payers who recently faced rate increases.

Judge Mary Beth Sharp also disclosed the view that the 'imperative' for a rate payer to pay their rates did not 'crystallize' until the Council had fulfilled its obligations to rate payers. In other words kept it's part of the deal. A deal which Penny Bright says is not complete because Council has not disclosed all its spending as the Law requires. I hope it is revealed if it hasn't already been how much the Council have spent on pursuing the debt in this 'complex' case. Just as I hope the Court will rule on the 'crystallisation' of the Council's financial disclosure obligations sought by Penny Bright, perhaps with a substantial order of costs, including perhaps damages for the pressure placed on a single ratepayer who asked to know how her money, and that of all rate payers, is spent.

There will be many in the city with objections as to how Council spend rates (and increases debt) to know that one of their number, who has objected by refusing to pay her rates, is threatened with having her house sold.

Margaret Bain - somehow forgotten?

·    On 13 December 1992 she writes:

"Robin is not of 65 Every Street. I suddenly feel excitement as I contemplate God's solving of that problem. I pray for tranquility/serenity throughout the process. After months (years) of fear over this I finally feel confident that God will allow him to do no harm. I understand that harm is flexible and depends on circumstances."

With the dust continuing to settle on David Bain's innocence there becomes more time to remember Margaret and her lost children. From what little I know of Margaret her life had become somewhat 'frozen' between her faith and that of her lost marriage. As time moves on there is reason to suspect that Margaret, her family life, her children and her marriage will be studied for clues as to what may have contributed to her apparent descent into depression and uncertainty in the months before her death. It isn't necessary for the Law to have delved into the family, although it might well have assisted the settling of this case along time ago. I should say at the outset that 'Robin Bain supporters' generally have been dismissive of Margaret and her problems in their 'zeal' to exonerate her husband for the murder of the entire family apart from David. Comments made about her apparent laziness, willingness to live in a hovel have contributed to the hate-siters being dismissive of her. In fact she has often been portrayed as the enemy in the 'war' to prove that it was not Robin but rather David that killed the family. Most unfortunately, there have been quite disgusting allegations made against her of a sexual kind, in order, I suppose to negate the now known evidence that shows had Robin not died he may have faced charges of abuse against his daughters. It's an extreme characteristic of blind hate against somebody that allegations, without any basis that has arisen in the case literature, reporting, or as genuine evidence against Margaret, that some Robin supporters should suggest she was involved in incest with her own children. Anonymous 'haters' have said a new house was to be built at 65 Every Street in which she would 'share' a room with one of her sons. This of course from people who became absolutely livid by the allegation that at least one of her daughters was about to go to the police to reveal allegations of incest against Robin - a potential motive for the murder that was never investigated. As this blog progresses it will be open for a reader to conclude that this hate may have in fact been driven by some police, certainly some of the details revealed an 'insiders' knowledge that may have been available to any investigators who chose to 'leak facts.'

How some people could heap such allegations against Margaret to 'defend' those against Robin is an insight to the mentality that has seen a type of cult rise in the name of Robin Bain. Much as it is unpalatable it reveals the real hatred by the cult of anyone who doesn't see things 'their way' and what steps they have been prepared to take to influence opinion in Robin's favour. Small likelihood of any enduring sucess of course but a true revelation of what inspired the hate campaigns. Margaret, it was give in evidence, looked for signs before making decisions in the months before her death, she spent an extraordinary amount of time in bed in the time preceding her death - a classic sign that she had lost confidence, that she was stuck somewhere and needed 'faith' and 'signs' to carry on. The real question therefore becomes what drove Margaret to such a state, how did a once dynamic woman deteriorate to the point that one of her few motivations was to 're-build' excluding Robin from her life and that of her children.

Let's look for some clues supporting what could be a psychological move to rebuild say shattered confidence or dreams. Rating high be her failing marriage, more pressing perhaps - fear. Margaret Bain told a confidant who gave evidence that she was 'afraid' Robin would get a gun and 'kill the lot of them.' Look above at what I have opened this blog with, words from Margaret's own diary, where the same again is apparent - her fear of Robin. By then of course Robin was estranged. When he 'lived' at home, it was outside in a van. By the time of Margaret's death it appears 'Robin' had been 'outside' the marriage for a long time. On the night preceding the killings a meeting was held with the family excluding Robin, but most importantly 'including' the youngest daughter Laniet. It would be Laniet, that several witnesses would later tell police, who had revealed a 'relationship' with her father - something that appears may have been responsible for also 'driving' Laniet outside the family into youthful prostitution.

So even when the hate-siters have attacked Robin's victims they have also chosen to overlook that there was disorder in his life and his relationship with his family. He was not perfect, just as Margaret was not imperfect. It appears from what little is known about the meeting that the 'girls' of the family had reconciled that night, not knowing that in the morning they would all be dead. Indeed that Margaret's fears about 'Robin getting a gun' would become a reality. If Robin was indeed motivated by 'keeping the secret' then the entire inquiry into the murders took that line. Robin was never investigated despite what we know now about the blood and forensic trail which led to him, and which was recently confirmed that the gunshot forensics of his death were indicative that he had suicided the morning of the deaths of his wife and 3 of the children. He was never investigated. The allegations of incest were never investigated, a electronic dairy said to have the names of Laniet's 'clients' perhaps police among them, 'disappeared' whilst in the custody of police.

Looking for corroboration as to why the incest was not investigated as a possible motive, Detective Seargeant Doyle said it was because 'they (police) had a murder to solve.' A cynic, reflecting on written reports of police being involved illegally in the activities of the brothel where Laniet worked at least at some point, might consider the police, or at least some members, could not 'afford' such an inquiry. On firm ground we all know that there were only 2 suspects for the Bain homicides, and that 1 wasn't investigated. We also know a senior figure in the Bain homicide squad retired early after David was convicted in the 1st trial that is now recorded in history as an 'actual Miscarriage of Justice.' Perhaps reasons for the refusal to investigate Robin, the allegations of police involved in the homicide inquiry of also being involved in the 'prostitution business', the premature retirement of one figure, the lost diary will one day emerge as a continuity in this tragedy. Potentially, as a point of reference, if ever a Royal Commission is formed to investigate what went wrong in the Bain case,  what went wrong in the Bain family before they splintered apart, looked to re-unite except for Robin only for 4 of them die at his hands would be a valuable intertwining thread.

It is not difficult to consider that Robin may have known not only about his daughter's prostitution but about the stories of police involvement. What ever his life had become by then he had loved his daughter, even if a line had been crossed that was unbecoming a 'holy man' -  who in one graphic and emotive misrepresentation by police was said to have been shot while kneeling in 'prayer.' Looking for other information that might support a police 'presence' in not wanting the investigation to take the expected course, of both Robin and David being investigated - it also can be found in evidence of a sort of 'distaste' for Margaret and her children. Doyle, I think it was, described the address at Every Street as a 'hovel', 'filthy' or other such descriptions. For supposedly 'dispassionate' police there seemed to be a effort to paint Margaret and her family as lesser people for some reason, a signal, whether deliberate or not, which led supporters of the late Robin Bain to 'speak' about Margaret, her obvious poor mental state of the time, her house, and her 'plans' with disgust.

Ironically, on that point alone - looking at the photos, the house didn't compare unfavourably with any busy household that had several teenagers among it's numbers. We know that David did the washing daily, worked and studied, as did another daughter, Arawa part time, as her studies continued. Looking a little further in, there was an 'incident' in the period leading up to the tragedy when Robin had to 'settle' with neighbours over something the youngest, Stephen, had done with a female's underwear. This showed part of the known character of Robin still intact, working to 'rebuild' his family. He also felt compelled to pay off some of Laniet's bills leading up to the murders, reminding me at least 1 American familicide where the father brought a 'new suit' before killing his family then himself. It could be said that Robin was under pressure in all quarters, those that have followed the case will have read about his personal hygiene deterioration in the months before his death and also know of his being past over for senior employment positions he had sought.

Of course the estrangement in the family finished in gunshots to some extent, although it lingers as a point of interest for the  tens of 1000s who have followed the case however remotely. Part of that interest is to determine what went wrong. There has been material written about the 'free' lifestyle that Robin and Margaret embraced when living in the islands at a time when the children were very young, having sex in front of the children and so forth. My view is that time may have been when the seeds of this tragedy were planted. McNeish in book hinted at this I am told, having never read the book, and concluded that this resulted in David killing his family. Now that science has proven that 'completion' of the theory incorrect, there is still little to say against the seedlings having indeed been planted in New Guinea and that the poison took hold of the mother and father's mind until his finally broke.

Penny Bright and Goliath.

Actually Goliath probably wasn't a bad guy, maybe he was just a giant doing what giants do. The
'Goliath' in this story certainly 'ain't no giant.' He's a little guy that is sort of puffed up and petulant. A puffed up, petulant Mayor of New Zealand's biggest city. If I seem a little impertinent it's because I can't share the Mayor's vision of the City that's going to 'become' the best city in the world with the dirtiest harbour because he won't spend money on drain filters. He can spend it on other things but drain filters no, no, no.

I don't like to be pragmatic when I'm meant to be having visions. However, when I'm trying to 'imagine' the Mayor's vision I see billions of dollars of debt. Apparently Penny Bright sees these mountains of debt as well - hidden behind the Mayor's team of spin doctors. Because we are having fantasies, imagining visions, and so on. it's quite permissible to have 'spin doctors.' Why not, it's all a bit of fun and nobody would be believe it's true anyway. But who is Penny and how did she get on board this fable. Did she even buy a ticket and if she did, where are they for sale.

Of course they could be for sale in the corner dairies. The problem is of course you can't see any the dairies anymore because the Mayor won't mow the council owned berms. He's trying to save money to employ spin doctors, they must be so much fun he needs a few dozen more. One would have to ask why shouldn't he, remembering he's having visions and one of them 'spin doctors' might actually be able to help the Mayor, minister to him, some remedy to overcome his dreaming and panting.

Now 'panting' seems an unusual word to have in a fairy tale and that could be part of the problem because Penny knows, in fact every one knows that the Mayor has sometimes been 'panting' in Mayoral Chambers wearing his gown, chains and not much else. That is until wife found out after which he had to say that he might be the son of  a preacher man but he was led astray by in one of his fantasises for a clean harbour and shining city by an assistant 30 years his junior who thought it was fine if old Lenny got buck naked in the board room with the lights on.

This is serious. More serious than you think because it seems that Penny is the bad guy and she might not be David either. In fact I'm fairly sure she just wanted the Mayor to put his clothes back on and tell the people how he was spending all their money. The Mayor wasn't going to have none of that because right at that time he'd just got a new limousine and he choosing from among options in his imagination whether he was actually to use the new limousine for 'Royal' like tours around the overgrown suburbs or put on a Fedora and have the driver cruise up and down Queen Street like he was a lone shark Mafia boss cruising around New York.

That's when the trouble started because he spotted Penny protesting in one of the parks, 'his' parks no less. Now the Mayor can be fun guy but this was no ordinary Penny, this was a 'bad' Penny who had previously run for council and who would in the future call for 'Goliath Brown's' guts for garters. Soon after that Penny would be 'assisting' a former Mayor of the great city into earlier retirement for telling porkies on his donation returns and trying to blame some body else. Even in the former Mayor was from across the political divide everyone knows Mayors are Mayors even if the odd grey one has accounting problems and others fantasy flushes. It might have been the 3 musketeers that coined the phrase 'all for one and one for all' but Mayors have got rights as well and 'all for me and none for you' has a catchy lashing of revenge attached.

Well not revenge really, not in a modern city where the Mayor hides behind darkened limo windows, and high grass berms. Why wouldn't he won't to take Penny's house for daring not to pay off his debt without being held accountable for it, with no amount of spin doctors able to put a finger on the problem, make it go away, or turn into a pleasant vision where the Mayor will once again be adored by those that were 'disappointed' when he got caught his pants down - not that I looked.

Hard to work out who is the bad 'guy' in Penny and Goliath stories these days.

What happens for David Bain now?

Long though it may have been anticipated that the Minister of Justice in New Zealand would be sacked over the previous year for various  it is only now that she has gone, resigned, according to herself or in fact sacked in the public mind. The event for which she resigned was the result of an email in which she was mentioned as looking to undermine a previous head of the Serious Fraud Office. The proof of this, certainly enough to satisfy the Prime Minister, John Key - appears to only be that she was mentioned in an email by Collins old friend Cameron Slater. What Slater said was that the Minister was 'gunning' for SFO head, at this point there is no direct evidence that supports Slater's claim - though she has admitted doing similar things and is recorded as doing in the Bain case where she was 'gunning' for International Jurist Ian Binnie and the subject of his review of the Bain case, David Bain.

On the other hand however, there is rock solid evidence that Judith Collins, fed Slater information by way of the Official Information Act in order to undermine Ian Binnie, and David Bain in respect of David's application for compensation for over 12 years false imprisonment. That solid evidence made no apparent impact on the Prime Minister who is now subject to an allegation that his office leaked similar details to Slater to ensure the right questions were asked in a OIA application to the SIS for material which Slater later used against a member of a rival political party. The obvious question come to mind why was Collin's pushed for an unsubstantiated (at least to this point) allegation but allowed no censure for the release from her Office, after hours, of Official Information that Slater quickly used to attack both Binnie report and also Binnie himself and David Bain. An attack which led Joe Karam to seek a High Court Judicial Review of the decision by Collins not to honour her duties as Minister of Justice, and by so doing, due process and the insurance of his rights under The Bill of Rights Act.

It appears that because John Key himself is accused of leaking information to the same blogger, Slater, that may have been the reason for him not to act against Collins for the Bain leakage, nor another against a public servant which she has admitted. In other words if the Prime Minister was to sanction Collins it would have appeared that he was favouring himself to a different standard than what he expected from his Justice Minister. All of this is outside David Bain's control. His team are prepared for the Judicial Review early next year now to only find that their prime antagonist is gone for something which on the face of things is far less serious, or at least unproven to this point, than that which he has to go to Court to seek a remedy.

Putting all else aside, what is ultimately displayed is how our 'system' of righting wrongs for the falsely imprisoned is ad hoc at best and a tool for evil at worst. It's apparent that much water has flowed under the bridge since David Bain was again let down by a system that hid, destroyed, or planted evidence against him. A system that continued to 'work' against him from inside the office of The Minister of Justice where a campaign was mounted against him by the person Legislatively entrusted to act fairly, with competence and in a non partisan way. A person who in fact threatened him publicly, wouldn't release paperwork to him and used a hate monger to sway public opinion with comments that bore no reality to fact, but which instead sought to sensationalise and generate hate and ill will against David Bain.

David Bain, wrongfully imprisoned ex prisoner, has never harmed anybody in the way Judith Collins, and by proxy her Government, have harmed David Bain. He went to Government as he was entitled, weary that he might have been, that the Government were simply an extension of the police and Crown prosecution that had framed him.

Whether the Judicial Review continues, or if a Minister in a new Government obeys the Law and
exercises Executive Power in the way it was maintained Governments would when NZ refused to sign an International mandate by way of the United Nations to pay compensation automatically rather than to 'look behind' Court or Jury decisions as though an 'all knowing' God, the Country does not know at this stage, nor does David Bain. The only thing clear is that one 'God' has fallen.

Joseph Parker comes of age.

Joseph Parkers win over Brian Minto in Auckland last night showed how far the young heavyweight might go. Suddenly it looks like there is no heavyweight in the Pacific basin who might beat him. Not only is he continuing to hone rare boxing skills but also to display 'ring intelligence' and 'savvy.' I've written about the potential of Parker's relationship with Kevin Barry before. For the first time since their time together as coach and pupil did we see the finer hand of Barry moulding the younger man. In particular Parker controlling his natural inclination to 'mix it up.' In a little over a year he's become a more disciplined boxer who doesn't readily go into the alley but who however remains disciplined and uses his strengths rather than mixing it as a brawler at times.

Parker readily showed the deficiencies of the aging Brian Minto. For those that might remember Hollyfield 'bullying' Tyson - Parker took a page out of that book, literally bullying and muscling Brian out of the match. He also once again showed his power and his continuing to improve left jab. He showed little vulnerability and opponents in the future will know that Parker has come of age with experience and improving skills. I think his jab will become devastating and the cornerstone of his style as it should be with a taller, quick fighter.

No cuts last night as he learns to stay out of the way of potential head-butts. If anything we saw that Parker now deflects the brawlers elbows, head butts and hooks by effectively using his strength and tying them up before moving back to his distance and bringing his jab into the fray once again. We also saw the 'fine tuning' that Kevin Barry, and we fans, must enjoy - a heavyweight using and continuing to define his skills. How many times we heard that the redoubtable David Tua was adopting new techniques while with Parker he simply shows them in the ring. Some punters would have noticed that as Parker tied Minto up at times he looked toward his corner as though to confirm his adoption of not only Barry's fight plan but that it was working. Also to note was that he is capable of listening to instructions between rounds and that he is very smart and open to learning. Complete those with his natural attributes and New Zealand has the classiest heavyweight perhaps the Country has produced.

Is McVicar threatening John Key?

In response to a press release from Corrections and Police Minister Anne Tolley that it is the Government's intention to proceed with legislation for a sex offender's Register, a clearly upset Garth McVicar, had this to say:

“The Prime Minister seems to be an astute man; my advice would be that he makes sure there are no unpleasant surprises behind the action against SST and proposal to bar public access to the sex-offender register."

The full link is here; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00421/government-about-to-repeat-legal-high-mistake.htm

Of course 'no unpleasant surprises behind the action against SST ' refers to the SST being taken to Court by the Privacy Commissioner for publishing an offenders details and historical convictions as a breach of the Privacy of that offender and his family. What McVicar doesn't speak about is that the offences dated back over 25 years, the offender had gone on to lead a law abiding life and was approached for money on the basis that if it wasn't received then the offenders details would be given to the SST for publication. In other words, a form of blackmail. While there is no suggestion that I'm aware that the SST approached the man directly it remains that if the money or published 'threat' is true then not only did the SST ignore the threat, or find nothing untoward about it - they helped carry it out. Exactly why John Key should be concerned about 'unpleasant surprises' for not condoning 'private' activities of this nature, which have the hall marks of vigilantism, is unclear to probably most people - but clearly not McVicar.

Although the 'work' of the SST is being increasingly marginalized as the Government looks to balance the books on the public safety aspect of some offenders and where they might live in the future, and with whom, SST have no doubt played a role in encouraging the Government along these lines. But to be fair also the cases of abusers 'adopting' roles in new family situations have given Government cause to take effective action. It seems that McVicar rather than support the Government's initiatives appears to see them as taking something from McVicar himself, and the SST, rather than giving security to the public.

This was always going to be an issue it appears because of the 'position' McVicar saw himself entitled to take. Regardless of that 'position' his inability to recognize the Law first, and foremost, put him on a likely collision course with the Authorities. In a sometimes highly emotive subject, child sex offender's in particular, boundaries were not only going to be tested, but also broken. That is the reason why the SST has been taken to Court, because it saw itself as a Law unto itself - this brought a whole range of other problems and shortsightedness. Where the SST have seen the rights of victims as being foremost they have never shown the capacity to see their position has created victims. An example of this could be the man at the centre of the dispute between the Privacy Commissioner and the SST. After a cup of tea to settle down, it would be hoped that McVicar would see that the man was entitled to get on with his life privately, not be subject to blackmailing but mostly not have his family affected by his past being re-visited in a very public way.

I listened to Anne Tolley interviewed about her plans for a Register, her opinions are very considered and sit inside a frame work of Privacy, rights of the individual and so on. She is dispassionate about creating greater protection for the public. Although it is clearl, she is highly motivated that it is a Government role and not one for a group many see as vigilantes ready to support attacks against families who are expected just to weather the storm as a husband, or father is attacked publicly for historical convictions. One can almost imagine that the lack of the vision by the SST on this, indicates that the SST has a position that the families 'deserve' to be outed or simply seen as 'collateral' damage.

Enough of that for now, and putting aside that McVicar may simply be distressed that the Government is taking action that he has long called for himself it's important to consider how far the vigilantism has reached while successive Governments have either sat on their hands or conducted a relationship with the SST. The current case is one, there are others that we may not hear about and at least one more that will test the credibility of those running the SST to the max. Firstly however, it is important to highlight the distinction between those 'running' the SST and the genuine membership of victims. The actions of the administration, lack of action, compliance in threats doesn't reflect on the genuine membership nor should  it do so. Many, including myself have said that the SST hierarchy takes advantage of the vulnerability and distress of the genuine membership.

The test of whether some are being used by others is perhaps best characterized by the fact that the most vocal in the SST are not themselves victims. Taking a broader look at the membership it is unfortunately confirmed that many members of the SST were either members or associates of the 'hate' sites successfully sued by Karam. Those individuals, sadly to say, are recorded as threatening to send gang members to the houses of those opposing them, taking their children and laying false complaints with the police and other organisations. Most of that is recorded in material leaked from the hate-sites or expressed in 'on line' anger of the 'hate site' membership.

The distinction between the broader membership and motivation of the SST administration and 'hate sites' membership is also characterised by 'advice' from 'Lawyers' of a nature to say the least is stunningly stupid and down right vicious. Of course I exclude the late Greg King here and point to the current 'legal advisors' of the SST and other disbarred or disgraced Lawyers who advised or encouraged Kent Parker to jump off a 'financial' cliff even knowing that he is an ex mental health patient.

In many ways the SST strive for legitimate recognition has resulted in the SST being subject to the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. Both Acts which on the face of it one would expect a legal and charitable organisation to embrace - however the fact that those Acts, along with boasts on the hate-sites else where have made stored information of the SST available despite the 'belief' that the 'open' organisations were operating in secrecy. Ironic of course that while the SST have no hesitation in releasing information that is not authenticated to an acceptable level, or even subject to a legal and reasoned policy, that the SST itself shrouds it's activities and membership in 'secrecy' it accuses others of holding.

Of course the tirade of McVicar produced above will fly under the radar. But for the informed, and those that will continue to be informed as the activities of the SST and hate-sites are continued to be investigated - will already be seeing a quite startling pattern, threats, support of blackmail, false accusations etc as giving pause for thought as to why Anne Tolley could possibly not be on the right track.