I guess it is breaking news that a book by Ian Wishart due for release today claims that Watson is guilty along with 1 another of the murder of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart. It is only in recent weeks that the existence of the book have been revealed. I read about it on Kiwi Blog where, not unexpectedly, many commentators lined up with their favored positions - in particular those in the Watson guilty camp decried Wishart's ability to find the truth while many on the other side presumed that Wishart would conclude Watson's innocence. Having been around a little myself my only comment was that the findings would be of interest and my hope was that they were evidenced based,
At this point I don't know. What I do know from a press release by David Fisher is a fairly contradictory position taken by Wishart which apparently claims that Watson is not the public persona that he has been portrayed to be (an odd position because it public persona has most often been portrayed as his being particularly evil and dangerous) as a decent bloke whereas Wishart says the opposite. I think the coin gets flipped on that - any analysis of a person's character in a controversial case should never over shadow evidence, even when it is clear that the accused's character is of concern Justice cannot jump to conclusions one way or the other. The test foremost always remains the evidence.
Wishart is also reported to claim that the police botched the investigation, so immediately there is no side of the for and against Watson arguments that emerge with credibility. On the face of it, and for no small reason that Wishart claims that Watson is guilty with 1 other person, the case made by police is now under attack because they apparently did not discover 1 other guilty offender. It may of course be deeper than that, Wishart may be claiming police knew about the second person and overlooked it for some reason. From history in some controversial cases that is not exactly uncommon, most recently Teina Pora's false imprisonment for 20 years showed evidence of that, as did the David Bain conviction.
At this early stage Wishart looks to have uncovered some controversial material which could indeed confirm Watson's guilt and the details of a 2nd offender, who may now be dead but who was at least according to Wishart either deliberately ignored by police or possibly even a fortunate escapee from police attention because of ineptitude.
Really what the Wishart book will need to show to benefit either, or both sides, of the argument of Watson's guilt or evidence will be answers to what has fallen apart since Watson's trial. That he was never put with the couple in any conclusive matter apart from witnesses who said they were duped by police and withdrew their identification of Watson with the couple. He will have to explain the mystery ketch, which could be part of Wishart's theory. Wishart may say that the couple were taken to the mystery ketch after all and Watson and another were eventually there with them after which the couple were killed. If anything like this is expounded upon the hairs found on the blanket in the laboratory said to link Watson to Olivia will need a clear explanation because their appearance was not only shady (the hairs not being found on an earlier search by a scientist despite being distinctively blond and long) but if it is claimed that Olivia was not on Watson's boat but on another - then how the hairs fit in becomes even more dubious.
Of course there is a recanted confession said to have been made by Watson to a stranger he met in prison and who he allegedly confessed to - the new theory may also contradict that alleged conversation relied upon by the Crown.
Frankly I'm cynical, as one should be with emotion put aside. But I remain very interested in any new facts relied upon by Wishart in order to analyse what affect they might have on the Watson conviction but not necessarily on the theory of Wishart. All cases of false convictions or allegations have 'leap of faith' components that get white washed by the horror of crime, or distaste or sympathy for the accused. Ultimately lets look at the evidence, see if disquiet about the Watson conviction is reasonably satisfied or in fact, in cool deliberation, becomes of even greater concern. Any such concern is not allayed by serious proof that the police botched the case, because after all a discerning observer might see the mistakes as overall favoring Watson and the claims of another offender supporting this. Anyway, more on this in due course.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Friday, January 1, 2016
Where Joe Parker and Kevin Barry find themselves as 2016 begins.
When Joe Parker had 1 fight left last year he, as with all his other fights, arrived an improved boxer. We have yet to see Parker with an off night, apparently fighting injured or out of sorts. As expected we saw him laying down on his punches with great power from the 1st opportunity as he has displayed in his latest fights - going up a notch or 2 by again displaying a fast start at close to full power. It was all over within the first round.
Before the fight Kevin Barry revealed that he had given up on Parker lifting weights, instead concentrating on body weight exercises. The changes to Parker's appearance was evident. Some readers will know that lifting weights in many particular exercises doesn't emulate specific movement an athlete will use in his or her competing. At no stage in boxing will a boxer use his or her muscles in anyway that directly and consistently corresponds with weight training, they will however completely use their own body weight and strength throughout their contest. Weight lifting is not a natural way for a boxer to train and many boxers, as Parker seems one, will not benefit as compared to training with body weight - their weapon in the contest. Additionally, what is a good way of training for one boxer may not suit another. An advantage for Parker early in career, as it has been with some greats, is that picking up weight between fights is not a problem. When he is in pre-fight training it is not to shed weight, rather to heighten his skills and fitness for the next fight.
His other advantage is his partnership with Kevin Barry, as dedicated trainer as Parker is fighter. I saw Lance Revel recently going about his day job of fixing a fence and wondered what he thought of Parker's progress. He had always been negative about Tua's chances at the top but never from memory about his power. Of similar build if not height to Parker Lance came late to the heavy weight ranks in his career, I'm fairly positive he would approve of the progress of Parker if not the calibre of his opponents. How distinctly different the world is now for young Kiwi boxers compared to the past. Tom Heeney more than likely paid his own fare to the states before eventually being the first NZ boxer to fight for the heavyweight crown. By the time of the Tua and Barry partnership there were training camps held in the states. An overall impression, that despite that era being a pioneering base for the entirely professional training of Parker, could be that David Tua did not fully appreciate his opportunity of what the professional efforts of Barry meant to his career and could have meant to his career had they been fully embraced. At times Tua appeared to think that what was happening for him was to be expected - his destiny as he sometimes put it.
Whatever different opinions are Barry has been at the forefront of putting NZ boxers on the world stage, if not each individual boxer - then the blueprint or format. Barry no longer wears his heart on his sleeve as he often appeared to do with Tua. What has cost him dearly is now his reward, experience. That experience with respect to Parker looks to be melding into the perfect partnership no matter how far Parker travels in his career, the partnership, training, and mental application looks capable of taking him as far as his training, talent and skill will allow toward a world title. Whereas many critics bemoan the development of Parker, in particular the hand-picked opponents etc, the reality is of the tried and tested route. To look for the benefits one need only look at Parker's record, his standing in the rankings - but most of all his constant development and improvement. Such is his improvement that even his doubters cannot deny it, whilst many commentators from afar including boxers and ex champions confirm the progress of the young, gifted with speed, heavyweight.
Parker in 2 short years no longer looks so wide eyed with excitement and opportunity. He is fully, and menacingly focused in a way that not only draws attention but exudes bitter determination. Klitschko should overturn his defeat to Fury mainly because the latter looks to untidy in his personal life, pick Klitschko to turn the tables by out thinking the British heavyweight long before their scheduled fight. Whatever the outcome of that fight, I anticipate steady progress for Parker again this year, more of the same - credible opponents, some chosen for their style and the prospect of Parker gaining experience by the match. Look for a continued steady climb from the busy fighter that Parker has proven himself to be - certainly higher rankings and perhaps a career defining fight either this year or next. He's got the goods, he's being finally tuned and honed physically and mentally. Not all boxers have that opportunity or mental state of mind, they are relatively few and far between. Parker is certainly one, as is Klitschko another. Soon however, it will be Parker's turn to enter the elite world where Klitschko has ruled, as others have before him. Most boxes look likely to be ticked in his favour and he will know what we all know there is no certainty apart from the fact he continues to make the very best of his chances.
Before the fight Kevin Barry revealed that he had given up on Parker lifting weights, instead concentrating on body weight exercises. The changes to Parker's appearance was evident. Some readers will know that lifting weights in many particular exercises doesn't emulate specific movement an athlete will use in his or her competing. At no stage in boxing will a boxer use his or her muscles in anyway that directly and consistently corresponds with weight training, they will however completely use their own body weight and strength throughout their contest. Weight lifting is not a natural way for a boxer to train and many boxers, as Parker seems one, will not benefit as compared to training with body weight - their weapon in the contest. Additionally, what is a good way of training for one boxer may not suit another. An advantage for Parker early in career, as it has been with some greats, is that picking up weight between fights is not a problem. When he is in pre-fight training it is not to shed weight, rather to heighten his skills and fitness for the next fight.
His other advantage is his partnership with Kevin Barry, as dedicated trainer as Parker is fighter. I saw Lance Revel recently going about his day job of fixing a fence and wondered what he thought of Parker's progress. He had always been negative about Tua's chances at the top but never from memory about his power. Of similar build if not height to Parker Lance came late to the heavy weight ranks in his career, I'm fairly positive he would approve of the progress of Parker if not the calibre of his opponents. How distinctly different the world is now for young Kiwi boxers compared to the past. Tom Heeney more than likely paid his own fare to the states before eventually being the first NZ boxer to fight for the heavyweight crown. By the time of the Tua and Barry partnership there were training camps held in the states. An overall impression, that despite that era being a pioneering base for the entirely professional training of Parker, could be that David Tua did not fully appreciate his opportunity of what the professional efforts of Barry meant to his career and could have meant to his career had they been fully embraced. At times Tua appeared to think that what was happening for him was to be expected - his destiny as he sometimes put it.
Whatever different opinions are Barry has been at the forefront of putting NZ boxers on the world stage, if not each individual boxer - then the blueprint or format. Barry no longer wears his heart on his sleeve as he often appeared to do with Tua. What has cost him dearly is now his reward, experience. That experience with respect to Parker looks to be melding into the perfect partnership no matter how far Parker travels in his career, the partnership, training, and mental application looks capable of taking him as far as his training, talent and skill will allow toward a world title. Whereas many critics bemoan the development of Parker, in particular the hand-picked opponents etc, the reality is of the tried and tested route. To look for the benefits one need only look at Parker's record, his standing in the rankings - but most of all his constant development and improvement. Such is his improvement that even his doubters cannot deny it, whilst many commentators from afar including boxers and ex champions confirm the progress of the young, gifted with speed, heavyweight.
Parker in 2 short years no longer looks so wide eyed with excitement and opportunity. He is fully, and menacingly focused in a way that not only draws attention but exudes bitter determination. Klitschko should overturn his defeat to Fury mainly because the latter looks to untidy in his personal life, pick Klitschko to turn the tables by out thinking the British heavyweight long before their scheduled fight. Whatever the outcome of that fight, I anticipate steady progress for Parker again this year, more of the same - credible opponents, some chosen for their style and the prospect of Parker gaining experience by the match. Look for a continued steady climb from the busy fighter that Parker has proven himself to be - certainly higher rankings and perhaps a career defining fight either this year or next. He's got the goods, he's being finally tuned and honed physically and mentally. Not all boxers have that opportunity or mental state of mind, they are relatively few and far between. Parker is certainly one, as is Klitschko another. Soon however, it will be Parker's turn to enter the elite world where Klitschko has ruled, as others have before him. Most boxes look likely to be ticked in his favour and he will know what we all know there is no certainty apart from the fact he continues to make the very best of his chances.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Was Scott Watson proven guilty?
Was Scott Watson found guilty is a good place to start. Well yes he was, absolutely.
Though since then a core of evidence offered to the Jury that found him guilty no longer stands. No doubt it's a given that evidence must not only survive scrutiny at a trial but also the scrutiny of time. The Watson conviction is a ship wreck, one cast aground in no man's land where an agent for the Crown, without the benefit of any new reports, primarily relies on 2 hairs said to have come from Olivia, found on a blanket in a laboratory.
I've written here about the 2 hairs extensively before having had the benefit of a letter to this blog from a forensic scientist (source 1 below) and correspondence from Keith Hunter which supports the scientist's opinion (source 2). A reader will note that Keith points out a mistake I made in my own interpretation of the evidence. Others will agree that he is a remarkable man and that his understanding of the case against Watson is at a level few may be able to attain. I've no idea if Keith received his information regarding the DNA from the same source that later forwarded it to this blog - but the truth of it is that this evidence remains unanswered which was exactly what Kirsty McDonald should have done with reviewing the safety of the Watson conviction.
Source 1:
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one
chromosome then calculating the number of searches needed to find another
person on a population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you
start with 65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are
actually making over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a
probability 2 billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9
specific loci, but rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people
there are over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told,
you end up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or
28 thousand searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the
number of matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact
the DNA evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who
would match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci
would be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though
siblings can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified
because the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic
science DNA testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are
related as that eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in
the sounds testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade
was from Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they
were both their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA
and as the same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The
usual source of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control
hairs were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia
hair brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab
about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Source 2: Keith Hunter 2 years ago.
•
I have covered several of the matters you raise in an article for
North&South magazine, probably January edition, available in the bookstores
from mid- December.
•
My personal view is that the hairs came from Olivia and that they were planted
by the police, probably through a contact within the ESR.
•
The ‘common source’ reference must refer to two hairs from one source-
namely that both the hairs under examination came from Olivia.
•
Over the years I’ve lost some detail of the DNA case in court (memory issues)
but the major defence stance was that the identification of the hair DNA
was suspect. The slit in the sample bag and the hairs’ late discovery late
muddied the waters re their integrity as evidence but I’m sure the defence
didn’t go further re planting.
•
There is no suggestion of a transfer of some sort from Mrs Hope. You have
misinterpreted the issues relating to mitochondria DNA, which indicates
historic and therefore present day relationships via the heredity of the female
line. The indications were that the hair inspected shared the same
mitochondrial DNA as Mrs Hope. As a means of identification it seems to me to
be of some limited statistical value but little more than that.
•
Somewhere I have a transcript of some of the defence closing but not all of it
so I can’t be more definitive on it. The attached court transcript will aid you
in this.
•
To understand the McDonald report you must understand that it has neither truth
nor integrity. It’s a bought opinion, paid for in advance. It was designed and
written specifically to decline Watson’s petition. It’s expensive rubbish.
Source 2: (Added later)
I should have noted that one hair provided mitochondrial
evidence in the UK while the other had already provided a nuclear link in
Australia – the substantial evidence. An issue for me is that the police (as I
recall) went to the UK with a hair they knew did not contain enough DNA for a
nuclear result after getting the nuclear evidence from the other hair in Australia,
ie knowing that there was no possibility of a nuclear result from a hair that
lacked root DNA and so could provide less than they had already -
only mitochondrial evidence which identifies the female line going back
maybe thousands of years but not the individual.
I made that point in TxT.
A quote of known facts:
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, both (now ex)
Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review
using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the
bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson
case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with
those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical
'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed
earlier.
If the DNA is so convincing against the counter claims, such as
though above, that it is not, then a referral for independent confirmation
would have been in order under the petition by Watson earlier, it would have
been in the public interest. As the identifications were recanted, the
description of the vessel, along with the goal house confession - then really
it is for a Jury to confirm or reject the evidence against Watson because it
looks collectively weak, also in the public interest and the safe exercise of
Justice for a Jury to consider this case again. For that reason it is probably no surprise that there is focus here on
his previous convictions, his sending of intimate pics to an ex girlfriend,
having a phone in prison, an assault conviction etc, unwilling like Pora and
Ellis before him to admit his guilt and so it goes on.
The effort put aside the new evidence regarding the DNA the withdrawal of the identification evidence, the alleged confession defies all logic and fairness. All this material supports the contention that Watson is falsely convicted or at least needs a retrial. The material does that both individually and collectively. The collective impact appears to gut the Crown case. I'm not easily convinced by conspiracies and any suggestion that eye witnesses recanting, at least 1 other vessel that fits the 'stepping up' required to board has been located and noted by other witnesses never called to give evidence, that the DNA's suspect arrival on the blanket after an earlier search proved that the hairs could have come from Olivia or her sister and were found the same day a hair brush taken from the sister's room was taken to the laboratory, consider also the full text of Keith Hunter's book about the hatch cover, the wiped tapes etc, - all this material from different sources and see with clarity it is not a conspiracy at all. Rather is proof of the failed Crown case opposed by what Keith Hunter says was a report that was expensive rubbish.
I've written before, and I hope it is in the capacity of Scott Watson, or his father to have a Barrister test the McDonald report by way of Judicial Review. If the money is not available - then perhaps a petition to Parliament, help is needed on this for the integrity of the Justice system and to correct the myopic exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The Thomas, Bain and Pora cases prove this. As does that of Lundy, although convicted again (controversially in my opinion) his first conviction was found unsafe. I think I am correct to say that none of the above had their convictions overturned as a result of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, each needed to go outside NZ to the Privy Council. A court which incidentally this country should still benefit from as an appellant court by leave on Judgements of the Supreme Court. NZ hasn't got it right yet, as those named above and others such as Allan Hall having spent collectively show with somewhere near a 100 years in prison on convictions that later were seen to be unjust.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Bain compensation: what's the hold up?
Somebody asked me this question today knowing of my interest in the case and I could only answer that I didn't know. What I could say however, having thought about the delay for some time, was that it most probably indicated 1 of 2 things, perhaps both.
No longer in an inquiry can the inquirer make his or her finding without consideration of the harm that might befall any person that might feel they didn't have a right of reply against pointed decisions that arguably might make those reading the report, the public, conclude that the had acted improperly in some way. In other words one might be concerned that Milton Weir in the Bain case could object to claims that he allegedly planted evidence at some time, despite there being Court cases in which he had been able to defend himself from that position. Ian Binnie pointed this out, that the allegations he levelled against some involved in the police investigation into the Bain murders had been defended by those police directly years before his finding that David was factually innocent.
For example ex Detective Sergeant Doyle might still wish not to call a strip search a strip search. As to this most people would agree that common sense prevails. However, it may be the case that correct names put to situations such as David Bain being strip searched and no scratches being found on his chest, or that his father had blood on his palms despite allegedly not being the killer of his family, then himself - are weighing on completion of any finding that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
I agree that people should have a right of reply to accusations levelled against them but would argue that none, or few, allegations as to the misconduct of police in the case have not already captured responses. For that reason is underlined why the application for compensation is not decided in a Court is foolish at the least, calculatedly contrived at the worst. No Court case would be allowed to be held in secret, such as it is, most, if not all of the case for compensation would be heard by the public. More on that later perhaps.
To the second probability. Very obvious to most keenly looking for logic are the forensics of this case. The forensics have continued to grow in favour to a clear perspective that David couldn't have killed his family, while plainly his father could have- and did. Much like individuals involved in the investigation and now criticised for their performances are held to demand another right of reply - so too the forensics. The Crown and police can't escape the forensic clarity in the case of the Bain murders and the suicide of Robin Bain. But they will try, as I believe they do now. Anything to delay, anything to keep secret the extent of the injustice against David Bain, his mother and siblings.
Those can be the only reasons why this inquiry is on extended time, and why it hasn't been open to public scrutiny from the outset.
No longer in an inquiry can the inquirer make his or her finding without consideration of the harm that might befall any person that might feel they didn't have a right of reply against pointed decisions that arguably might make those reading the report, the public, conclude that the had acted improperly in some way. In other words one might be concerned that Milton Weir in the Bain case could object to claims that he allegedly planted evidence at some time, despite there being Court cases in which he had been able to defend himself from that position. Ian Binnie pointed this out, that the allegations he levelled against some involved in the police investigation into the Bain murders had been defended by those police directly years before his finding that David was factually innocent.
For example ex Detective Sergeant Doyle might still wish not to call a strip search a strip search. As to this most people would agree that common sense prevails. However, it may be the case that correct names put to situations such as David Bain being strip searched and no scratches being found on his chest, or that his father had blood on his palms despite allegedly not being the killer of his family, then himself - are weighing on completion of any finding that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
I agree that people should have a right of reply to accusations levelled against them but would argue that none, or few, allegations as to the misconduct of police in the case have not already captured responses. For that reason is underlined why the application for compensation is not decided in a Court is foolish at the least, calculatedly contrived at the worst. No Court case would be allowed to be held in secret, such as it is, most, if not all of the case for compensation would be heard by the public. More on that later perhaps.
To the second probability. Very obvious to most keenly looking for logic are the forensics of this case. The forensics have continued to grow in favour to a clear perspective that David couldn't have killed his family, while plainly his father could have- and did. Much like individuals involved in the investigation and now criticised for their performances are held to demand another right of reply - so too the forensics. The Crown and police can't escape the forensic clarity in the case of the Bain murders and the suicide of Robin Bain. But they will try, as I believe they do now. Anything to delay, anything to keep secret the extent of the injustice against David Bain, his mother and siblings.
Those can be the only reasons why this inquiry is on extended time, and why it hasn't been open to public scrutiny from the outset.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Trump Soup
Trump Soup
Get a wall built right over there to keep them Mexicans, Muslims, out.
Build it brick by brick, take time to bomb their airports
and tunnel contractors.
Don’t let no one in.
They’re everywhere all around.
Even aliens could come but he will keep them out with a
super shield.
A bubble of impenetrable glass will do it.
Right over the whole USA.
No need to travel in here or leave.
It’s Hotel California.
A Day at the Races.
Those Marx brothers could think a thing or 2 falling over
while walking about.
No one is coming in here or going out till he knows what’s
going on.
He’ll be your honey man if you will be his baby tonight.
It’s a soup.
A thick Irish one cooked during the potato famine that
got kept back.
For another famine time come soon.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Scott Watson unconvincing.
In what is possibly Scott Watson's first ever interview he comes across as complex in this months issue of North and South. He seemed to have been busting to tell his side of the story and why not of course. But unfortunately it appeared to me that in describing the police case manufactured against him he has brought too deeply into needing to explain something uncomfortable to the public - that he was framed more by rumour and deliberate misinformation than by evidence. He came across at times as though arguing that the entire police force and even the prison administrators were against him when that is simply not the case.
Such descriptions took the emphasis away from the main doubts about his convictions. I think he needed to be hammering them, rather that trying to convince the public of a plot against him rather than a lack of evidence. While he may be well justified, as he appears to be, to denounce the police investigation - that unfortunately doesn't resonate broadly in the public mind. The public I think are given the option to either accept that Watson is obsessed to the point of fuelling suspicion against himself or confirming already held opinions of his guilt rather than accepting his argument that the entire police force is corrupt. For example had he merely said that officer in charge of the police case had only been able to put Watson and the young couple together by employing an apparently deliberately deceitful manipulations of 2 prime witnesses and photographs which now longer stood, a telling aspect of the failure of the case would have stood firm - giving a strong, inescapable argument for a retrial.
Of course Watson is not trained in public relations as he clearly told Mike White from the North and South magazine. Nor is his father. Scott Watson also showed he does not have the single mindedness of arguing how the case against him has now failed, compared to the time of the trial. Again he has brought into the rhetoric used by the police to arguing in circles on the periphery of the evidence, rather than right at the heart of the unsoundness of his conviction. That suits the police, they take advantage of the misinformation against Watson because Watson himself raises it time and again.
What do the public need to know? Something simple, easy to follow rather than an over burdened picture with details they might find scary or even bizarre. It is at this point that the complexity of Watson himself works against him. I think that is entirely understandable on the 1 hand but very destructive on the other. I for example wanted to hear about his recent failed application under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. I looked forward to a tight argument based on tight facts as to why that application is, or should be, taken for Judicial Review. Though it cannot be a surprise that Scott Watson perhaps is unable to appreciate the simple detail of the failing Crown case against him when so much about his conviction is over burdened with pointless detail and insinuation.
The Crown needed to put Watson and the deceased Ben and Olivia together. Whilst they did to that at the trial through 2 witnesses, the water taxi operator and the bar manager both recanted and now say they were tricked into their identification of Watson being with the couple. That is a simple and crippling point in the Crown case. Watson cannot be reliably placed with the deceased couple before or after their deaths. Moving forward from that is the description of Watson's boat compared to the much bigger vessel the couple were dropped of at after leaving the hotel. The descriptions are not the same, even remotely. The Crown argue that Watson came ashore after alone being dropped off to his boat with the couple, however that is a theory they have been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Where Watson explains point by point the dismantling of the evidence against himself, he either fails to appreciate, having brought hook line and sinker the report into his failed application for The Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the dismantling of various facts once held against him not only need to be looked at in isolation but in continuity. For example the recanted identifications cannot be relied upon to prop up the case against Watson in other areas. The bar manager and the water taxi driver that put the couple together with Watson no longer stands, that is from the witnesses themselves. There is no longer any credit the Crown can take from evidence that has been withdrawn and this indicates the real Miscarriage of Justice that is now the Watson case. The Crown in Law cannot rely upon evidence that no longer exists to prop up other evidence that is contingent upon the failed evidence. In short what puts the couple on Watson's both if the water taxi driver says it wasn't he that put the couple on Watson's both but on a large ketch and not in the company of Watson but another man? Nothing. If the 2 witnesses are mistaken in their recantation let a Jury make heads or tails of it, let a Jury decide having first heard the witnesses evidence and cross examination, don't allow their evidence to a credit to the Crown in a case which has failed.
Following those recalled identifications there really are only 2 other issues in question about the purported validity of the Watson verdict. Firstly his 'confession' to a stranger in prison which has also been recanted. Because the Crown could not find the witness the investigator of Watson's application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy allowed the evidence to stand. Well hello, if the police no longer have positive identifications of Watson with the couple that can't be support for the police being unable to find their own witness who has recanted anyway. This is the systematic failure in the case against Watson, doubtful or recanted evidence used to hold together other doubtful or recanted evidence. Watson, in his interview, didn't focus on that - instead he gave breath to peripheral stuff which included a media campaign. Well, the media campaign, if it can be called that - doesn't put the couple together with Watson, only hard unimpeachable evidence can do that and it does not exist.
I've written before about what appears to be keeping Watson from his freedom 2 hairs found on a blanket in a lab. While the blanket had been taken from Watson yacht and over 400 hairs removed from it 2 distinctive, blond and long hairs were not found. The 'hair search' was conducted by a scientist in a laboratory situation. It was only after a second search, and following hairs being uplifted from the home of Olivia and delivered to the same Laboratory that 2 hairs from un unknown number of introduced hairs were found on the blanket in a subsequent search. Those 2 hairs at Watson's trial backed up the identifications of Watson being with the couple. However when those identifications are withdrawn the 2 hairs become something entirely different, evidence in isolation that 2 hairs were found on a blanket already carefully searched and only found after a bag containing an unknown number of hairs was introduced to the laboratory.
On the subject of the hairs and the mystery ketch, elsewhere on this blog has been submitted a photo of a ketch which really ought to have been seen by the Jury and put to witnesses at the trial as in fact the vessel that the couple went aboard. Also elsewhere on this blog is an analysis of the forensic value of the 2 hairs. That analysis, and perhaps this is not known to Watson, shows that the 2 hairs indicate the same hereditary line of Olivia and her sister, that they were both the daughters of their mother - the conduit of that hereditary line. They could have been the hairs of one sister or the other I understand, that is a could rather than a definite. Something else that favours Watson since the identifications and so called confession no longer stands, not only are the couple not put in the company of Watson by witnesses, or on is boat but that 2 hairs apparently pivotal to the validity of Watson's conviction prove neither to be those of Olivia beyond reasonable doubt, or in fact not to have been absolutely unable to have arrived on a blanket in a laboratory 'between' searches other than by some kind of evidence contamination. The case against Watson is in tatters. The credibility of the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy by the Crown's own agents is in tatters and should be taken to the Court for Judicial Review.
Scott Watson should be paroled in the meantime. It is an absurdity that his lack of admitting being responsible for the deaths of Ben and Olivia is held against him for parole. This is a form of witchcraft belonging to the dark ages - 'confess and be forgiven otherwise rot in hell.' There is not place for such sentiment in controversial cases. Watson is smart enough to know that his bucking of the system is working against him, stealing 1 year after another. He is trusted enough to be in minimum security to have worked in prison forests. He may be obsessed with the crisis that has been brought upon him, how a system works against the innocent and guilty equally and most often against the innocent more so - but that too does not make him guilty. It makes him frustrated and no doubt unbelieving that a system cannot correct itself.
Watson built his own yacht in quick time, spoke about building his own home. He is no doubt a practical and methodical person, those building skills and method now need to focus on an absolute truth that Ben and Olivia cannot be put in his company beyond reasonable doubt on the morning of their disappearance, or on his yacht, take that to the High Court for review.
Such descriptions took the emphasis away from the main doubts about his convictions. I think he needed to be hammering them, rather that trying to convince the public of a plot against him rather than a lack of evidence. While he may be well justified, as he appears to be, to denounce the police investigation - that unfortunately doesn't resonate broadly in the public mind. The public I think are given the option to either accept that Watson is obsessed to the point of fuelling suspicion against himself or confirming already held opinions of his guilt rather than accepting his argument that the entire police force is corrupt. For example had he merely said that officer in charge of the police case had only been able to put Watson and the young couple together by employing an apparently deliberately deceitful manipulations of 2 prime witnesses and photographs which now longer stood, a telling aspect of the failure of the case would have stood firm - giving a strong, inescapable argument for a retrial.
Of course Watson is not trained in public relations as he clearly told Mike White from the North and South magazine. Nor is his father. Scott Watson also showed he does not have the single mindedness of arguing how the case against him has now failed, compared to the time of the trial. Again he has brought into the rhetoric used by the police to arguing in circles on the periphery of the evidence, rather than right at the heart of the unsoundness of his conviction. That suits the police, they take advantage of the misinformation against Watson because Watson himself raises it time and again.
What do the public need to know? Something simple, easy to follow rather than an over burdened picture with details they might find scary or even bizarre. It is at this point that the complexity of Watson himself works against him. I think that is entirely understandable on the 1 hand but very destructive on the other. I for example wanted to hear about his recent failed application under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. I looked forward to a tight argument based on tight facts as to why that application is, or should be, taken for Judicial Review. Though it cannot be a surprise that Scott Watson perhaps is unable to appreciate the simple detail of the failing Crown case against him when so much about his conviction is over burdened with pointless detail and insinuation.
The Crown needed to put Watson and the deceased Ben and Olivia together. Whilst they did to that at the trial through 2 witnesses, the water taxi operator and the bar manager both recanted and now say they were tricked into their identification of Watson being with the couple. That is a simple and crippling point in the Crown case. Watson cannot be reliably placed with the deceased couple before or after their deaths. Moving forward from that is the description of Watson's boat compared to the much bigger vessel the couple were dropped of at after leaving the hotel. The descriptions are not the same, even remotely. The Crown argue that Watson came ashore after alone being dropped off to his boat with the couple, however that is a theory they have been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Where Watson explains point by point the dismantling of the evidence against himself, he either fails to appreciate, having brought hook line and sinker the report into his failed application for The Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the dismantling of various facts once held against him not only need to be looked at in isolation but in continuity. For example the recanted identifications cannot be relied upon to prop up the case against Watson in other areas. The bar manager and the water taxi driver that put the couple together with Watson no longer stands, that is from the witnesses themselves. There is no longer any credit the Crown can take from evidence that has been withdrawn and this indicates the real Miscarriage of Justice that is now the Watson case. The Crown in Law cannot rely upon evidence that no longer exists to prop up other evidence that is contingent upon the failed evidence. In short what puts the couple on Watson's both if the water taxi driver says it wasn't he that put the couple on Watson's both but on a large ketch and not in the company of Watson but another man? Nothing. If the 2 witnesses are mistaken in their recantation let a Jury make heads or tails of it, let a Jury decide having first heard the witnesses evidence and cross examination, don't allow their evidence to a credit to the Crown in a case which has failed.
Following those recalled identifications there really are only 2 other issues in question about the purported validity of the Watson verdict. Firstly his 'confession' to a stranger in prison which has also been recanted. Because the Crown could not find the witness the investigator of Watson's application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy allowed the evidence to stand. Well hello, if the police no longer have positive identifications of Watson with the couple that can't be support for the police being unable to find their own witness who has recanted anyway. This is the systematic failure in the case against Watson, doubtful or recanted evidence used to hold together other doubtful or recanted evidence. Watson, in his interview, didn't focus on that - instead he gave breath to peripheral stuff which included a media campaign. Well, the media campaign, if it can be called that - doesn't put the couple together with Watson, only hard unimpeachable evidence can do that and it does not exist.
I've written before about what appears to be keeping Watson from his freedom 2 hairs found on a blanket in a lab. While the blanket had been taken from Watson yacht and over 400 hairs removed from it 2 distinctive, blond and long hairs were not found. The 'hair search' was conducted by a scientist in a laboratory situation. It was only after a second search, and following hairs being uplifted from the home of Olivia and delivered to the same Laboratory that 2 hairs from un unknown number of introduced hairs were found on the blanket in a subsequent search. Those 2 hairs at Watson's trial backed up the identifications of Watson being with the couple. However when those identifications are withdrawn the 2 hairs become something entirely different, evidence in isolation that 2 hairs were found on a blanket already carefully searched and only found after a bag containing an unknown number of hairs was introduced to the laboratory.
On the subject of the hairs and the mystery ketch, elsewhere on this blog has been submitted a photo of a ketch which really ought to have been seen by the Jury and put to witnesses at the trial as in fact the vessel that the couple went aboard. Also elsewhere on this blog is an analysis of the forensic value of the 2 hairs. That analysis, and perhaps this is not known to Watson, shows that the 2 hairs indicate the same hereditary line of Olivia and her sister, that they were both the daughters of their mother - the conduit of that hereditary line. They could have been the hairs of one sister or the other I understand, that is a could rather than a definite. Something else that favours Watson since the identifications and so called confession no longer stands, not only are the couple not put in the company of Watson by witnesses, or on is boat but that 2 hairs apparently pivotal to the validity of Watson's conviction prove neither to be those of Olivia beyond reasonable doubt, or in fact not to have been absolutely unable to have arrived on a blanket in a laboratory 'between' searches other than by some kind of evidence contamination. The case against Watson is in tatters. The credibility of the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy by the Crown's own agents is in tatters and should be taken to the Court for Judicial Review.
Scott Watson should be paroled in the meantime. It is an absurdity that his lack of admitting being responsible for the deaths of Ben and Olivia is held against him for parole. This is a form of witchcraft belonging to the dark ages - 'confess and be forgiven otherwise rot in hell.' There is not place for such sentiment in controversial cases. Watson is smart enough to know that his bucking of the system is working against him, stealing 1 year after another. He is trusted enough to be in minimum security to have worked in prison forests. He may be obsessed with the crisis that has been brought upon him, how a system works against the innocent and guilty equally and most often against the innocent more so - but that too does not make him guilty. It makes him frustrated and no doubt unbelieving that a system cannot correct itself.
Watson built his own yacht in quick time, spoke about building his own home. He is no doubt a practical and methodical person, those building skills and method now need to focus on an absolute truth that Ben and Olivia cannot be put in his company beyond reasonable doubt on the morning of their disappearance, or on his yacht, take that to the High Court for review.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Arthur Taylor wins as Paremoremo Maxi gets closer to being shut down.
Earlier in the week we saw the Minister of Corrections Sam Lotui'iga set about striking into the foundation works of a new maximum security prison to be built at Paremoremo in close distance, just over a small prison road in fact, from where the 'old' Maxi Security Block stands with all it's secrets, its violence, the spaces where men's bleak futures were sometimes uplifted into a better life, or where others died by their own hands or that of others. Some days later we got the chance to read a judgement delivered by the Appeal Court into an appeal by Arthur William Taylor who won case of the analysis of the New Zealand Constitution, Bill of Rights. He's had more than a few victories in his various differences with the NZ Justice system where he has been imprisoned for much of life.
I recall recently reading a disclosure in the Courts or media where he had spoken or written about issues of rehabilitation - it seemed to be particular to be in respect of youth who got fed into the Justice system and were criminalised by it, or had their fledging or experimental criminality, hardened. In this week where the grounds for a new maximum security block is to be built the long term prisoner Taylor is successful in our 2nd highest Court in winning an appeal as to his, in fact our, rights under the New Zealand Constitution. His opponent once again the Justice System that failed to conscript the young Taylor into a law abiding citizen. Most people agree that the early years of any person's life are the most important, in that respect the Justice System failed Arthur Taylor and around 80% of those that come into their 'care' as children, teenagers or young adults.
Maybe the old Maxi Unit will be opened up for the public to view in future times. Those who will have read the latest judgement favouring Arthur Taylor who remember the detail that according to the Justice Department refusing to let Arthur be interviewed on TV one reason was that Arthur ought not be interviewed was because he jammed a lock in his cell, also set a fire there - in the end of the road formerly called D Block, now whitewashed with a new name 'East Block' will get a surprise to find there are no locks on D Block cells. Surely not, one might think. How could the gaolers not know there were no locks on the cells. It would certainly be a mishap, dangerous maximum security prisoners in cells which someone had forgotten to include a lock? Basic English please.
Out where Sam had been filmed digging new foundations there had a sound over in which he said would be included in the new institution better rehabilitation than old prison which he described as run down. He spoke about safety of staff, inmates - the design for better rehabilitative outcomes for those that will be housed there. It really was a fresh start dug into the clay according to Sam. Clay of course is a barren underlay where fresh roots can't crop. The Minister would not have known that later in the same week that he overturned those first sods of soil from where a new prison would emerge another man who had spent a great part of his life in the old maximum security unit would win another case against Sam's department, the same one for which the Minister furnished hope for better outcomes as he dug at the foundations. A further analysis of those foundations and the case Taylor just won would show that what Arthur dug into was the self protecting construction of the Justice Department. Arguing that Taylor was too dangerous to be interviewed because he allegedly 'jammed' a lock exemplifies how old antiquated the Justice System in NZ has become.
From the beginning of having prisoners mine rock to in fact build prisons where they were fed meagre food, lashed and treated largely according to the whim of the prison master whether he be a good man or one described as tough. Prisons where the opportunity to go to Court over a grievance was limited to periodic visits by a Magistrate called a visiting Justice whose main task was to deal with serious 'insubordination' resulting in punishments of isolation and restricted diets designed to break the spirit of incalcitrant prisoners, escapers, the violent and often those of disturbed mind who could be ordered into the care of psychiatric institution - to a time now where only a small percentage of prisoners have the knowledge of opportunity to seek Justice in the Courts was marked this week.
What was also marked for the keen observer was the nonsense that the Justice Department can bring to situations. Taylor had sought a Judicial Review of the JD (Justice Department's) decision to not allow Television NZ to interview Taylor about another case Taylor won regarding the rights of prisoners to smoke tobacco. The High Court rejected the Judicial Review which Taylor in turn took to the Court of Appeal. There the Court first of all referred to the description of Heath in the High Court as to the essence of Taylor's case as;
As Heath J succinctly put it, the issues arising involve the balance to be struck between the need to maintain order in a prison and the human rights of its inmates.
This is the old acorn of prison administration 'maintaining order' which is invariably wheeled out as a buttress against anything other that routines which suit the prison, and the administrational mind set as order at all costs. Basically most people would agree that an interview is hardly likely to strike at good order in a prison, especially in a maxi unit where all inmates are locked down anyway. Additionally, there was the opportunity for the JD to take action to prevent TVNZ from presenting to the public any segment of the interview by Court Order. A compromise could quickly have been reached leaving those of the public who watched the interview able to make up their own minds as to it's value and consider the counter views of both the JD and Taylor himself.
The concept that 'order' would be disrupted by an interview held in a maximum security unit is fragile and should have failed in the first instance. Of course more thoughtful people might consider that the concern about 'order' was simply a red herring and the uncomfortableness of the JD was that they had lost the case Taylor had taken to Court over smoking. When considerations such as that can be seen to linger in the background the JD ought to be more circumspect about 'order' as an old favourite and consider the depth and breadth of 'human rights' under the NZ Constitution of Human Rights. In doing so it could be submitted that they are benefitting society by ensuring all citizens are equal before the Law. The message in that is also to the inmates who feel aggrieved or lost in a system where they might have spent most of their lives without a voice or direction. This in itself is in the public interest, the move forward of an archaic Justice System with it's high failure rate.
More fool me perhaps, but I genuinely believe in the efforts by Minister Sam, that hatched within the current Government and it's predecessors. Most importantly by the current Minister of Finance looking at the financial generational costs of not capturing those youngsters (as Taylor once was) tangled in the Justice System. Time to remember all the recent reports into the abuse against children in the care of the Government, the mixing of those in care from abuse or neglect with those in care for crime - each treated no differently, one group victims, the second beginning to victimise others - be tough and bad or die.
Obviously I don't believe in obstinacy against good reason, or against demonstrations of logic and fairness to those in particular who may not have ever experienced the same. In Taylor's recent victory we all share in the thought of what is right should prevail and that which is wrong cannot be disguised as 'order' or as broken locks where there are no locks.
Even the locks feature in the COA Judgement where it is described that a SMS message was received to prison, thought to having come from within the prison, where, how exciting and fortunate for the JD - it was revealed that during the consultation process with TVNZ over the interview news broke that Taylor had flooded his D Block cell, set a fire and jammed the locks. Even if that were true the person in danger was Taylor himself which seems quite contrary to the view of considering the safety of others, rather than Taylor, in deciding whether he could be interviewed. By the time the review of the decision had been heard and the appeal held it was acknowledged that the SMS message was incorrect, only a hopefully bewildered person would consider that it was not a member of the JD who had sent the message from within the prison, and who of course had been unable to consider Taylor allegedly harming himself in a protest was not threat to any other person.
The report that accompanied the 2nd decision not to allow the interview basically were wisps of smoke, maybes that included character analysis and the purported motivation of Taylor himself - all of which was quickly set aside by the COA as irrelevant, or in my terms irrational speculation without logical reasoning. Para 44 of the Judgement on extra material sought to be submitted post the original decision and declined was of particular interest in that it referred to prison 'hard liner' Garth McVicar being refused permission to visit Taylor - in itself a surprise, that the 2 men from very different sides of the fence were not allowed to meet.
In finding the appeal in Taylor's favour the Court gave significant weight to the false allegations made about Taylor and the lock. Minister Sam is a Lawyer and well as Minister of the Crown and many days ago released the care of the digger (excavator) back to its operator. It might now be time for the Minister to seek information from someone duly qualified to 'dig into' where the false allegation arose from, you know the one - the one that miraculously supported the JD decision to turn down the interview.
In the meantime Garth McVicar who recently lost a Judicial Review for want of status regarding a Parole Board decision might be even more interested to meet Arthur Taylor, if not for that fact alone. However, if solely for the symbolism, a Minister digging the foundations for a new prison in the shadow of the old prison where one man somehow, without training, and by self education became a person able to win cases of merit concerning the Bill of Rights. Achieving this milestone from behind razor wire nearby where the Minister worked in a photo opportunity for the press and claims of improve rehabilitation, is worth noting. It is mysteries such as these (the false report) that favour the Crown or Police in some prosecutions which are seldom dug into after the fact of their falsity is revealed which leave those adversely effected by them to learn the inequality of the administration of the Law strikes at freedom and all rights which follow - that is a lesson that students of the Law (as the Minister once was) might learn from this case.
The full judgement is here:
'
I recall recently reading a disclosure in the Courts or media where he had spoken or written about issues of rehabilitation - it seemed to be particular to be in respect of youth who got fed into the Justice system and were criminalised by it, or had their fledging or experimental criminality, hardened. In this week where the grounds for a new maximum security block is to be built the long term prisoner Taylor is successful in our 2nd highest Court in winning an appeal as to his, in fact our, rights under the New Zealand Constitution. His opponent once again the Justice System that failed to conscript the young Taylor into a law abiding citizen. Most people agree that the early years of any person's life are the most important, in that respect the Justice System failed Arthur Taylor and around 80% of those that come into their 'care' as children, teenagers or young adults.
Maybe the old Maxi Unit will be opened up for the public to view in future times. Those who will have read the latest judgement favouring Arthur Taylor who remember the detail that according to the Justice Department refusing to let Arthur be interviewed on TV one reason was that Arthur ought not be interviewed was because he jammed a lock in his cell, also set a fire there - in the end of the road formerly called D Block, now whitewashed with a new name 'East Block' will get a surprise to find there are no locks on D Block cells. Surely not, one might think. How could the gaolers not know there were no locks on the cells. It would certainly be a mishap, dangerous maximum security prisoners in cells which someone had forgotten to include a lock? Basic English please.
Out where Sam had been filmed digging new foundations there had a sound over in which he said would be included in the new institution better rehabilitation than old prison which he described as run down. He spoke about safety of staff, inmates - the design for better rehabilitative outcomes for those that will be housed there. It really was a fresh start dug into the clay according to Sam. Clay of course is a barren underlay where fresh roots can't crop. The Minister would not have known that later in the same week that he overturned those first sods of soil from where a new prison would emerge another man who had spent a great part of his life in the old maximum security unit would win another case against Sam's department, the same one for which the Minister furnished hope for better outcomes as he dug at the foundations. A further analysis of those foundations and the case Taylor just won would show that what Arthur dug into was the self protecting construction of the Justice Department. Arguing that Taylor was too dangerous to be interviewed because he allegedly 'jammed' a lock exemplifies how old antiquated the Justice System in NZ has become.
From the beginning of having prisoners mine rock to in fact build prisons where they were fed meagre food, lashed and treated largely according to the whim of the prison master whether he be a good man or one described as tough. Prisons where the opportunity to go to Court over a grievance was limited to periodic visits by a Magistrate called a visiting Justice whose main task was to deal with serious 'insubordination' resulting in punishments of isolation and restricted diets designed to break the spirit of incalcitrant prisoners, escapers, the violent and often those of disturbed mind who could be ordered into the care of psychiatric institution - to a time now where only a small percentage of prisoners have the knowledge of opportunity to seek Justice in the Courts was marked this week.
What was also marked for the keen observer was the nonsense that the Justice Department can bring to situations. Taylor had sought a Judicial Review of the JD (Justice Department's) decision to not allow Television NZ to interview Taylor about another case Taylor won regarding the rights of prisoners to smoke tobacco. The High Court rejected the Judicial Review which Taylor in turn took to the Court of Appeal. There the Court first of all referred to the description of Heath in the High Court as to the essence of Taylor's case as;
As Heath J succinctly put it, the issues arising involve the balance to be struck between the need to maintain order in a prison and the human rights of its inmates.
This is the old acorn of prison administration 'maintaining order' which is invariably wheeled out as a buttress against anything other that routines which suit the prison, and the administrational mind set as order at all costs. Basically most people would agree that an interview is hardly likely to strike at good order in a prison, especially in a maxi unit where all inmates are locked down anyway. Additionally, there was the opportunity for the JD to take action to prevent TVNZ from presenting to the public any segment of the interview by Court Order. A compromise could quickly have been reached leaving those of the public who watched the interview able to make up their own minds as to it's value and consider the counter views of both the JD and Taylor himself.
The concept that 'order' would be disrupted by an interview held in a maximum security unit is fragile and should have failed in the first instance. Of course more thoughtful people might consider that the concern about 'order' was simply a red herring and the uncomfortableness of the JD was that they had lost the case Taylor had taken to Court over smoking. When considerations such as that can be seen to linger in the background the JD ought to be more circumspect about 'order' as an old favourite and consider the depth and breadth of 'human rights' under the NZ Constitution of Human Rights. In doing so it could be submitted that they are benefitting society by ensuring all citizens are equal before the Law. The message in that is also to the inmates who feel aggrieved or lost in a system where they might have spent most of their lives without a voice or direction. This in itself is in the public interest, the move forward of an archaic Justice System with it's high failure rate.
More fool me perhaps, but I genuinely believe in the efforts by Minister Sam, that hatched within the current Government and it's predecessors. Most importantly by the current Minister of Finance looking at the financial generational costs of not capturing those youngsters (as Taylor once was) tangled in the Justice System. Time to remember all the recent reports into the abuse against children in the care of the Government, the mixing of those in care from abuse or neglect with those in care for crime - each treated no differently, one group victims, the second beginning to victimise others - be tough and bad or die.
Obviously I don't believe in obstinacy against good reason, or against demonstrations of logic and fairness to those in particular who may not have ever experienced the same. In Taylor's recent victory we all share in the thought of what is right should prevail and that which is wrong cannot be disguised as 'order' or as broken locks where there are no locks.
Even the locks feature in the COA Judgement where it is described that a SMS message was received to prison, thought to having come from within the prison, where, how exciting and fortunate for the JD - it was revealed that during the consultation process with TVNZ over the interview news broke that Taylor had flooded his D Block cell, set a fire and jammed the locks. Even if that were true the person in danger was Taylor himself which seems quite contrary to the view of considering the safety of others, rather than Taylor, in deciding whether he could be interviewed. By the time the review of the decision had been heard and the appeal held it was acknowledged that the SMS message was incorrect, only a hopefully bewildered person would consider that it was not a member of the JD who had sent the message from within the prison, and who of course had been unable to consider Taylor allegedly harming himself in a protest was not threat to any other person.
The report that accompanied the 2nd decision not to allow the interview basically were wisps of smoke, maybes that included character analysis and the purported motivation of Taylor himself - all of which was quickly set aside by the COA as irrelevant, or in my terms irrational speculation without logical reasoning. Para 44 of the Judgement on extra material sought to be submitted post the original decision and declined was of particular interest in that it referred to prison 'hard liner' Garth McVicar being refused permission to visit Taylor - in itself a surprise, that the 2 men from very different sides of the fence were not allowed to meet.
In finding the appeal in Taylor's favour the Court gave significant weight to the false allegations made about Taylor and the lock. Minister Sam is a Lawyer and well as Minister of the Crown and many days ago released the care of the digger (excavator) back to its operator. It might now be time for the Minister to seek information from someone duly qualified to 'dig into' where the false allegation arose from, you know the one - the one that miraculously supported the JD decision to turn down the interview.
In the meantime Garth McVicar who recently lost a Judicial Review for want of status regarding a Parole Board decision might be even more interested to meet Arthur Taylor, if not for that fact alone. However, if solely for the symbolism, a Minister digging the foundations for a new prison in the shadow of the old prison where one man somehow, without training, and by self education became a person able to win cases of merit concerning the Bill of Rights. Achieving this milestone from behind razor wire nearby where the Minister worked in a photo opportunity for the press and claims of improve rehabilitation, is worth noting. It is mysteries such as these (the false report) that favour the Crown or Police in some prosecutions which are seldom dug into after the fact of their falsity is revealed which leave those adversely effected by them to learn the inequality of the administration of the Law strikes at freedom and all rights which follow - that is a lesson that students of the Law (as the Minister once was) might learn from this case.
The full judgement is here:
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA816/2013 [2015] NZCA 477 |
'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)