Mother's day and the sun shined.

I don't write much about myself or my family. The result I think of the attacks by the hate-siters distressed that their campaign against David Bain failed, and an innocent man walked free despite a full on hate-campaign. So distressed, that they needed to turn their fury upon those that had been vocal critics of the weak, and now discredited case, that keep Bain in prison for over a decade. In other words personalised an attack against whom ever they might be able to target, and unfortunately their families and friends. The book isn't closed on that yet, with some matters yet to be finalised in the Courts. It has made me consider why I have invested time in arguing against the absurdity that was the flawed case against David Bain - particularly because he is somebody I have never met.

Some of my critics say it is because that I am anti police having led a less than sheltered life, that however doesn't explain that on this blog and elsewhere I have saluted the work of several police, even Judges and argued the case for others that haven't appeared to getting a fair go. Of course surface analysis has always been the forte of the hate-siters, everything must be packaged and labelled as to whether a person is for or against them. A situation that reminds me of the motto(s) often expressed by gangs. In the fullness of time I may write more about the detail that has most often led me to the often involuntary desire to help out the 'little' guy or those not getting a fair go. In the meantime I'll let any readers make their own decisions as to my motivation and the reason I didn't 'walk away' into silence when everything including the kitchen sink was being thrown at myself and family by bitter people who deemed themselves to be 'right thinking' New Zealanders.

Which brings me to the point I wished to make about Mother's day, when as I say above, the sun shone bright. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet an on line companion and her husband, preparing for that visit I took my youngest to the supermarket to do some shopping and buy flowers on the advice of the 6 year old. Just leaving home I remembered my own mother, someone of indomitable spirit and strength, who in the years I was separated from her, I would be often brought news by a Catholic Nun, Joan, who by some co-incidence crossed paths with me in what has often been described as the 'end of the road.'

As a primary aged child I would sing mocking songs in reply when seeing the boys from the Catholic school finding their way home, from one side of our fence where they might be picking fruit from the family's trees that overhung the pathway. Little did I know then that I would have serious feuds with some of those boys that resulted in a lot of blood shed lasting over many many years. The issue of course was never Catholicism or being a Protestant, that wasn't important to me or to them. We were just kids growing up sons of soldiers in a fairly tough area. Years later I would discover that I had Catholic roots myself, not that it would have ever deterred either party from the bitterness of 'tit for tat.' So driving to the supermarket past the old Catholic grave yard where those then boys once went to school, I could see the paint splashed on some of the graves, and wondered as I often have, why that paint  hasn't affected the sensibilities of a nation, such as when, in equally destructive measure, Jewish graves are sometimes defaced, or that of Anzacs in Gallipoli.

That spirit of my mother that I mentioned earlier was such that while she never actively supported me in doing anything other than the right thing, she also never recoiled from that fact I would fight anybody for 2 bob, no matter the number or if they were a gang or not. A somewhat disordered and bizarre take on life I admit but attached to me for reasons still difficult to understand, other than perhaps by the phrase 'wont back down.' There is little power in that, little to celebrate in a grotesque accumulation of what makes a person fight no matter the odds and not matter the apparent stupidity, or misguided (ness) of the 'cause.' Yet when I was finally able to visit my mother myself (rather than benefiting from the news of her from dear Sister Joan) she had been in deep dementia for nearly a decade, blind, deaf (a deteriorating problem for most of her life) and unable to speak. Sister Joan and others had said, (and how could they know) that she was 'waiting for me.' So it was, visiting my mother with my soon to be wife and finding a gaunt skeletal figure that had replaced the happy and kind women of my childhood and youth. She had long been bed ridden, yet somehow she stirred, and with barely wet lips whispered to my intended 'look after my boy.'

I was married a few days later and of course my mother couldn't attend, it was short of the next Christmas that she died, my wife holding her hand and myself shrunk into the shadows of loss. All memories brought home by the Mother's day when the sun shone, when I would soon after meet a friend for the first time, wondering no little, as she may have herself, what it was that causes one to question the validity of claims as to what is 'right' and what are in fact 'right thinking New Zealanders.'

Teina Pora - trapped in a sloth like system.

It took 4 days for Rutherford to glean sufficient evidence by holding Teina Pora incommunicado in the Otahuhu police cells where, as the videos show, he bullied him and lured him  by turn into a trap of life imprisonment for a crime the police had already decided that Pora had not committed. A crime which however much Rutherford 'fed' Pora information and details he, Pora, knew patently little about. 4 days has turned to 20 years and Pora is still in prison, recently refused parole for having a lighter in his cell and by reason of a couple of other petty misdeeds. 20 years and think back to those videos showing Rutherford offering Teina cigarettes and later getting hot under the collar because Teina wasn't revealinng what he didn't know but which Rutherford would tell him.

What a trap, and no wonder 2 decades later he might have a lighter in his cell and be able to enjoy a cigarette if he can get one. Not many people in New Zealand believe that Pora is guilty. Those people look expectantly at the 'system' to put things right. It's not a fair go, it's not even an attempt at a fair go, it's a straight out framing of a boy for a crime he didn't commit and which he continues to be held in prison because he won't admit what he hasn't done. He didn't kill Susan Burdett. Malcom Rewa killed her, maybe killed others, and raped over 20 women in one extended spree often attacking the head of his victims, just as Susan Burdett was attacked to the head and left dead by the lone rapist.

Rutherford knows the liklihood of Rewa's guilt, as does the Commissioner but they're holding on to the incredible co-incidence that a boy refused a lawyer, bribed into believing he was going to get a reward and willing to say whatever was required to profit from an idea most likely put into his mind by members of his own family was a killer despite police earlier clearing him of the crime. But what do you do? You petition the Governor General with new evidence showing the absurdity of the original trial evidence is even more fractured by time than it's incredulous start with a boy unable to point out the home, or even the street in which he is alleged to have killed a woman he'd never met and whom he couldn't physically describe. And then you wait.

You wait in a cell as Scot Watson waits, for 3 or 4 years now to find out the result of his own petition to the Governor General. You wait as does Allan Hall, long since released from prison but still fighting for his name to be cleared through the Governor General, waiting now into his second year. So just to put this in context Watson was arrested after an investigation of several months, Alan Hall in a similar short time and happened to be a small white man when all reports of the assailant in his case were of a tall dark, athletic man. Of course Teina Pora was held for 4 days illegally until there was 'enough' to charge him. What do they have in common? Fairly quick decisions by police of their guilt then literally decades trying to put the obvious right.

Many common denominators feature in these and similar miscarriages of Justice, but the most graphic must be the ineffectiveness of 'appeals' to the Governor General for either pardons or a return to the Courts. They just drag on for years, the poor cousin of the legal system and our lawyers do't seem bold enough to demand the rights of their clients under the Bill of Rights, or seek Judicial Reviews as to delays in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It seems that it is time to be bold and reach out to the Courts rather than abide antiquated and slothful poor cousins to Justice. No system that can lock away a man for 2 decades for a crime that he didn't commit should be tolerated, or indulged while taking an eternity to look inside itself when the obvious is apparent to all.

I'm pleased and disappointed at the same time that Pora's lawyers have put on hold his application to the Governor General (tardy as the response from that office has been) and gone directly to the Privy Council for a timely exercise of the appeal process. It's good that Pora's lawyers have pushed on, yet in doing so they've highlighted once again the beast that  takes four days to steal a young man's freedom takes years to respond to evidence of the same man's evidence of his innocence. It isn't right, and all power to the lawyers and falsely imprisoned who push for their rights to have the Courts review their cases. No man or woman should be denied their rights to the Court and particular not through a 'figure head' that,while enshrined in statute, proves time inefficient and appears slumberous and favourable to the idea that 'due process' stops with a conviction.

Here you go Kent, 'Qualified Privilege.'

Definition:

Privilege is a special legal right or immunity granted to a person or persons. Qualified privilege is an immunity from lawsuit, usually a lawsuit for defamation, for acts committed in the performance of a legal or moral duty and acts properly exercised and free from malice. If malice can be shown, qualified privilege is not a protection against defamation.

An example of qualified privilege is the immunity from defamation for statements made in the course of an employer's duties. Another is the immunity of the press from defamation charges for statement made in good faith, unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.

Qualified privilege should not be confused withabsolute privilege, which protects the person from lawsuit no matter how wrong the action might be and even if the action is committed with malice or an improper motive.

Anybody suspect that Kent was acting with a 'legal or moral duty' when he was defaming Karam, Reed, various witnesses and others? Maybe the poor deluded chap thinks that stalking a jury, spreading propaganda, stalking and outing people is noble and near 'godliness' in terms of morality and the Law.

Though even a sceptic might have to admit that if Kent was turning his 'divinity' and all seeing eye to the subject of insanity, out and out nuttiness, in fact total whacko, in judging a similarly afflicted person he would have all the qualities to 'peer review' with 'qualified privilege a fellow or fellowette of a nature and disposition just like his own. His dear mate Purkiss, cabbage scribbler from Coromandel, could be equally entitled to offer a 'qualified privileged' view of certain nutters who are in abundance in the various hate-sites, spitting and snivelling by turn as they rub themselves or stick needles and pins into hand sewn dolls.

But alas, unfortunately and nevertheless, old Kenty baby and slick Vic the toilet cleaner and loiterer, have no 'immunity from defamation' based on a 'legal or moral' right.

Try another one fellas.

Kent Parker: The madness thickens.

The People vs Joe Karam

The defamation trial of Joe Karam vs Parker and Purkiss is to be held at the High Court in Auckland starting on 14 October 2013 and going for three weeks. The trial is to be held before a judge only. Joe Karam is represented by Michael Reed and both Parker and Purkiss will be representing themselves.

The legal action taken by Karam against the two Justice for Robin Bain (JFRB) group members consists of four actions:

• Against Parker as admin of the JFRB facebook site for being 'publisher' of other people's comments on the page.
• Against Parker as creator of this website for being publisher of other people's comments.
• Against Parker for his own comments on the Facebook page and on his website.
• Against Purkiss for his own comments on the Facebook page, on his website and on Trade Me messageboards.

Parker and Purkiss are defending using legal defences of Truth, Truth overall, Honest Opinion and Qualified Privilege. There are some 100 comments involved in the legal action allegedly published by Parker and Purkiss. They maintain that the defamation suit is improper and vexatious and will be presenting substantial evidence before the Court.

As can be seen by the above press release Kent Parker is still in goo gaa land. Before considering that point, it must be remembered that there was a actual reminder of how Parker could have avoided being the subject of defamation proceedings - when last week the leader of the Conservative Party put a blogger on notice that he would be sued if he failed to 'take down' certain material Colin Craig considered to be defamatory of him. The blogger complied and so it would seem the warning of legal action is no longer in place.

Similarly Parker and co we were warned by letter in 2009 that information published by them was considered by Joe Karam to be defamatory of him and he wanted it removed. Four years later Parker has had a date set for a trial, in which he publicly discloses the case as 'The People vs Joe karam,' in much the same way as some American States cite proceeding as The People against John Doe. Of course as Parker tries for sympathy he seems not to realise that the action is not by the state against Joe Karam - it is in fact a proceeding brought by Joe Karam against Parker and Purkiss. Two men who launched an illegal, opportunistic attack against Karam and others, feeling if nothing else that they might have had public opinion on their side. On the basis of such a calculation, they were unable to discern that 'public opinion' - which incidentally has never favoured them in a single poll, is not the basis of our law. Our Law is written and forged by precedent, no where in the history of our Law or it's foundations in Britain and earlier Rome is 'public opinion' an instrument of the law either to prosecute or defend a case.

If Parker, Purkiss and the other twisted sisters had argued opinions in public against Karam that were true, could reasonably be seen as true by a reasonable and informed person defamation would never have followed. So intent based on a reasonably held opinion is the basis for the defamation charges against Parker and Purkiss. But what was the intent? Ostensibly to defend Robin Bain who, by the course of time and Judicial proceedings, is seen to have been the killer of his family rather than his falsely imprisoned son David. An opinion by Parker and Purkiss? On the surface yes but underneath definitely not. Intention to promote the innocence of one man over another doesn't include defamatory attacks, and most certainly it doesn't include a campaign of lies by a group who thought that it was OK to stalk a Jury, harass witnesses after the trial and even begin a campaign against members of the public who opposed their views.

I've had information for 3 years that some supporters of Parker and Purkiss who belonged to Parkers web site and other groups set up for the same purpose were also members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust through whom they agitated for false complaints to be taken to the authorities in order to harm those opposing their views, and, unfortunately, their families. There is no small irony that the SST itself is now subject to proceeding under the Privacy Act and Human Rights Act which appear to be very strong against them and in which, according to a report from preliminary hearing, included a 'blackmail letter' and 'threats.'

So just to get that clear in the Parker defamation case, 'the people' stand accused of blackmail and threats, 'people' who forged their cause for 'Justice for Robin Bain' with threats, lies, false complaints and targeting other New Zealanders in a vendetta for simply not believing in the absolute absurdity that Robin Bain didn't kill his own family. Parker was warned and chose to ignore it, he wasn't warned to stop his 'Justice' campaign but rather to stop defaming Karam. He could have proceeded legally, working hard to satisfy himself of his own beliefs and bring the facts to the New Zealand public. Instead he just repeated lies and his 'followers' repeated lies. One of which I should mention as also 'finding the light' this year, a particular idiot and 'site administrator' of one of Parker's site has repeated for years lies about 'injuries' David was reported to have had the morning of the murders, and a denial that David was ever strip searched. Someone I know sought details of the correspondence of that site administrator and the Minister over the subject, something which the 'man' relied upon at length, only to find it proved that the man was lying his head off about the 'official' information he had. Proving once again that 'Justice' is encompassed in lies for Parker and his hate-site buddies.

Not real buddies of course because Parker and Purkiss cannot find a lawyer to defend them despite having a 'bush lawyer' in their ranks and another 'qualified' Lawyer Racheal Membery at their disposal. This is of course a 'group' that bragged that they would 'finance' the defence of Parker and Purkiss who were reduced to relying on 'fund raising' concerts which no one attended. Leaving as it seems Parker and Purkiss preparing to defend themselves with 'truth' in October this year in a case in which they unaware of even who the parties are.

Just on that case and Trade Me mentioned in the 'press release' above. Trade Me didn't argue 'truth' when they negotiated a settlement with Karam last year, a settlement which included an apology. I also understand NZ Herald settled with Karam while proceedings against Fairfax Media, I predict, also won't go the distance to trial. Each of those parties no doubt spending 100s of 1000s before folding and 'waking up' to the fact there is no difference between print media and cyberspace when it comes to defamation, a fact that was obvious at least as long ago as 2009 when I cautioned Trade Me about the activities of Parker, Purkiss, O Brien, Cochrane, Curran and others many of whom share the membership of Parkers site and SST, so the shake out continues.

On another front, and to the very core, of what 'instigated' the hate-campaigns, lies and not the truth, the evidence against Robin Bain as time progresses get stronger, presenting something of a snag in the medium term for the current Minister whose decision making in David Bain's application for compensation is facing Judicial Review in the High Court also this year. I think it will be strike 3 against the Hate Sites, SST and the Minister for bad medicine costing a lot of money.

Police mocked Arthur Thomas

? http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8615189/Claim-police-joked-over-Thomas-framing

Usually you'd take hearsay reported from a pub with a grain of salt. But nothing with the Thomas case and the police can be taken with a grain of salt, that time is long since past. Too much now adds together to show that Thomas was not only framed but that the current police administration have simply taken up the cudgels of their predecessors in try to 'beat down' what is the country's most infamous framing of an innocent man.

No need to look far for corroboration of the claims by Queenie Edmonds made in the above article because they tie exactly with the shell planted by the late Hutton, the comments of the current Deputy Commissioner, Mike Bush, who when speaking at Bruce Hutton's funeral claimed that Huttons career had been one of distinction, this despite Hutton being named as the person who planted a shell case that largely resulted in Arthur spending around a decade for a crime he didn't commit, while at the same time his late ex wife Vivian Harrison going to her grave without an apology or compensation for the false assertion that she had fed baby Rochelle after Arthur had killed the baby's parents.

After 30 years and a Royal Commission the police hierarchy are still in denial about the false imprisonment of Arthur and applauding the career of the man who destroyed his life is it any wonder to expect that there are not scores of stories that will continue to emerge about the conduct of the police in the Thomas case. The answer is no, particularly so because an ex member of the force Ross Meurant spelt out in detail the machinations of the 'Hutton crew,' while the public at large appreciate that the planted shell case use to convict Thomas hadn't even been made at the time of the murders.

Commissioner Peter Marshall has a cupboard bursting with Miscarriages of Justice - Thomas, Bain, Watson,  Poara and Hall being the most prominent - all unsafe murder convictions, two with planted evidence and all 5 with evidence that was either with held or shouldn't have been admitted. Where does he start? By shutting the cupboard it seems and trying to shore up the cracks. That is increasingly clearly seen as his position, it is that position on which not only in the passage of time that he will be judged, but so too a police force emerging, or looking to be emerging into a modern era. By dishonouring justice Peter Marshall dishonours the police and the public of New Zealand.

Bain wins early skirmish.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/20130416142239236.pdf

Though it's hardly 'early' in terms of the 13 or so years he spent in prison for a crime he was eventually acquitted of, it's 'relatively' early in his pursuit for compensation. The above Judgement by Keane J was released yesterday at the Auckland High Court ruling that Minister Collins move to have the case transferred to Wellington was rejected. There are for me a number of interesting facets of to the Judgement and an earlier indication that the Court is drawing a line under the conduct of two Justice Ministers in a framework of 'start as you intend to go.'

Firstly though I'm a little surprised by 2 facets of the Judgement. The first being that Keane J while addressing the history of the case didn't observe pointedly the earlier decision of the Privy Council that an 'actual Miscarriage of Justice' had occurred in this case. Also that he didn't draw any distinction that while the Privy Council had ordered a retrial  they had made it clear that the decision to go to a retrial was entirely up to the New Zealand authorities. Some readers will know that the decision by the Crown to take the case to re-trial effectively put any claim for compensation into a category of having to prove extraordinary circumstances, a situation that wouldn't have been the case had the Crown simply accepted that their case was shot to bits and it was unsound to proceed with it further. That situation effectively meant that the Crown case coming up short on proof penalised Bain from the normal procedures of compensation. I think there is an argument there to test the validity of The Crown's decision to seek a retrial on the basis of the acquittal by a unanimous jury decision in very quick time - however that hasn't been argued as far as we know other than by earlier efforts seeking the Courts to dismiss the charges before the actual re-trial.

Binnie observed the validity of Privy Council Judgement and there is no criticism by the Crown of that observation that I can recall in the 'Peer' review by Fisher of Binnie's report. So it would seem that acceptance by both parties to the Judicial Review of the Privy Council ruling being foremost in Law is not an issue and that may be why Keane J didn't specifically spell it out in his Judgment.

Keane J was quick to reject arguments as to David Bain's financial position being a factor as to where the case should be held. I think that was a mistake. David Bain has been disadvantaged in every way possible since 1994 when he came home from his paper round and found his family dead. He lost all his aspirations for a career, his inheritance, his freedom based on hidden and suspect evidence. That he or anyone in his position might be struggling to pay for a  writ to the High Court shouldn't reasonably be held against them when it already accepted that they are a victim of a Miscarriage of Justice is harsh. On the other hand David Bain has not applied to this point for legal aid and Keane J might simply having been observing that point.

But to the point made in paragraph 1 above about 'start as you intend to go' shines through as the most persuasive reason why Judith Collins wasn't successful in her application to have the case moved and appears unlikely to be able to defend without compromise the claim of David that he has been 'denied natural  Justice' and had his rights under the Bill of Rights Act compromised. It's in the letters of Simon Power (previous Minister of Justice who ordered the report into the compensation claim) to Binnie and Binnie's responding letters at the outset of Binne accepting to do the report. The letters are clear as to the 'background' of the review, the 'openness' expected between the contesting parties and how information was to be shared. A complete contrast to the actions of Collins in excluding Bain from access to Binnie's report while at the same time taking 'secret' steps to undermine it, excluding not only the applicant Bain but also Jurist Binne - the author of the report. Little need be said that Collin's took advice from the parties criticised in the Binnie's review, but completely cut out David Bain and his lawyers. A fatal mistake for the Minister I think we will see, along with the extraordinary and public attack on Binnie in which he was virtually called a liar.

The difference of the approach between the 2 Ministers can't be Bain's fault. It also can't be his fault that one Minister has taken his right to compensation personally, and in doing so trampled over his rights under the Law, as though David Bain, and David Bain alone could be treated with contempt by a Minister charged with overseeing the Justice system. Judith Collins hasn't to this point understood that discretionary powers or prerogatives are not to be administered beyond the normal principles of being just and fair, they are not a return to a complete and unquestioned power that existed before the Magna Carta. Many anticipated that this Judicial Review was going to find an important place in New Zealand Law and those first few steps have been made.

Injustice threepeat; Thomas, Pora, Bain.

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

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

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

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

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

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