So David Bain finally lands, softly.

I've been noticing a diminishing of the campaign against David Bain, a respite, a sobering as good sense perhaps or tiredness takes hold. Although it may have seemed a time that would never come, the campaign against David Bain is waning. There is little energy left for the 'twisted sisters' to continue, they've done their dash, written millions of words, pulled and stretched the truth of their position until the point came where even they realized their 'truth' was unbelievable, that their shame at being wrong is best faced by slinking into the shadows.

Of all the immovable objects between the Bain 'case' and the truth it's perhaps only 2 that were foremost. 2 that I have mentioned many times but which have no answer despite the millions of dollars spent trying to prove that black is in fact white. A person who is murdered by stealth does not have evidence of being in a fight left on his or her hands, nor blood, nor bruises, cuticle stained red and so it goes on. There always needed to be a complete answer to that from Robinson and Doyle who set in motion the 'case' against David Bain. An innocent, laying down dead person, murdered by surprise, doesn't have the remnants of crime left visible on his or her hands. So also the 2nd unexplained 'event' in the Bain case, a person strip searched by a police Doctor who fills out a prescribed form requiring fine and precise detail does not overlook injuries of either substantial or minor nature, nor scars, nor abnormalities or distinguishing features. If you add these 2 together it's clear why David Bain is innocent of killing his family and why his father Robin is guilty

Relatively recently, in a dying gasp from the hate-sites it has been explained that Robin 'only' had small amounts of blood on the palms of his hands, when he shot himself or by the alternative explanation was murdered. Suddenly the retreat is about the amount of blood where once the declaration was that he had no blood at all on the palms of his hands, and no injuries to his knuckles. To acknowledgement that Robin had blood on his palms means that there is agreement that he had been handling items covered in blood or made physical contact with his deceased family either before, after or during their deaths - though there was never an explanation in the Crown case for that. This is a good time to note that several people have been convicted on murder for having a single speck of dna on them, while in fact Robin had copius blood on his palms that couldn't have arrived there from his shot to the head. Moving on from cries that Robin is dead and not able to defend himself, none of his defenders have been able to explain why Robin, settling into pray as was his 'custom,' had bloodied hands. Or indeed why a 'holy man' would pray with 'small' amounts of blood on his hands or where he could have got them in the house where 4 other people lay dead - his estranged wife and 3 of their children, battered and shot in their beds.

So to the second fail:

The evidence which did exist - Robin's bloodied and bruised hands, were said to have been clean and clear of any evidence which pointed to him having killed his family despite the photos that show otherwise. Conversely a 'scratch' on David Bain's chest not seen when he was examined only hours after the killings by a police Surgeon - and despite not a single word in the Doctor's notes, nor a photograph when things of lesser importance were recorded was 'evidence' against David. Repeating that evidence which existed against Robin was denied by his supporters, meanwhile they argued that evidence which didn't exist against David, time relevant, proved he, and not his father was guilty. Despite that, great choirs, led by Martin Van Beynan for example and others, sang of evidence which didn't exist and ignored evidence which did. That is what a persecutor will do. A persecutor will not be fair, seek balance rather than flat denials, oversights or down right lies. A persecutor will say until they are blue in the face that Robin had no cuts and bruises to his hands nor blood on his palms, and at the same time say that David had scratches on his chest only hours after his family were killed - but there will no evidence of that, absolutely none.

After considering those like Van Beynan who deliberately left out compelling evidence against Robin Bain, but who 'used' non existent evidence  against his son in a campaign against him, then we see why David finally lands softly. Nobody can put blood on hands or take it off during an autopsy. Equally, nobody can leave evidence of being in a fight, scratches to the chest, hands or elsewhere out from a police Doctor's report or from supporting staff and a photographer. Nobody except a persecutor. But as we perhaps begin to see now, persecutors, the mistaken, or the misled cannot forever discharge bile in the face of facts. David Bain at last begins to land softly from terror where only 'small' amounts of blood are ignored and things which don't exist are crowed about.

If the vacuum effect test is applied to the Bain case and all evidence is suddenly disappeared apart from the Pathologist's report and photographs and that of the police Doctor, disallowing all the hyperbole about the funeral arrangements, the glass lens, the washing, the dog and on and on forever - then all that is left is the opportunity for a comparison between the 2 men's hands, the visibility or absence of blood on their hands, the visibility or absence of a scratch on David's chest, blood visible from the area of Robin's nose, marks on his hands consistent with handling a magazine, in short all the evidence of murder against one and none against the other.

John Key on Teina Pora - does he get it?

POLITICAL REACTION
Prime Minister John Key said the Privy Council decision showed the strength of the justice system.
"Somebody who believes there's been a miscarriage of justice can continue to test their rights and this is a very historical case, it's complex."
Key said some "interesting things" had been raised.
"But all I can say is everybody has the right to continue to test whether they are innocent or guilty.
"If they believe they are innocent they can put up a genuine case which is certainly the situation here where the Privy Council has given leave for Teina Pora to take his case back, and let's see what the Privy Council says."
Justice Minister Judith Collins said the decision showed the justice system was working.
"What it shows is the matter is still before the courts and the system actually works very well," she said.
"The decision from the Privy Council is simply that Mr Pora has been granted leave to appeal and so we now will go through the process and see what the decision is from that."
She said she could "not possibly" comment on why the Privy Council made its decision.
"I think it suggests that the Privy Council has found enough for them to be interested in looking further and that's quite a right thing to do if that's what they decide."
Pora did have an application in with the minister to consider granting a pardon.

A spokeperson from Collins' office said that application had been placed on hold at the request of Pora's lawyers, while they pursued a Privy Council hearing.

John Key is quoted above from Stuff that the Privy Council decision (in the Pora case to grant leave to Appeal) shows the strength of the Justice System. On the contrary it shows the weakness of the Justice System. It's only by virtue of the age of the Pora case that the man has been able to have his case heard at the Privy Council which is no longer available to New Zealanders as the highest Court. That right has long been swept away by a previous Government. John key says that this is a historical case, yet all the cases that emerge, as shown to be Miscarriages of Justice in New Zealand, particularly murder convictions resulting in life sentences, are historical casesThey become 'historical' because of the length of time it takes for such cases to be remedied. In other words using the word 'old' or 'historical' doesn't displace the urgency of resolving such cases it simply shows New Zealand's abysmal ability to correct injustice delivered through the Justice System.

John Key also notes that the case is 'complex,' again I disagree. The only complexity in the Pora case is that the police held a young man incommunicado under the pretence of helping him gain a reward, that he gone to solicit from them, but ultimately showed him the crime scene and used the teenagers below average intelligence as a weapon against him to extract a confession. When it was later revealed that the victim Susan Burdett's body revealed the dna of serial rapist Malcom Rewa, the police tried Rewa for rape and murder arguing for the first time the older man had been an accomplice of the teenager. He was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of rape. In a separate re-trial Pora was again found guilty. The only people ever able to place Pora and Rewa together were paid informants. There was no dna or physical evidence linking Pora to the murder, all the 'evidence' resulted from the information given to him by the police and stitched together in the first instance without the name Rewa ever being mentioned. All of this is now for the Privy Council to deliberate. However the decision of Pora's appeal is highly likely to join 2 other recent cases, Bain and Lundy where the PC found injustice had occurred that New Zealands Appeal Court had 'overlooked' for what were analysed as the Court placing themselves in the seat of a Jury and second guessing what they 'might' have decided.

So the word 'complex' used by Key is clearly linked to 'historical,' that is the amount of time that a case might take to wind its way through the system. However, that also reveals another reason why cases become 'historical.' Defendants are not funded to appeal. An inmate perhaps in maximum security, no income, no means is expected to pay their own way in order, as Key puts it,  to 'show(ed) the strength of the justice system.' Although in the Lundy case costs toward the hearing at the PC were granted by way of Legal Aid, that wasn't the case with Bain or to this point with Pora. Moreover, the Lundy 'costs' didn't include the work done by his counsel for years before being able to have the case heard in London. So another way the 'justice system' shows its 'strength' is by inhibiting appeals, shutting the door on them unless a convicted person is fortunate enough to have help offered at no cost - yet even then the hurdles will remain in place. I say that because there is none of the current controversial cases where the police or prosecuting authorities have taken a 'fresh' look at the ambiguities of the Miscarriages of Justice and not contested them at appeal or at Trial. In fact in Lundy it took prosecutors some 12 years, or so, to have over information from it's own file and experts which stated that Lundy should not be convicted on the basis of degenerated dna. 14 years, adds a long time to history, or making the case 'historical' as our Prime Minister comfortably describes in his 'health report,' that neither mentions lack of funding, and indeed a Superior Commonwealth Court that New Zealanders are now denied by their own Government.

Turning to the comments of the Minister of Justice above, in particular this ,,,,,,"The decision from the Privy Council is simply that Mr Pora has been granted leave to appeal and so we now will go through the process and see what the decision is from that."
She said she could "not possibly" comment on why the Privy Council made its decision.
"I think it suggests that the Privy Council has found enough for them to be interested in looking further and that's quite a right thing to do if that's what they decide."  

We are treated to a version that is 'simply' that Pora has been granted leave to appeal. That 'simply' has been the highest possible hurdle for a convicted person, with no money, no lawyer, possibly no public interest in the case and a Minister that seems unable to comprehend is not in anyway the constitution of the word 'just.'

The worst feature of the Pora case will be that 'historically' it will be revealed that the police and Crown were in bed with the real killer Rewa, and essentially let him go to 'cover' their framing of Pora.

Correction added 2/2/14: It appears that Mark Lundy also did not receive Legal Aid to take his case to the Privy Council. This adds further emphasis as to how wrong the Prime Minister is with his claims that the 'justice system' is working unless one considers 'working' as meaning imprisoning the falsely convicted and leaving them to their own devices or the help of others to find their freedom.

Auckland Rate Payers: Had a gutsful of Mayor Brown?

Like most of the country I've watched the Brown debacle unfold. When the salacious details of his affair were released I didn't bother reading them as it seemed some were more interested in the sordid details rather than the fact that Brown's character had been 'outed.' What came next was a classic move by Brown, he fessed up. In doing so he flattened the attack against him and so it was revealed that the bombshell attack had been less effective than leaks of details that Brown would have either had to denied or swallowed the bullet and fronted with a public admission. At that point Brown looked stronger and resilient than otherwise might have been the case as war raged between the left and right. I was surprised by his tenacity, which on reflection I shouldn't have been because the Mayor that had built his reputation on honesty, social conscience and being a Mayor 'for all of Auckland' - in the process duping the public, was a master manipulator to the point it became obvious that even his own family don't know the 'real' Mayor Brown.

That in itself is disturbing, but for parents and ratepayers the issues were different, it was his capacity to run the city and in the polls had least he still mandate. I mention parents because Brown for years has fronted school assemblies with his own kind of 'hip' and the revelation that there was 'another' Mayor Brown who didn't have normal family values must have been disturbing to parents - he was no longer a role model. So it seemed he had weathered the storm, that is until an external audit of conduct in respect of 'benefits' he had received showed that he'd compromised himself and Council by some of the 'gifts' or 'upgrades' to accommodation he received. It was then that I believe Brown made a fatal mistake, it was as though his political instinct was lost, he didn't pre-empt the release of the report (he knew the details and had argued for parts of the report to be removed under the possibility of pursuing legal action.) Hard to know if he was worn down, taking the wrong advice or had simply lost sight of the fact he was answerable to the public.

Whichever it was, and it appears to me likely to have at least in part been that he was no longer 'answerable' because he couldn't be sacked. he had misread the reaction. Suddenly both sides of the political spectrum had their fill of Brown. On the issue of his being sacked early on there had been revelations that Rodney Hide was responsible for not including in the setting up of the Super City legislation that could sack the Mayor. The claim that Rodney Hide was somehow responsible is ludicrous. Hide himself is a seasoned politician well versed with the procedure that sees politicians resign from office even when they can not be forced to do so. I think Hide would have had the general expectation that a politician was taken at his or her word and when that was found to of no currency he or she was gone. That is the public expectation as well for many. Many who voted for Brown will feel they were deceived by the way Brown sold himself compared to exactly who he was. Others that decided not to vote if faced with opportunity again would possibly be so moved by Brown's 'thick skin' would vote against him.

This however is not the dead end street it seems. I don't know if there is little appreciation of the Local Body Act 2001 but on reading it one finds a 'consequence' that can be tested in the District Court as to the conduct of a candidate.

93 Petition for inquiry

• (1) Any candidate or any 10 electors with a complaint about the conduct of an election or poll may file a petition in the District Court demanding—

  • (a) an inquiry into the conduct of the election or poll; or

  • (b) an inquiry into the conduct of a candidate or any other person at the election or poll.
  (2) A petition under subsection (1) must—

  • (a) be filed within 21 days after public notice is given declaring the result or, as the case may be, the amended result of the election or poll; and

  • (b) be filed in the District Court to which the voting documents for the election or poll to be inquired into were forwarded; and

  • (c) be accompanied by the prescribed deposit; and

  • (d) specify the specific grounds on which the complaint is based; and

  • (e) be heard and determined by a District Court Judge.
  (3) If a petition under subsection (1) is filed at a District Court, the Registrar of that court must immediately send a copy of the petition to the electoral officer.
  Compare: 1976 No 144 s 99

 

As reading above shows 10 rate-payers may apply by Petition to the District Court to effectively overturn an election result within 21 days of an election being held. That 21 days may seem restrictive on first reading until it is considered that the 21 days limit can be read as specific, in Brown's case, to conduct of a candidate. The Act is silent on what may happen after that 21 day period has passed but it could never be successfully argued that if a candidate had got 'away with an irregularity' during the relevant period that he or she was immune from action when, and if, any material information as to an irregularity after the 21 day period arose.

The Local Body Act may have been superseded in part by Legislation empowered for the Super City. Read here the Legislation that appears to have been the responsibility of Rodney Hide to draft for Parliament. Although there was a transitional period with the Legislation there can't be any serious  argument that it was ever intended by Hide or Parliament to create a vacuum for which any electoral misconduct could escape after a mandatory period.

In The Act it is made clear that a DC Judge has all the Powers of his Office when ruling on a petition from 10 or more ratepayers citing an 'irregularity' they believe may have affected an election result. The following are the steps a Judge can take.

98 Result of inquiry

• The District Court Judge must determine whether,—

  • (a) as a result of an irregularity that in the Judge's opinion materially affected the result of the election or poll, the election or poll is void:

  • (b) in the case of an election, the candidate whose election is complained of, or any and which other candidate, was elected:

  • (c) in the case of a poll, any and which proposal was carried.
  Compare: 1976 No 144 s 104

99 Election or poll not void by reason of certain irregularities

• (1) If subsection (2) applies, an election or poll must not be declared void on the ground of—

  • (a) any irregularity in any of the proceedings preliminary to the voting; or

  • (b) any failure to hold the election or poll at any place appointed for holding the election or poll; or

  • (c) a failure to comply with the directions contained in this Act or any regulations made under this Act as to the conduct of the election or poll or the counting of the votes; or

  • (d) by any mistake in the use of prescribed forms.
  (2) This subsection applies if the District Court Judge conducting an inquiry into the conduct of an election or poll, having taken account of whether the election or poll was conducted in accordance with the principles set out in section 4, considers that the irregularity, failure, or mistake referred to in subsection (1) did not affect the result of the election or poll.
  Compare: 1976 No 144 s 120

 

'irregularity' seems to be the key word here, and if a Court was able to confirm that deliberately presenting a false persona to voters in order to win their votes was 'regular' or not. Then of course whether that affected the election. Brown would be in a compromised position of needing to argue that Aucklanders would have still voted for him despite knowing the way in which he had already compromised the office of the Mayor. Of course if he didn't feel he was compromised by his own conduct then there is the question as to his 'honesty' in not revealing something he was confident wouldn't harm his reputation.

 

Many Aucklanders have been 'sold' the idea that Brown cannot be made to go. However, it appears to be in the hands of ratepayers to question the method by which he became Mayor and whether that was honest and consistent with the reputation he carefully cultivated. I think Brown's conduct at the election was fraudulent, I think is reputation is shattered, I don't think he has a voter mandate - he may have had but he lost that, if not when details of his affair came out, then when it was revealed that he had compromised his own office with accepting 'undisclosed' gifts. Brown has said that there needs to be clarity around the 'rules' regarding gifts. I agree, and that there also needs to be clarity around misleading the voting public and ratepayers at election time. Brown isn't the Mayor of 'all of Auckland' confidence is lost in him. If a group of rate-payers decide to test for any 'irregularities
 in Brown's election we can assume Brown will confidently support that - if he is an honest man with the support of his electorate. Any bets on that one?

Aunt Fanny finally gets to ask David Bain some questions.

Aunty Fanny: Well David, I know that you are probably not as conversant with internet as myself so I should tell you that I have considerable savvy with internet use even though I'm barely five foot three and an old coot with farting problems. Despite not being a big internet user I'm going to ask you directly what have you heard about my considerable internet exploits? Speak clearly and slowly into my ear horn if you don't mind.

DB: Good afternoon Fanny. I am aware that since you brought a second hand computer in 2009 you've managed to get yourself, Kent Parker, Vic Purkiss, The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax sued and that you've been 'smart enough' to do a runner on each occasion. That's pretty formidable.

Aunt Fanny: It hasn't been easy I can tell you that. Kent Parker threatened to enjoin me in the proceedings because he said it was as the result of my big mouth and not having a clue as to what I'm talking about which resulted in he and Vic getting sued. Quick as a flash I said a mad man can't be enjoined if he doesn't realise he's got a big mouth and doesn't know what the hell the he's talking about. That got him thinking. A slow process I'll admit. So I told him I was resigning as a site administrator. I promised to fully support him financially in his efforts to clear his name. He swallowed that. The truth is David that I was going to send in that $5 but my wife wouldn't let me. She even threatened to cut my cords, she's never done that before so I didn't know what to expect. What with my farting problem and didn't really want me cords cut as well. But don't try getting me off the subject David. It can't be done. Have you heard of my 'relationship' with the Minister of Justice.

DB: I haven't heard much about that except that I did read that you offered to 'peer review' Ian Binnie's report and when Ms Collins finally stopped laughing she told you ever she ever needs a bum boy's office report reviewed she'd be in contact.

Aunt Fanny: Don't believe everything you hear David.

DB: I actually read it.

Aunt Fanny: Look David, I had to say something meaningful when it came out that you'd been strip searched the day you lost you family, and that there were no injuries to your chest recorded. I really got egg on my fact over that one.

DB: Yes, there's still some stuck in your ear horn and eyebrows.

Aunt Fanny: I suppose you know that when I found out that your father had blood smears on his palms consistent with having been in contact with blood that morning that I said you put it there. I was desperate then as well. Really, all I have been able to do is misquote people and tell lies since I found out what a dick I've made of myself. I sort of hope that people don't notice that anything that I might be able to use against you I claim to be the truth and anything I can't use, to be lies.

DB: I've heard that yes.

Aunty Fanny: Well, it's sort of true that I was a bum boy in the office of a car yard. But once I got a second hand computer it was a big chance for me because people can't tell on the internet that I'm a dwarf with egg stuck in my eye brows and in my ear horn. But then I made my first mistake when I tried to explain how you dad might have shown Laniet how to do some personal things and after that nos starting saying that I was a fiddler on the roof so I complained to everybody in NZ about it, even the police. The problem was that it was in writing. I was sort of stuck so I started talking about what Denise Laney might have said, about dog shit and well ..... sex with goats. You don't think I've got a problem do you David?

DB: No, it's probably 99% of the population that has a problem but maybe not you.

Aunt Fanny: Cheers for that, happy new year.

DB: Right you are.

What's in store for Kent Parker.

It seems the reserved Judgement is unlikely to be released this year leaving Kent the unwelcome opportunity to consider his 'fate' longer than he might have hoped for. The delay in itself is very interesting and something upon which speculation might be built. I personally think the Judgement may in some ways be a landmark. The reasons for that are numerous. First of all it's unlikely there has ever been a sustained defamatory attack of this nature and over such a long period of time before in New Zealand. Additionally, the fact that the offences took place on the internet as well as else where will likely be giving The Court pause for thought.

Kent, like all the sisters, has shown a remarkable ability to shoot himself in one foot then the other. It would be only a naïve sister who would consider that Kent's undertaking to the Court to take down his hate-site, only to do so and then reinstate it, would not have been brought to the Court's attention. There may in fact be definable elements of Contempt of Court in those actions. Whether that is the case or not, Kent has demonstrated how far he and the sisters are off the planet once again by showing their 'concerns' for justice actually, and at will, become straight out law-breaking. If Kent, wanted to further aggravate his situation (as if it needed it,) then misleading the Court was a good choice. How he might imagine that the Court would happily be deceived and not response was about as silly as the sisters swallowing the cover up of Robin Bain's suicide. That is not the point here however because Kent has 'successfully', along with Aunt Fanny and other dimwits, managed to get himself, The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax sued - and in style. They alone have been singularly responsible for 'cyber space' starting to be 'clean up.' It was they and others that thought 'cyber space' had no borders. The word space must have confused them by comparison to the great empty space of their own minds where any bewildering thought could take flight and somehow become real.

The only thing real now is their fall to earth, and contemplation as to 'who else' will be legally brought to task. These, I think, could be observations contained in the Judgement when it is finally released. A construction, or definition, spelt out in simple terms not only of the damage done by Kent and the sisters but where those borders and boundaries of cyber 'space' fit within conventional Law to the point it is finally realised the reason why daily newspapers don't post anonymous attacks, or indeed threats, anticipating that it is legal. Or indeed why, they don't simply publish as 'facts' something which they read elsewhere, heard 2nd hand or indeed print anything that can't be established without doubt as being true. As I have written before, I had these conversations with Kent earlier. The fact is I also had them with TradeMe in particular as long ago as 2009. Nothing has changed about the 'argument' only the acceptance that legal precedent and principle have always applied in cyber place and that it was only 'space cadets' without boarding passes who were unable to understand that.

So what is in store for Kent Parker is literally unknown, he may have fled, may be thinking of doing so, pulling some psychiatric stunt who knows. He could simply be anticipating his fate feeling like a martyr without a real cause beyond his own aspirations. What is in store for the rest of the community is the possibility of a 'growing up' of use of the internet. Possibly 'class' actions against Facebook and others who for many years attempted to absolve themselves of their users care with a type of self-indemnity that is showing cracks and continuing to splinter. In that respect Kent Parker inadvertently may have done a good thing,

Where Scott Watson finds himself at Christmas.

Think a little of a man or woman with a grievance, some dispute over land or property that has left them feeling wronged because they know, that some part of that wrong is obviously unjust. Transpose that land or property to freedom and particularise that grievance to evidence of guilt and you may come some where near how Scott Watson may feel this Christmas.

When a person considers the considerable merits of a Jury trial it is because of the vast range of character, perception, prejudice, bias, sympathy that individuals bring to their task of judging the innocence or guilt of one of their peers. All of those human characteristics based on life's experiences brought together to bring a balanced and blended view of the guilt or innocence of another human being. But what if some of that evidence is wrong, or no longer supported in it's certainty? Well in New Zealand we have a system where a representative of the Crown, the prosecuting body, will 'investigate' that evidence. Such is the situation with the Queen's Counsel Kristy McDonald. She was tasked to 'look into' various matters as to the safety of Scott Watson's conviction that has seen him imprisoned for over a decade.

Two specifics of that 'looking into' were a 'confession' attested to by a prison inmate who was virtually a stranger to Watson but to whom he apparently confessed in gross details sure to disturb or convince any peer. The other was 'forensic' proof, 2 hairs found on a blanket which were not 'found' during a previous search, and which, at very best may have at best been from 1000s of others of which none may have been one of the victims Olivia Hope. Imagine now the 'war' as the prosecution advanced its case against Watson in his trial. They were able to contend that Watson was a murderer who had confessed to, yes, a prison inmate he didn't know. After keeping 'mum' for months and many years since, he coughed to a prison inmate who just happened to gain some benefit from the police for his coughing.

Thinking about that might be a little disconcerting. Most people realise the some sing 'for their supper' and therefore what they sing must be closely scrutinised, particularly where a man or woman may become falsely imprisoned. Any troubling concerns about that could be overcome for example of a positive test for dna of one of the victims in this case being found on a blanket taken from Watson's boat. 2 hairs found there, that might fill the gap. It could fill the gap, resonant over doubts that  a man might mysteriously confess to another he did not know.

So this is what we have with Watson - a confession supported by doubt. When I say doubt, I mean the two hairs that are not proven to have come from Olivia Hope and which by some disturbing reason were not 'found' in the beginning but only in a later search. That's broadly 2 things until the prison inmate, rewarded for his 'evidence' says, hold on what I said wasn't the truth. The prison inmate recants. The man whose evidence the prosecution held aloft as they marched to 'war' has said he wasn't telling the truth. So Watson goes 'inside' the system to find a remedy, Mercy in fact.

However, 'inside' the merciful system is a waste land. The promised 'hope' for the vanquished is an empty place as empty as a fleeing debtor's past promises. More so, apart from being largely abandoned all the counters to which Watson might go are 'manned' by the same person - Ms McDonald. She is investigator, Judge, Jury and Court of Appeal. Of course she is awfully busy, too busy in fact to appreciate that a potentially innocent man, one whom has had telling evidence withdrawn against him should have his plea addressed in a timely manner. In fact Ms McDonald takes several years to complete the file, perhaps because she needed time to shift from counter to counter and role to role. No doubt a particular mind set is required to assume each role that can't be rushed. Watson waits, of course he has no choice. Then a few months ago after several years Ms McDonald's report is finally released.

She hasn't been able to 'find' the witness. In her acute wisdom, she feels that is not a problem, just because the evidence of the witness can no longer stand the conviction can be 'upheld' by the hairs the origin of which are in doubt. I've written before that McDonald's report and her undertaking the role of the Appeal Court in particular is Constitutionally wrong but it is wrong in another way - it is neither fair nor merciful.

Scott Watson finds himself in prison at Christmas for the 11th or 12 time at least, held by evidence that no longer exists,  that which is no longer at the forefront of the prosecution parade 'a confession' but which now however, is replaced by doubtful and speculative evidence upon which the 'confession' once rested in a mutual embrace of doubt.

The hate-sites hit a snag, again.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9498504/Joe-Karam-Defamation-claim-settled

 

The devastating defeat of the hate-sites continue. Since the Crown decided to pursue a second trial of David Bain after the first was determined to be an 'actual miscarriage of Justice' it's all been down hill. A verdict of innocent by the second Jury in record time, a finding of factual innocence by a Jurist tasked to inquiry into an application by David for compensation, then a Judicial Review of the Minister's decision to 'interfere' with that decision and a series of defeats as to the honesty and truth of those that have attacked Bain and Joe Karam for years.

 

The New Zealand Herald settled a defamation claim quite quickly on, Trade Me followed, so now have Fairfax - they have all retired from the 'truth' of the claims made against Karam and his simple analysis of a case of murder suicide from which a innocent young man spent over a dozen years in prison. If one was absolutely crazy they could believe that the failure of The Crown to prove a case against Bain, both at trial and again as part of a exercise to argue against compensation for him, was of no significant merit. Accordingly, they could look toward the Civil courts for The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax to prove that they were not insane, batty or even delusional - the big guns would 'prove' the truth, reveal what the sisters knew as true.  All good, except the Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax couldn't prove the un-provable either, odd that. Boringly predictable unfortunately.

 

There has been some significant public benefit however. Fairfax have not resisted the proposition that what is posted on their sites, or linked to their sites, is there responsibility - whether the posting was the work of a bunch of nutters or not. The wider benefit of this is the development of the understanding on the use on the internet. The word should be out, that abusing or threatening others on line in a public forum is not only the responsibility of the persons posting, but of the publisher or medium. This is very fair, and to this point 'escaped' from The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax. What they allow to published through their mediums is there responsibility, they are not somehow remote from it.

 

The message is out that while some dodo bird might 'speak their minds' on the net in a public forum the host remains responsible. So Facebook will be responsible for teens urging other teens to commit suicide or for abusing others on line. This is a clear and precise development in the use of the net, also very obvious. The New Zealand Courts have supported these settlements and others under the Harassment Act where there has been online stalking, threats and intimidation. The Law has caught up. Congratulations to Joe Karam and The Courts for understanding the net with it's apparent new frontier.

 

In the meantime, more bad news for the sisters - they've created a place in history for themselves and it's not the one they first imagined.