Good news and bad

Former cops, Crown prosecutor ordered to appear in court after ‘methodical’ investigation into Alan Hall miscarriage of justice - NZ Herald

As the Alan Hall case begins to be looked at deeply, not about Alan, but about what happened to him, and who was responsible, New Zealand as a country finally has another moment to look into if not just one, then many false convictions for the first time since the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Thomas case some four decades ago. It was not that long after that Alan Hall was framed by police and the Crown just passed the very time when many New Zealanders believed Justice was finally done with the recognition of the planted shell case manufactured after the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe.

But it was not. There was no drop off from the pace of the innocent being wrongly convicted. In fact, as we see today with our higher Courts somewhat jammed with suspect convictions - bad convictions were suddenly powered by rocket fuel. So what was missing, there were apologies, compensation talk about how such cases should or couldn't ever happen again when in fact some police involved remained in the police and rather than blink accelerated their methods of creating false convictions with the assistance of the Crown. The people who apologised were fakes, and in many cases involved in false convictions themselves as they continued to be buried in their dark work.

There were generational changes, John Hughes who was a junior detective on the Thomas would in 20 years be the senior detective in other cases like that of David Tamihere where John's underworld name was the "planter". He would increase the cultivation of false convictions. One of his cohorts was Bryan Rowe who rose to Superintendent, that was another internal police message to staff that framing people was "ok" when necessary. It was Rowe's "work" with immunity where he only got the Solicitor's General's permission to give witnesses immunity after he already had done so, and police and the Crown were criticised for that by the Privy Council recognizing the danger of giving guilty people the chance to lie, with police help, their way of being convicted for a crime. "lying to save your neck" was suddenly all the rage with drug smugglers and other offenders, even those who killed.

Things kept going the wrong way. Police under Rowe kept on buying witnesses by promising, or giving them gifts, money, time out of prison, or no prison sentence at all when they were clearly guilty of some crime. In the Gail Maney case it appears after the Privy Council case where the issuing of police immunity was criticised, Rowe continued to have it employed. It was officers under his control who offered immunity at least with the witnesses against, Gail and also earlier in the Tamihere case where the planter was still at work. Not to be outdone Christchurch police made an art of getting witnesses to say what they wanted, by bribery, threats, or whatever else might work.

Those 3 cases are still high profile and not going away. Though it appears Gail will have her convictions quashed very soon. and while Scott's case should also fall into that category his supporters are ready to fight on with bringing possible private prosecutions against police if necessary. All the evidence for that was revealed at Scott's recent appeal. David on the other hand, is likely to go to the Supreme Court which, like its lower Court, does not have the consistency of common sense. Or a golden rule - if police conduct was unlawful, charge the culprits and free the prisoner without making the error of trying to fill the cracks or brush over the rot that began the slide into a false conviction. Even with the apparently guilty, or so the Court may think, of the shaky and blurred canvas a false conviction can become, The Court must be consistent in its rejection of fake evidence. This is something Canada did decades ago, along with many States of America have achieved while NZ, and possibly in an even worse manner, Australia continues to ignore. Now is the time.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crown-admits-it-has-no-case-against-convicted-murderer-gail-maney/THMLSJODMVGPBK773JT7WSRE7

Is Scott Watson Closer Than Ever To Freedom?

                                  Is Scott Watson Closer Than Ever To Freedom?

The following report that a witness's evidence helpful to Scott has not been admitted in Scott's appeal next month is arguably not critical because other witnesses giving evidence at the Court of Appeal essentially say the same thing as the witness whose evidence was declined.

It's disappointing to see the press still repeating the myth about the 2 hairs being found on Scott's both when they were in fact found in the lab and were said to have come from Scott's boat.

On another front, Scott is well prepared for his next Parole Board, without revealing details it appears he has been treated fairly for the first time in a manner he is relatively relaxed about.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2024/05/convicted-murderer-scott-watson-s-bid-to-use-academic-report-on-eyewitness-memory-in-appeal-thrown-out.html

Count down to the Court of Appeal for Scott Watson

 

                                      Count down to the Court of Appeal for Scott Watson

It won't be difficult for the Court of Appeal to acknowledge that the identification evidence of Scott was flawed. It also will not be ground-breaking to agree that the previously "platinum" hair evidence is not up to scratch and never was. Furthermore the "prison confessions" it is alleged Scott made are gone.

So what remains? One thing is an institutionalized prejudice against Scott from police, Prosecutors, also for many years the Courts, Corrections, and the Parole Board. Whilst there is no way to determine how much of that is intact there are a few things that have changed in the 20 plus, years since Scott's arrest.

Forensic Science has marched forward and the "hair collection" in Scott's case was amateur at best purposefully negligent, careless, and most likely the major part of Scott being fitted up. That is no longer really an obstacle in a fair Justice System. The key police who ran the case are basically all gone apart from Tom Fitzgerald who it is doubtful any prosecutor would rely on again such are the activities he's been exposed for in recent years.

Less clear is why the Prosecution is holding on to that dead fish which is essentially its case now. There could be 2 reasons for that with the first being a misguided sense that the Solicitor General believes there is a chance to avoid the criticism the Crown clearly deserves or that it was possibly a mistake not to have shared with the Crown all the new evidence. "New", being mostly because it had previously been hidden in plain sight or not been melded into a narrative of complete innocence as it is now.

For that reason, Scott's evidence of innocence will not disappear for years whether the Court finds in his favour; or not - whether now or later. As his, was the most brittle of set-ups with so much left evident, including credible witnesses, ketch sightings,  mystery man at the pool table who has now been identified as not being Scott or the offender. People that were frightened, or bribed into silence by police while others were emboldened as possible leads that led to them were lost or covered up.

And what does all this mean you may wonder. Well, firstly Scott should win, and secondly if he doesn't he won't be going away as there are many other doors open for him.

Goodwill in the Scott Watson Case in 2024?

                                 

        Anonymous asks if the Crown will fall on its Sword in the Scott Watson  Case

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.":

The big question here : Can the Crown fall on their sword and admit they were wrong after all this time.

I think the above important question by Anonymous deserves a full answer. But firstly yes the Crown can fall on its sword if that is the way it thinks proper Justice unfolds, as if it is a battle without rules or indeed decency.

The "battle" only exists in the minds of those who see a questionable conviction to be something to battle against or to maintain. As long as the battle complex is maintained cases like Scotts will endure for years before they fall over in some way which is seldom by the exercise of both good will and adherence to facts rather than personalities.

So looking behind that situation it is often the police and indeed the Crown that are obstructive to Justice being "seen to be done" words often used by Arthur Thomas. Thinking about this morning I remembered the story of Joe Karam going to the police Commissioner of the time to show evidence that Joe thought showed David Bain's innocence only to find police did not want to know. What better description of bitterness to uphold a false conviction could there be? No "we'll look into it", or "I'll get someone onto this." But rather the chill that might surround an executioner. 

The best steps forward away from that are visible today is Tim McKinnell, ex-police detective who first helped pull the Teina Pora case apart through its obvious to most, flaws, and has progressed a long way on Gail Maney's conviction which has also got obvious flaws. But even Tim with his already grown credibility must endure the laborious path through silent ghosts that police and Justice officials tend to become when someone threatens the status quo.

That's pretty dumb. By feeling the status quo is under threat one's mind is immediately closed and defensive at Joe Karam discovered to his surprise. So firstly "can" creates or in fact endorses that there is something to be frightened of when officials are faced with what may be a wrongful conviction. It appears a threat is immediately sensed and walls go up to confirm it is indeed a bastion and will be defended - even against new evidence, or old evidence that has been misinterpreted.

My thoughts after reading the Panckhurst RPOM response was a pleasure because Panckhurst had virtually said the 2 secret prison witnesses were liars, recognized that they gave different stories and so on which had always been obvious.

On the other hand. I was disappointed that a lot of new evidence hadn't reached his hands that was likely to have turned the case into one of considering a pardon. After the Crown agreed to the conviction of Alan Hall being quashed because of evidence that was by then 30 years old - I thought that the tide had finally turned and the Crown saw their role as ensuring Justice and not trying to bury false convictions.

I wrote to Scott's lawyers suggesting to share the new evidence but unfortunately, they didn't have my same optimism that the Courts are meant to places of Justice where "sides" go out the door and let Justice walk in when there is clear evidence of a Miscarriage of Justice.

So I should answer Anonymous's question by saying yes the Crown can and should fall on its case, but give that another description of doing its duty to the Court and to Justice in the sight of overwhelming evidence of Scott's innocence.

The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.

                          The Crown's Case against Scott Watson Looks to be Destroyed.

Literally, less than 3 months away from The Court Of Appeal's hearing into Scott's case the Crown is squirming in every way possible. It's not a good look and one could consider that the Solicitor General is trying to find a way out as Scott's case finally implodes.

I've often written here that when a wrongful conviction begins to crack it does so spectacularly. It is unprecedented for the Crown's highest official to appear to panic in every way possible. As the article by Mike White shows along with the comments of Chris Watson (Scott's dad) The Crown does not like it when it no longer holds the upper hand.

Just how poor the identification procedures are in this case has never been generally accepted because the police for so long have shown witnesses photos of a person often saying the person is the suspect and giving details of his or her behaviour and how abhorrent it has been. In other words, expressing the need for the witness to "help" the police to put the suspect away.

Readers will remember how for decades the Crown has said that its "hair evidence" was without question, proof of Scott's guilt. In fact, as I have also said before - Judith Collins when Minister of Justice in an earlier Government said the 2 hairs held the case together. Something I thought of as a challenge and an extraordinarily big call. As that was later considered by Sir Panckhurst in a Royal Prerogative of Mercy application there was a chance to continue to read and delve further into the case.

Very soon every apparently solid point of evidence was collapsing, mostly from reading the Crown's own file. As that evidence imploded it showed the points made by people such as Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter, Warwick Jenness and Chris Watson himself culminated in a picture of innocence once the hairs were on slippery ground. That had earlier culminated in the doco Doubt by Yvonne McKay which revealed interviews with people who saw the couple alive after they were said to be dead. A good reading of the file as to the key points against Scott showed they were doubtful at best and anything assisting him was not presented to the Courts - lost if you like in a sea of paper and perhaps an arrogance that no one would find them. But if you look on the horizon the hens are coming home to roost and particular detectives and scientists have found themselves out with corrupt practices and arrogance that they were above the Law they chose to administer.

More people came forward or were approached in what has been similar to the results of WW2 "dam busters," as the real ketch was traced and Scott was excluded as the mystery man. It would be fair to say most of that was completed by around 2020-22 and since then the Crown has tried to squirm out in every way possible and many people will believe that the Parole Board itself has acted in a retributive way toward Scott as a result.

When once the position was that Scott could not be released because of his "dangerousness" and "callous" crimes while others like Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Teina Pora,  Gail Maney, and many more who also refused to admit crimes they did not commit were released anyway. What happens now when there are issues before the Court where evidence of Scott's innocence is being withheld by the very top Crown Law Official? Will she soon find herself in Contempt of the Court? And those she tries to protect are finally brought to Justice. If ever a case demands police pay for their crimes of wittingly imprisoning innocent people - this must be it.

Crown attempts to withhold crucial new evidence in Scott Watson case | The Post

Herbie Bradly: When the State comes along to Help.

                                                                       

The kind chatty old fellow mentioned below was Herbie Bradley a well-known bank robber in his time, but long before that a state ward. We still have a system where children are taken from their parents, at times for their own safety. Those children are sent into at the very least an unsure life. In Herbie's case, he would end up in the criminal underworld with his brother Steven.

That really struck me when I read about Herbie's untimely death. He appears to have been prey to younger men also off the rails but at a different time of their lives. A time when they couldn't consider compassionate toward an old timer past his prime as they might be one day should they survive a similar lifestyle to that of Herbie.

State wards are represented highly in suicide, imprisonment, and mental health issues. While it's sad his own younger kind turned on Herbie the tragedy is for all of them in a system of injustice that seemingly can't be corrected. Well, not with punishment, violence, and an uncertain life that might be taken to the grave by someone like Herbie - a classy bank robber he once was never but never finding or being offered the chance to do better in his life.

RIP Herbie

https://www.stuff.co.nz/.../trial-set-for-duo-charged...

Scott Watson has a significant second Win.

 

                                      Scott Watson has a Significant Second Win

Although not always the case, sometimes when wrongful convictions finally turn there are steady reversals of the Crown's case or initiatives to maintain the convictions. That has now happened for a second time in the Watson case with the Crown failing to repel new submissions regarding the "hair evidence." The NZ Court of Appeal ruled yesterday, 8/11/23, that further new evidence concerning the "2 hairs" alleged to have been found on Scott's boat the Blade but actually discovered in ESR's lab will be heard.

That causes one to wonder why the Crown so lacked confidence in its case on Appeal that it apparently feared any more new material. There is irony in the fact they would seek evidence to not be heard if they were confident in their own case. Apparently, they may not be so it is for the public and ultimately the Court to decide if they are panicking or not.

The complete irony is that while the Crown fiddles over the hair evidence there is significant further evidence not all of which will be heard before any retrial. The Crown's case is a shipwreck, its own agents have hidden and changed evidence to a remarkable extent and there is now proof of that in many new affidavits, comparisons of evidence then compared to now. Although there are many examples one significant one is that the police from early on were attempting to persuade witnesses that Scott had either stolen their dingies or been seen or heard using on the morning of the disappearance of Ben and Olivia.

Although the Crown won't pause to consider all the new evidence as it should rightly ask to do in the interests of Justice, and do that now they will continue to row their boat to the square corner of the earth they appear to feel exists and right off.

New Zealand has not learned to extract itself from blind fighting over false convictions and simply say to the other side "Well what have you got" to save both the Court time and to extract people from false imprisonment or convictions. In some ways that is meant to be the purpose of the much-lauded Criminal Convictions Review Commission. I incidentally sent a 300-page document on what had gone wrong in the Lundy and didn't receive a reply, an authority which after some 3 years appears not to have solved a single case. The Commissioners appear to be stacked along cultural lines rather than by private achievements such as people like Joe Karam, Keith Hunter, and others who've been at the coal face of wrongful convictions to the extent that it shows that Scott was wise not to continue to "wait" for the CCRC to be up and running. One might even say that he finally had some luck and chose a traditional method of having potential wrongful convictions reviewed and was successful, not once, but twice and still counting.

The idea of the Prosecution and Defence working together on false convictions is not new internationally and America is having much success in that area currently - so why not New Zealand why not Scott Watson now.