The long predicted suggestion that Kent would not only threaten to sell out on his members as he has done many times but would simply go ahead anyway. He kept this one very quiet but now it is in the public forum. I've never had any sympathy for the mad man Parker but of course the rats that desert the ship at the first sign of water coming on board are even less deserving of sympathy. They are the ones that chortled 'bring it on,' laughing about being sued, claimed that Karam wouldn't dare because they were telling the truth. Of course they scurried quickly when the pressure went on, only a few of the more bewildered, without a keen sense of survival, hanging about.
'There are outstanding questions as to costs on the plaintiff's largely successful application for an order to strike out the statements of defence and on the defendant's unsuccessful application to strike out the statement of claim.'
So starts the High Courts deliberation of costs it had already indicated had been found in favour of Karam in 2011. Eventually, an order was made which looks to be well over $9,000 once filing fees are included.
Karam had claimed that costs had increased by the lengthy, convoluted pleading in the statement of defence some thing to which the Judge had referred to when the matter was previously heard. The defendants 'resisted' the order for costs on the basis that until they came to court they had not understood how complicated it was to respond to a defamation proceeding and that 'they are now proceeding with the help of competent counsel, having already expended all of their initial resources on representation that did not assist greatly.' It makes me ponder how Kent has presented himself as an expert of defamation for years to reach a point to admit that he wasn't competent and that his efforts in a complicated case had not assisted greatly. Well, that was the truth all along and it took Kent years to admit and only when under pressure of increased costs.
So much for person who purports to be able to un-spin things when now see he spun himself into a knot and only in the High Court would he admit the fact. The Judgement goes on to point out that the defendant's application proceeded on two main grounds. 'The first ground turned essentially on whether it is the persons placing posts on a private site who are alone in their role as publishers or whether the administrator of the site also is the publisher.'
What did Kent do here? He submitted that his members were the publishers alone in their role and questioned whether he was also the publisher. And that's it folks what Kent promised he wouldn't do (though having implied the threat a couple of times,) he asked the Court to rule that he wasn't the publisher and that his site members were alone as publishers. Very nasty Kenty, but also very expected. Those that have read the earlier hearing from which costs arose will remember that Kent attempted to use a second albeit misconceived ground relied on in an English case that turned on whether or not there was a substantial tort that had occurred in the United Kingdom as opposed to another jurisdiction. The Judge decided that Neither ground was raised irresponsibly or unreasonably. Both warranted careful consideration - the first especially. Which I suggest indicates Kent had argued strongly his case of 'dropping' his members in it so that he might walk away.
He's kept that all very quite hasn't he? Even to the point of attempting to raise more money from those he dropped in it. When you consider the act of his deceit, it must be remembered that Kent set up the site for the purpose of attacking Karam and others. That is the only decision that can be made to my mind. Why? Because he never stopped it, even after several warnings he let the goons go on like attack dogs. He never tried to stop a single thing until he realised that it was at his own risk, and then he denied that and reinforced the attempted defence that he wasn't responsible for what was on a site he owned and which he never bothered to remove. I've always maintained that individuals who used Kent's site for their defamation might be sued, I even suggested that Kent would drop them in it, as he has done. Kent seems to think he moves in shadows, when in fact everything he does is seen.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Kent Parker and the hate-siters: bad news!
http://news.msn.co.nz/article.aspx?id=8504197
The headline says "Karam must reveal funding: Judge." Hardly a headline because the information is already in the public forum but this isn't:
Justice Courtney also ruled Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss must supply more documents about setting up the websites, removed material and material available in private sections.
The headline says "Karam must reveal funding: Judge." Hardly a headline because the information is already in the public forum but this isn't:
Justice Courtney also ruled Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss must supply more documents about setting up the websites, removed material and material available in private sections.
Oh dear, the hens have come home to roost. The removed material, maybe that's the stuff that went up while the witches had a good cackle about it then was taken down by 'democratic process.' The very very dirty washing to show the credibility of the hate-siters and the 'merit's of their campaign. More documents about setting up the website when most members didn't know that any documents had been supplied let alone more to come.
Now I assume the setting up of the site was important not only because of the old saying 'start' as you mean to go but for general liability, if Parker can't pay maybe those involved in setting up the site will be looked at - fair enough by most considerations. What were the tactics to be employed as an example? Bombarding Trade Me with posts anti Karam, complaining about TM posters that were seen as supporting Karam, conspiring to harass and defame or worse?
And of course who were those that 'helped' set up the site and were they connected to the police or others who might have had a biased interest in the hate campaign. Who were the contacts and which media were involved, there is one obvious 'big fish' among those and I wonder how he and his contacts might be feeling. That is those that used Parker and the other idiots thinking they were operating from a safe distance. How will the witnesses Parker claims to be calling be feeling about that now, not knowing what is known about them and the part they played in the hate and defamation campaign.
Ah and of course the private sections where false confessions written by a site administrator are to be found and among the deleted material the machinations to frighten and threaten members of the public - Christine Williams, Glenda O Brien and Annette Curran must be delighted beyond reason. Yes, what is in those private sections and deleted material - I can tell you that it is nothing good folks only those that have committed criminal or civil offences, or planned to do so, dump evidence. The dumped material is evidence of guilt and all the 'right thinking' nzers are caught out. Bloody lovely.
The Judge 'knocked back most of Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss's discovery requests' saying that they were 'not entitled to fish for some defence.' So still no merit-able defence and still nothing concrete by which to confirm the merits or 'honest opinion' of their claims. Sad movies for the twisted sisters with this news. If you wonder why Karam wasn't 'knocked back' on his discovery requests is because the Judge must have decided they are material to the case. But there will be other advantages there, foremost for the public to see the hate-site and its members opened to scrutiny. For Karam there will perhaps be opportunities to seek 'bigger fish' in the campaign against he, the legal team and David. Some others will see the opportunity to connect evidence against the bunch of rat bags that rose from that site with the intention of invading the lives of fellow New Zealanders and their families. The stakes have ratcheted up for both the money and liberty of some those involved all in good time.
Thanks Kent, you were always a bloody idiot.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Ewen MacDonald: Police impressions of guilt.
In my first blog on the subject of the Ewen MacDonald trial I was critical of the 'witness parade' when we heard of the Crown's plans to have a trial by 'episode' where witnesses rather than giving evidence once came back as the trial reached a new episode 'stage' that would require a witness to give testimony usually given in a lump sum or one parcel. The concern was the distressed witnesses such as Kylee Guy and Anna MacDonald along with Bryan Guy and his wife. I felt that it could be seen to amplifying the distress factor in a trial that lacked evidence. The first question is was it necessary, the simple answer is no - this step isn't needed in NZ courts - the witnesses don't need it, the jury don't need and the public should be rightfully concerned that it is an attempt to garnish guilt in the jury's mind by perhaps raising sympathy and focusing on the accused as the reason for the witnesses distress. The Jury in this trial got a full measure of that, but before deciding on that consider the next feature
Kylee and Anna were brought through a side door which no other witnesses entered through, a entrance that allowed them the opportunity not to walk past EM. Impression? that EM was dangerous and the women were frightened of him. If there are any doubts about this suggestion then see in news clips the officer in charge of the case ushering the women. Such is usually the job of a registrar but here the Officer In Charge of the case laying on the drama in my opinion. Right from the beginning, an interesting, if disturbing, question was always going to be how much had the police attempted to split the family or indeed the families including the MacDonalds. How much work had been put into undermining relationships in order to turn the family against the man whom they had little proof of guilt. We know enough of the answers of those questions now, but more will come, in fact more came this week courtesy of the MacDonald parent's in their sole interview.
But before we get to that, what convinced Kylee of MacDonald's guilt. Was it the crimes he had committed, 1 in particular that was certainly directed at her and her late husband? In her situation I wonder if that would have been convincing enough - it certainly wasn't for the Jury. No doubt Kylee was befriended by the police and perhaps one of them following the 'excitement' of the arrest may have mentioned the now discredited dive boot evidence, on the face of that evidence, had it been true, may have convinced Kylee. Could that be the reason why the two women were not led past EM in the Court Room? By then had they been convinced that EM was both the killer and angry with them? Admittedly, from all reports Anna appeared open minded and unbiased toward EM. Then again somebody was 'talking' to her about her evidence about when the dive boots were thrown out or last seen, and which she changed after an adjournment
There is no doubt Kylee was convinced EM was guilty, she screamed as much when he was found not guilty. During the trial she also said that she 'couldn't' look at him. Some might think that is understandable but contrast that with Bryan Guy and what he said following the verdict. He, simply accepted the verdict despite the turmoil of having given evidence at the trial of the father of his grandchildren for the murder of his own son. Something was, and is, driving Kylee's conviction that EM is guilty, something other than the evidence which was insubstantial against him, an impression of guilt, cultivated by the police.
First of all is the 'witness parade' for no purpose other than, in my opinion, to prejudice the Jury. Anna MacDonald showed how capable and forthright she was when giving evidence against her husband, showing she could have done so by only being called to the witness box once. We have the ushering into the Court by separate door by the OIC of the case. We know the likely prospect of the impact of Ewen's shoe 'print' being found awash in Scott Guy's blood. Now this week we know that there was a request by police for the guys not to go to some of the hearings because it made it 'look' like they were supporting their relative by marriage. A series of 'look's if you like, in the absence of evidence.
Why should the police have any interest in 'sides' or who was supporting who? Their obligation is to the truth and to Justice, not to how things 'look,' or engineering the same. As we've seen there was pure engineering in this case as to how things should 'look' for the Jury, but worse in splitting or dividing the family in words that came from the police themselves - the Guys were not to 'look' like they 'supported' Ewen, presumably because doing so would make the Jury and the public think that EM might not 'look' guilty. Anything to be grateful there? I don't think so, apart from the fact that EM was found not guilty of evidence which doesn't exist and on which, in its absence, there is an argument he should never have been charged for murdering his brother in law Scott Guy. In another breath, folks have heard of the good guy, bad guy, cop - seen it on TV or read about it perhaps. Some maybe even have heard about 'good looking' cop, maybe a sympathetic, concerned cop tasked with taking the 'edges' off an inquiry where there is a lot of sentiment afloat. A situation where perhaps distressed young women could be vulnerable to some sympathy or encouragement to look out for themselves rather than a cheating partner, someone who had let them down. A person 'good looking' might make subtle or less than subtle hints about - somebody adding to the impression of guilt. He might even befriend them.
Kylee and Anna were brought through a side door which no other witnesses entered through, a entrance that allowed them the opportunity not to walk past EM. Impression? that EM was dangerous and the women were frightened of him. If there are any doubts about this suggestion then see in news clips the officer in charge of the case ushering the women. Such is usually the job of a registrar but here the Officer In Charge of the case laying on the drama in my opinion. Right from the beginning, an interesting, if disturbing, question was always going to be how much had the police attempted to split the family or indeed the families including the MacDonalds. How much work had been put into undermining relationships in order to turn the family against the man whom they had little proof of guilt. We know enough of the answers of those questions now, but more will come, in fact more came this week courtesy of the MacDonald parent's in their sole interview.
But before we get to that, what convinced Kylee of MacDonald's guilt. Was it the crimes he had committed, 1 in particular that was certainly directed at her and her late husband? In her situation I wonder if that would have been convincing enough - it certainly wasn't for the Jury. No doubt Kylee was befriended by the police and perhaps one of them following the 'excitement' of the arrest may have mentioned the now discredited dive boot evidence, on the face of that evidence, had it been true, may have convinced Kylee. Could that be the reason why the two women were not led past EM in the Court Room? By then had they been convinced that EM was both the killer and angry with them? Admittedly, from all reports Anna appeared open minded and unbiased toward EM. Then again somebody was 'talking' to her about her evidence about when the dive boots were thrown out or last seen, and which she changed after an adjournment
There is no doubt Kylee was convinced EM was guilty, she screamed as much when he was found not guilty. During the trial she also said that she 'couldn't' look at him. Some might think that is understandable but contrast that with Bryan Guy and what he said following the verdict. He, simply accepted the verdict despite the turmoil of having given evidence at the trial of the father of his grandchildren for the murder of his own son. Something was, and is, driving Kylee's conviction that EM is guilty, something other than the evidence which was insubstantial against him, an impression of guilt, cultivated by the police.
First of all is the 'witness parade' for no purpose other than, in my opinion, to prejudice the Jury. Anna MacDonald showed how capable and forthright she was when giving evidence against her husband, showing she could have done so by only being called to the witness box once. We have the ushering into the Court by separate door by the OIC of the case. We know the likely prospect of the impact of Ewen's shoe 'print' being found awash in Scott Guy's blood. Now this week we know that there was a request by police for the guys not to go to some of the hearings because it made it 'look' like they were supporting their relative by marriage. A series of 'look's if you like, in the absence of evidence.
Why should the police have any interest in 'sides' or who was supporting who? Their obligation is to the truth and to Justice, not to how things 'look,' or engineering the same. As we've seen there was pure engineering in this case as to how things should 'look' for the Jury, but worse in splitting or dividing the family in words that came from the police themselves - the Guys were not to 'look' like they 'supported' Ewen, presumably because doing so would make the Jury and the public think that EM might not 'look' guilty. Anything to be grateful there? I don't think so, apart from the fact that EM was found not guilty of evidence which doesn't exist and on which, in its absence, there is an argument he should never have been charged for murdering his brother in law Scott Guy. In another breath, folks have heard of the good guy, bad guy, cop - seen it on TV or read about it perhaps. Some maybe even have heard about 'good looking' cop, maybe a sympathetic, concerned cop tasked with taking the 'edges' off an inquiry where there is a lot of sentiment afloat. A situation where perhaps distressed young women could be vulnerable to some sympathy or encouragement to look out for themselves rather than a cheating partner, someone who had let them down. A person 'good looking' might make subtle or less than subtle hints about - somebody adding to the impression of guilt. He might even befriend them.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Kent Parker: Not so popular?
This from a correspondent:
Hehehe - well thanks to Mrs Anonymous who kindly provided me with the phone
number for Dogs Bollicks, I phone them a few minutes ago.
Said I was meant to be attending a gig there tonight, but couldn't make it
and was wondering if they got a good turn out.
The guy that answered said "ah no, actually they cancelled, some guy, he
thinks his name was Kent, phoned on Tuesday to cancel because there was a
very little response and it didn't look like anyone could make it. He was
going to concentrate his efforts on Dunedin, and might try again later in
the year - but according to the young man, they are pretty peeved off, and
Kent will have to do some pretty fancy talking to get the place again. I
said to him that sounds like Kent Parker - and he said yep, that was the
name.
We shouldn't really laugh at Kent, but then again why not.
He's a total d head with less brain activity than a fossilised snail.
Speaking of snails, Kent's fund raising tour is going at a snail's pace. In fact the only thing consistent about it to this point is the cancelled dates. You think he'd get the message. Or that one of his few hate-siters left, like Christine Williams who made the 'signs' for his Auckland High Court 'music protest' would tell him what a dick he is. However Christine seems to have a fascination with dicks and probably wishes she was one herself - look in the mirror Christine that tiny thing where your head should be isn't a sleeping muppet - you don't need to lust after Kent being a dick head because you are one yourself. Congratulations on that, and you too Kent - way to go.
Hehehe - well thanks to Mrs Anonymous who kindly provided me with the phone
number for Dogs Bollicks, I phone them a few minutes ago.
Said I was meant to be attending a gig there tonight, but couldn't make it
and was wondering if they got a good turn out.
The guy that answered said "ah no, actually they cancelled, some guy, he
thinks his name was Kent, phoned on Tuesday to cancel because there was a
very little response and it didn't look like anyone could make it. He was
going to concentrate his efforts on Dunedin, and might try again later in
the year - but according to the young man, they are pretty peeved off, and
Kent will have to do some pretty fancy talking to get the place again. I
said to him that sounds like Kent Parker - and he said yep, that was the
name.
We shouldn't really laugh at Kent, but then again why not.
He's a total d head with less brain activity than a fossilised snail.
Speaking of snails, Kent's fund raising tour is going at a snail's pace. In fact the only thing consistent about it to this point is the cancelled dates. You think he'd get the message. Or that one of his few hate-siters left, like Christine Williams who made the 'signs' for his Auckland High Court 'music protest' would tell him what a dick he is. However Christine seems to have a fascination with dicks and probably wishes she was one herself - look in the mirror Christine that tiny thing where your head should be isn't a sleeping muppet - you don't need to lust after Kent being a dick head because you are one yourself. Congratulations on that, and you too Kent - way to go.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Crewe case: Who's laughing and is it time to flick the switch?.
Looking at the single positive first: the police are again investigating the case and they're going to have a senior lawyer review the investigation. Any semi-independence is welcome and that is positive news. However, then it gets complicated, is the entire file going to be reviewed or just a decision to prosecute or not prosecute, or indeed review a finding that there is no new evidence from which to widen the inquiries - in other words limiting the scope in order that the police may yet again try to recover from a lost cause. Despite all of us knowing this one won't go away be it by bad will or deceit - 40 years has proved that.
Not just complicated but messy. A reasonable person might consider that the file is being jealously protected by the police, given that the impression with recent requests for information refused on the basis the refusal is required to preserve the maintenance of the Law. Well hello on that preservation, the good administration or execution of the Law in this case is already out the door as the result of the fabricated charges against Arthur Thomas, additionally by the fact that nobody has been arrested for the murder, or some some satisfactory conclusion reached in the public mind - that situation does not preserve that maintenance. Openness could in fact reinforce the merits of the decision for the police having said, once Arthur was pardoned, that they were not looking for anybody - showing that it had been based on good cause.
I asked in the title who is laughing? I'm suggesting that is the police administration are laughing as the case continues on, subject to books and inquiries by several individuals of experience. The more distractions, the more conflicting views means less pressure on police to the point the public are left confused when the police should be providing certainty. However, a confused public will ultimately see that tactics: the police holding back from releasing information, while putting a 'new' inquiry together which may meander on forever to a inconclusive result. Then it might be realised truly who should laugh at who by using such machinations. In a week, with ex detective Muerant appearing on TV, admitting that he was told by the police Commissioner, of the time, to give misleading evidence to the Royal Commission the administration of Justice is in turmoil enough with any more similar tactics - let's have the file.
So how about flicking the switch now, despite the 'new' inquiry going on, give full and free access of the files to say Bryan Bruce, Keith Hunter, and Chris Birt through a QC or Judge to work with the men and others with something to offer toward a conclusion. These could be people with an approved interest, knowledge and expertise of the case to have access to the file and all reasonable opportunity to have the assistance of police to follow lines of investigation to the satisfaction of the inquirers. 3 or more might make it unwieldy, but they could work together, individually or through that independent person, such as the QC - Judge suggestion who would be tasked with the job by Crown Law or the Government, having been given temporary powers to instruct a team of police available at their disposal. We would have something open, visible and working in the company of individuals willing to speak out if necessary. Rather than it being seen as any type of concession on any one's part, I suggest it would confirm the operation as in the public interest of a case which has dominated the landscape for around 4 decades. Pay those screened out for the task, bringing their various points, deductions, objections and conclusions together with the view of gaining a conclusive result from wide spread and diverse resources.
There are advantages, fore-mostly for Rochelle Crewe, Vivian Harrison, yet also some suspected of the crimes or playing some part of them, also scores more including the current police. Somewhere along the line the baton has been passed on the Crewe case from one generation of cops to the other. I don't think that's fair, but it certainly is the perception of not a few people which would include a good number of serving and ex police. Then there is the wider benefit, the public appreciating no stone has been left unturned.
Nothing is difficult in the light of commitment, but commitment to finalise something can, and would be, rewarding in this particular case. The case could have a line drawn under it with significant public support for the methods used. If no one was ultimately charged reasons could be given for that allowing for any privacy considerations that might reasonably apply. A version of all the competing and agreed upon points that moved toward a conclusion could be made public so far as much privacy was afforded. Rochelle herself could be acquainted with all the aspects which bore out the result with access to Judicial review or something similar on particular issues not able to be settled.
I would get to hear if Mrs Demler was indeed on record as having been at Court the day Roddick claimed to identify her. Discover the record of phone calls made by Lem Demler surrounding the time of the murder and a host of other things that are in the mix of the pot. If as a country we are 'big enough' to afford Miscarriages of Justice we must also be 'big enough' to look at common sense resolutions that may be of a slightly unorthodox nature. Who might be hurt, nobody I say. Who might benefit, the whole blinking country.
Chris Birt, Brown, Hunter and others like them are not trouble makers,or untrustworthy. I'm sure they could be accommodated into a code that would accumulate all the unanswered questions and present a measured conclusion to a QC, retired, or still sitting Judge of note in a way seen as the best the country can achieve. We don't need ongoing prevarication, we don't need to be told that information can't be available for reasons of the maintenance of the Law. Give common sense a go.
Not just complicated but messy. A reasonable person might consider that the file is being jealously protected by the police, given that the impression with recent requests for information refused on the basis the refusal is required to preserve the maintenance of the Law. Well hello on that preservation, the good administration or execution of the Law in this case is already out the door as the result of the fabricated charges against Arthur Thomas, additionally by the fact that nobody has been arrested for the murder, or some some satisfactory conclusion reached in the public mind - that situation does not preserve that maintenance. Openness could in fact reinforce the merits of the decision for the police having said, once Arthur was pardoned, that they were not looking for anybody - showing that it had been based on good cause.
I asked in the title who is laughing? I'm suggesting that is the police administration are laughing as the case continues on, subject to books and inquiries by several individuals of experience. The more distractions, the more conflicting views means less pressure on police to the point the public are left confused when the police should be providing certainty. However, a confused public will ultimately see that tactics: the police holding back from releasing information, while putting a 'new' inquiry together which may meander on forever to a inconclusive result. Then it might be realised truly who should laugh at who by using such machinations. In a week, with ex detective Muerant appearing on TV, admitting that he was told by the police Commissioner, of the time, to give misleading evidence to the Royal Commission the administration of Justice is in turmoil enough with any more similar tactics - let's have the file.
So how about flicking the switch now, despite the 'new' inquiry going on, give full and free access of the files to say Bryan Bruce, Keith Hunter, and Chris Birt through a QC or Judge to work with the men and others with something to offer toward a conclusion. These could be people with an approved interest, knowledge and expertise of the case to have access to the file and all reasonable opportunity to have the assistance of police to follow lines of investigation to the satisfaction of the inquirers. 3 or more might make it unwieldy, but they could work together, individually or through that independent person, such as the QC - Judge suggestion who would be tasked with the job by Crown Law or the Government, having been given temporary powers to instruct a team of police available at their disposal. We would have something open, visible and working in the company of individuals willing to speak out if necessary. Rather than it being seen as any type of concession on any one's part, I suggest it would confirm the operation as in the public interest of a case which has dominated the landscape for around 4 decades. Pay those screened out for the task, bringing their various points, deductions, objections and conclusions together with the view of gaining a conclusive result from wide spread and diverse resources.
There are advantages, fore-mostly for Rochelle Crewe, Vivian Harrison, yet also some suspected of the crimes or playing some part of them, also scores more including the current police. Somewhere along the line the baton has been passed on the Crewe case from one generation of cops to the other. I don't think that's fair, but it certainly is the perception of not a few people which would include a good number of serving and ex police. Then there is the wider benefit, the public appreciating no stone has been left unturned.
Nothing is difficult in the light of commitment, but commitment to finalise something can, and would be, rewarding in this particular case. The case could have a line drawn under it with significant public support for the methods used. If no one was ultimately charged reasons could be given for that allowing for any privacy considerations that might reasonably apply. A version of all the competing and agreed upon points that moved toward a conclusion could be made public so far as much privacy was afforded. Rochelle herself could be acquainted with all the aspects which bore out the result with access to Judicial review or something similar on particular issues not able to be settled.
I would get to hear if Mrs Demler was indeed on record as having been at Court the day Roddick claimed to identify her. Discover the record of phone calls made by Lem Demler surrounding the time of the murder and a host of other things that are in the mix of the pot. If as a country we are 'big enough' to afford Miscarriages of Justice we must also be 'big enough' to look at common sense resolutions that may be of a slightly unorthodox nature. Who might be hurt, nobody I say. Who might benefit, the whole blinking country.
Chris Birt, Brown, Hunter and others like them are not trouble makers,or untrustworthy. I'm sure they could be accommodated into a code that would accumulate all the unanswered questions and present a measured conclusion to a QC, retired, or still sitting Judge of note in a way seen as the best the country can achieve. We don't need ongoing prevarication, we don't need to be told that information can't be available for reasons of the maintenance of the Law. Give common sense a go.
Kent Parker and his Dogs Bollix.
From a concerned correspondent:
Nos, I was imagining how excited you were getting preparing to go to the
Dogs Bollix tonight to hear Kent howling. Sadly, I just went into the
passing phase website and it seems to not be showing that gig now. Not
sure if it is still on or not, perhaps you would like to check it out?
Best you wear overalls, a check shirt and straw hat. Blacken a couple of
your front teeth too, don't want you standing out in the crowd by looking
normal. ;)
I'm so disappointed. I've been standing outside all night in the fog with
my ticket, which got all wet and limp as though it was thinking of sweet
Melanie so I swapped it for a dog biscuit I found in an old drunk's pocket
who was snoring in the doorway. At one stage I thought I heard Kenty
warming up, but alas it was The Devonport 'Fairy's' fog horn lamenting
soulfully through the white haze which seemed very appropriate to my sense
of longing.
Yet I may still go if I can get the old broomstick working.
Nos, I was imagining how excited you were getting preparing to go to the
Dogs Bollix tonight to hear Kent howling. Sadly, I just went into the
passing phase website and it seems to not be showing that gig now. Not
sure if it is still on or not, perhaps you would like to check it out?
Best you wear overalls, a check shirt and straw hat. Blacken a couple of
your front teeth too, don't want you standing out in the crowd by looking
normal. ;)
I'm so disappointed. I've been standing outside all night in the fog with
my ticket, which got all wet and limp as though it was thinking of sweet
Melanie so I swapped it for a dog biscuit I found in an old drunk's pocket
who was snoring in the doorway. At one stage I thought I heard Kenty
warming up, but alas it was The Devonport 'Fairy's' fog horn lamenting
soulfully through the white haze which seemed very appropriate to my sense
of longing.
Yet I may still go if I can get the old broomstick working.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Ewen MacDonald: Tragedies are never kind.
If anyone needed reminding, that unlike soap box television or a novel, we see in the EM case what we all know, that tragedies are never kind. There is no order to them, no satisfying final scene or last few words on a page to touch the heart. Some of my friends held hope that everyone touched by the tragedy of Scott Guy's death would have room to move once the trial was finished, the opportunity to move on. Of course life is seldom, if ever, like that no matter how much goodwill we may wish upon the lives of others.
I've read elsewhere the reactions of some to Kylee Guy being involved in the setting up of a benefit fund for herself and 2 boys, along with the negative comment that has brought in some quarters even when actually it is no one's business except her own until the decision was to made to make it public. That was followed by announcement, more of the type usually attending sport stars, that Kylee had retained a media-publicity manager. Then more recently in the North and South magazine the revelation that Kylee wasn't going to let things go 'until Scotty was resting in peace.' I don't want to be offensive to anybody but I cannot comprehend language or ideas that suggest the dead rest peacefully or un-peacefully, in fact in anyway other than as dead, gone, in the beliefs of some to a better place. Yet still there can be nothing tidy found in this case, or seemingly left in privacy.
I'm not sure how to feel about the revelations from Mr and Mrs MacDonald in the North and South article for they seem to have been the last to break the silence despite how very obvious it was to the country the destruction on their own lives, that of their son and their grandchildren. I remember again what Pat Booth wrote a couple of weeks ago about in his time allowing people the dignity of their own privacy. Mr and Mrs MacDonald, like others in the aftermath are entitled no less to have their say, construct the pain and delusion that can come from seeing a family change shape in such away that it may never reform into the bright happy thing it once was. They didn't need to make it clear how upset they were that Anna had formed another relationship without telling their son Ewen, or indeed revealing it in any public way until they apparently found out and insisted Anna tell Ewen.
While many will be gripped with the twists and turns, others may show no on going interest beyond EM being a bastard and therefore 'guilty.' A lot will have a 'simple' interest in the law, and a satisfaction that it worked properly in this case despite the elements of anger, sympathy and emotion that lurked near the door. But there will be not to few nzers who will have hoped for something else, something potentially more satisfying for the heart, at least a semblance of things being put back together again as best they could. One person I know when reading the headline the Herald had swooped on in his 'scoop' borrowed' from North and South was to ask the question, 'what about the children.' No doubt, the 4 MacDonald youngsters she meant, which reminded me something of the anguish of all the grandparents.
Kerry MacDonald spoke about getting the news of Ewen's arrest and how the officer in charge didn't even have a card to offer the family for victim support. Understanding the cold face of policing that shows the uneasy nature and relationship between the participants of a police inquiry was obviously a shock to Kerry, to go along with a series of other shocks he's had which we may or may not ever know about. Yet it seems clearly that it was his wife, Marlene, who insisted Anna tell Ewen that she had effectively left the marriage and was in a relationship despite not telling the imprisoned man.
There seems no stopping the fallout now, not before time resolves some of the interest yet even then we can anticipate others speaking out, perhaps the children of their thoughts who what it meant to them at the time or later when they more properly were able to understand things. However, nothing will change the fact that tragedies are not made to order with some, happier, than could be expected ending, or that all the characters will perform or speak as required by the writer or scriptwriter. Yet it seems a natural characteristic to pick over that which is better settled rather than to extend privacy or comfort to the distraught.
I've read elsewhere the reactions of some to Kylee Guy being involved in the setting up of a benefit fund for herself and 2 boys, along with the negative comment that has brought in some quarters even when actually it is no one's business except her own until the decision was to made to make it public. That was followed by announcement, more of the type usually attending sport stars, that Kylee had retained a media-publicity manager. Then more recently in the North and South magazine the revelation that Kylee wasn't going to let things go 'until Scotty was resting in peace.' I don't want to be offensive to anybody but I cannot comprehend language or ideas that suggest the dead rest peacefully or un-peacefully, in fact in anyway other than as dead, gone, in the beliefs of some to a better place. Yet still there can be nothing tidy found in this case, or seemingly left in privacy.
I'm not sure how to feel about the revelations from Mr and Mrs MacDonald in the North and South article for they seem to have been the last to break the silence despite how very obvious it was to the country the destruction on their own lives, that of their son and their grandchildren. I remember again what Pat Booth wrote a couple of weeks ago about in his time allowing people the dignity of their own privacy. Mr and Mrs MacDonald, like others in the aftermath are entitled no less to have their say, construct the pain and delusion that can come from seeing a family change shape in such away that it may never reform into the bright happy thing it once was. They didn't need to make it clear how upset they were that Anna had formed another relationship without telling their son Ewen, or indeed revealing it in any public way until they apparently found out and insisted Anna tell Ewen.
While many will be gripped with the twists and turns, others may show no on going interest beyond EM being a bastard and therefore 'guilty.' A lot will have a 'simple' interest in the law, and a satisfaction that it worked properly in this case despite the elements of anger, sympathy and emotion that lurked near the door. But there will be not to few nzers who will have hoped for something else, something potentially more satisfying for the heart, at least a semblance of things being put back together again as best they could. One person I know when reading the headline the Herald had swooped on in his 'scoop' borrowed' from North and South was to ask the question, 'what about the children.' No doubt, the 4 MacDonald youngsters she meant, which reminded me something of the anguish of all the grandparents.
Kerry MacDonald spoke about getting the news of Ewen's arrest and how the officer in charge didn't even have a card to offer the family for victim support. Understanding the cold face of policing that shows the uneasy nature and relationship between the participants of a police inquiry was obviously a shock to Kerry, to go along with a series of other shocks he's had which we may or may not ever know about. Yet it seems clearly that it was his wife, Marlene, who insisted Anna tell Ewen that she had effectively left the marriage and was in a relationship despite not telling the imprisoned man.
There seems no stopping the fallout now, not before time resolves some of the interest yet even then we can anticipate others speaking out, perhaps the children of their thoughts who what it meant to them at the time or later when they more properly were able to understand things. However, nothing will change the fact that tragedies are not made to order with some, happier, than could be expected ending, or that all the characters will perform or speak as required by the writer or scriptwriter. Yet it seems a natural characteristic to pick over that which is better settled rather than to extend privacy or comfort to the distraught.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Joe Karam: The cost of winning.
No one would ever legitimately accuse Joe Karam of not walking his own path. He demonstrated that during his sports career, leaving behind his All Black jumper to etch out an opportunity in professional league. A situation at the time that was unorthodox at the least, breaking all the considered rules of the old war between the popularity of rugby and league, courting outrage that an All Black would 'cross over' for money. In that respect he was a trend setter, years before his time, years before rugby would become the professional sport it is today. In a country were rugby is the national sport Karam's desertion was seen by some as a treachery of the codes, a retreat from everything that rugby was to be measured in terms of national pride.
Something lingers in the nz psyche that rejects walking away, not seeing a job through, hanging in there with your mates no matter the cost. Could it be the barbarism of survival in the lonely isles, relying on one another even without communication, but most of all having others know they can rely on you when the chips are well and truly down. Did Karam display to the nation, where All Blacks are all dominant heroes, that he couldn't be trusted, that he would walk away when the pressure was on. However Joe Karam is judged now, it will never be as someone that will walk away. He has admitted in his writing of being a bit of a 'red neck', conservative in other words and of the 'lock em up and throw away the key mentality.' That was who he was before the Bain case engulfed him, pro authority, possibly even subservient to the belief that Justice in New Zealand is what is fair and right. A person comforted by the safety of our own society, by its laws and administration of the law.
He has written about his surprise that the police didn't simply accept the faults Karam observed in the Crown case against David Bain, that they effectively shut up shop on him ex Al Black or not, they closed ranks. More than anything else Karam's efforts on behalf of David Bain showed the public that there is something amiss inside the 'system' a total aversion to acknowledging fault, an unwillingness to consider fault in anyway and a historical defence of 'shutting up shop' rather than observing a problem - simply denying that there is one. Eventually, if the point is pushed, attacking the inquirer.
There are many ironies in the Bain case that will ensure it will be studied for decades to come. One obvious feature is that a man without legal qualification unpicked a deliberate miscarriage of justice, found one or two things that didn't make sense or add up and followed them until the things that made no logical sense outweighed the few that did. But there are far more subtle points of interest for students of the case horrified that Robin Bain was never investigated, all evidence which pointed to him, or which may have pointed to him had it been investigated, was ignored. A main suspect in a murder case was ignored, along with evidence which showed he was the killer. That brings me to one of the bizarre features not much in the public mind: when the police association laid charges of defamation against Joe Karam on behalf of 2 officers they set about investigating Karam. Investigating everything they could about his personal and business life, by my message Joe Karam was the 2nd most investigated person in the Bain case and he wasn't even a suspect. But what he did wrong was not walking away when it was made clear to him which way the wind was blowing and it wasn't blowing toward getting to the truth of the Bain murders/suicide, it was getting Karam to be a 'good chap' and shut up.
When thinking about the police reaction to Karam ask yourself a question, how do you react to the suggestion that you are wrong or might be wrong? With anger, with denial, or by considering your position on the thing that you may be wrong about? A reasonable person does the later. A police officer must do the later because that his duty, to the truth, not to denial. By then of course the police were performing what some might consider Karam didn't do with his All Black career, they were closing things down and sticking together, edging forward in the ruck, maintaining position. But of course a man falsely held in prison is no game of rugby, no game at all. Worse thing for police might be was that Karam wouldn't fold, that he wasn't some nosey reporter, or determined lawyer working for a bad guy, as much as anything he was Joe Public with the heart not to walk away when pressured.
From records of the case in and out of Court we can assume the relationship between Karam and the police was down hill from when he wouldn't back off. Now, that isn't the function of the police to become partisan at any point, the police don't have a 'them and us' role with the public, they are servants of the public, sworn to uphold the law by oath. But what we saw demonstrated was the very thing to be most fearful of in a free society, a system capable of being blind to the truth on the basis of loyalty to itself, rather than those to whom it is sworn to protect who ever, the person. or persons might be.
I titled this 'The cost of winning.' I say the cost is ours, we share the cost with Joe Karam whether we like him or not, consider him to a good guy or a pain in the arse, his concerns should be our concerns. His venture into the system is by proxy our venture into the system, his effort to find the truth is the obligation of us all. I've read people say that if you were falsely convicted you'd love to have the help of a Joe Karam, that might be true but isn't the true message we want to see is that the system will react without self-protection, act by way of its duty. What Joe thought might be sorted out in a few hours by showing the results of his investigations to senior police is surely where the public expect these things to be sorted, not a decade or 2 later. Look at the stick with your mates cliché, look closely at it and think about sticking with the truth and who you would most want in the hour of need, the truth or the man sworn to uphold it looking away. That is the lesson here and all other cases of miscarriages of justice.
Something lingers in the nz psyche that rejects walking away, not seeing a job through, hanging in there with your mates no matter the cost. Could it be the barbarism of survival in the lonely isles, relying on one another even without communication, but most of all having others know they can rely on you when the chips are well and truly down. Did Karam display to the nation, where All Blacks are all dominant heroes, that he couldn't be trusted, that he would walk away when the pressure was on. However Joe Karam is judged now, it will never be as someone that will walk away. He has admitted in his writing of being a bit of a 'red neck', conservative in other words and of the 'lock em up and throw away the key mentality.' That was who he was before the Bain case engulfed him, pro authority, possibly even subservient to the belief that Justice in New Zealand is what is fair and right. A person comforted by the safety of our own society, by its laws and administration of the law.
He has written about his surprise that the police didn't simply accept the faults Karam observed in the Crown case against David Bain, that they effectively shut up shop on him ex Al Black or not, they closed ranks. More than anything else Karam's efforts on behalf of David Bain showed the public that there is something amiss inside the 'system' a total aversion to acknowledging fault, an unwillingness to consider fault in anyway and a historical defence of 'shutting up shop' rather than observing a problem - simply denying that there is one. Eventually, if the point is pushed, attacking the inquirer.
There are many ironies in the Bain case that will ensure it will be studied for decades to come. One obvious feature is that a man without legal qualification unpicked a deliberate miscarriage of justice, found one or two things that didn't make sense or add up and followed them until the things that made no logical sense outweighed the few that did. But there are far more subtle points of interest for students of the case horrified that Robin Bain was never investigated, all evidence which pointed to him, or which may have pointed to him had it been investigated, was ignored. A main suspect in a murder case was ignored, along with evidence which showed he was the killer. That brings me to one of the bizarre features not much in the public mind: when the police association laid charges of defamation against Joe Karam on behalf of 2 officers they set about investigating Karam. Investigating everything they could about his personal and business life, by my message Joe Karam was the 2nd most investigated person in the Bain case and he wasn't even a suspect. But what he did wrong was not walking away when it was made clear to him which way the wind was blowing and it wasn't blowing toward getting to the truth of the Bain murders/suicide, it was getting Karam to be a 'good chap' and shut up.
When thinking about the police reaction to Karam ask yourself a question, how do you react to the suggestion that you are wrong or might be wrong? With anger, with denial, or by considering your position on the thing that you may be wrong about? A reasonable person does the later. A police officer must do the later because that his duty, to the truth, not to denial. By then of course the police were performing what some might consider Karam didn't do with his All Black career, they were closing things down and sticking together, edging forward in the ruck, maintaining position. But of course a man falsely held in prison is no game of rugby, no game at all. Worse thing for police might be was that Karam wouldn't fold, that he wasn't some nosey reporter, or determined lawyer working for a bad guy, as much as anything he was Joe Public with the heart not to walk away when pressured.
From records of the case in and out of Court we can assume the relationship between Karam and the police was down hill from when he wouldn't back off. Now, that isn't the function of the police to become partisan at any point, the police don't have a 'them and us' role with the public, they are servants of the public, sworn to uphold the law by oath. But what we saw demonstrated was the very thing to be most fearful of in a free society, a system capable of being blind to the truth on the basis of loyalty to itself, rather than those to whom it is sworn to protect who ever, the person. or persons might be.
I titled this 'The cost of winning.' I say the cost is ours, we share the cost with Joe Karam whether we like him or not, consider him to a good guy or a pain in the arse, his concerns should be our concerns. His venture into the system is by proxy our venture into the system, his effort to find the truth is the obligation of us all. I've read people say that if you were falsely convicted you'd love to have the help of a Joe Karam, that might be true but isn't the true message we want to see is that the system will react without self-protection, act by way of its duty. What Joe thought might be sorted out in a few hours by showing the results of his investigations to senior police is surely where the public expect these things to be sorted, not a decade or 2 later. Look at the stick with your mates cliché, look closely at it and think about sticking with the truth and who you would most want in the hour of need, the truth or the man sworn to uphold it looking away. That is the lesson here and all other cases of miscarriages of justice.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Looks like Kylee Guy gives the hate-siters the flick.
A little predictably some of the hate-siters moved from their closed sites onto the new site opened by Kylee Guy. One could imagine they took with themselves a feeling of importance as after they were part of the mob that has persecuted David Bain for years. Part of the mob that saw at least 3 on line sites get sued. There one-eyed view would be more of feeling 'victimised' for 'speaking their minds' and for being 'right thinking nzers' comfortable with the idea that it is fine to lie about others as long as the cause is just, no doubt they thought that hate was a vital asset, and needed, by Kylee's need site.
It didn't take long Lynda Dick to proclaim her signature 'guilty' and her equally sick 'friend' Maryanne Newtown to agree. Annette Curran happened along expressing love and if you ever saw her face you'd realise that love has not been part of her life for a very long time, if ever. Of course her secret site is called 'Guilty' and the two witches Dick and Newton are adherents of the hate faith. So good to see their comments gone and at least them having an early wake-up call that they won't be getting away with having other sites sued before trying to simply walk away.
The Ewen MacDonald trial has been unusual in many aspects, notably for the focus on some of the witnesses distress as they gave evidence, not once but many times. Veteran journalist has commented on that in today's East and Bays Courier noting that it is a disturbing trend. Of course a site which seeks donations is also a little unorthodox, particularly because it is set up by one of the benefactors, who, as it also happens, and taken another unusual step and retained a Media Representative, the ex All Black Andy Haden.
Additionally I read that Garth McVicar who earlier this week made a declaration that he wanted to, or would, 'review' the police file. He's backed away from that now, suggesting that he might hire private detectives, so we could be soon seeing Bryan Bruce applying for funding for another smoke and mirrors tv show. Where all this leads is difficult to say. One thing which seems apparent, at least for now, is that defamation will not be a tool employed by the Kylee Guy site, either because of the known recent history of law suits that have followed elsewhere, or purely from general propriety on her part or that of her advisers. I note there is talk of her perhaps 'selling her story' and of course no magazine will want to be associated with potential litigation.
At least, in the meantime, the hate-siters and their cancerous bile have been shown the door and that's got to be good for everybody. I recall not a few lawyers and a defamation expert Ursula Cheer saying that anybody alleging unlawful status against a person acquitted of a crime had a big hurdle to overcome because of the not guilty verdict and it seems that message has been heard, if not by the hate-siters, then by normal members of society who observe the law.
It didn't take long Lynda Dick to proclaim her signature 'guilty' and her equally sick 'friend' Maryanne Newtown to agree. Annette Curran happened along expressing love and if you ever saw her face you'd realise that love has not been part of her life for a very long time, if ever. Of course her secret site is called 'Guilty' and the two witches Dick and Newton are adherents of the hate faith. So good to see their comments gone and at least them having an early wake-up call that they won't be getting away with having other sites sued before trying to simply walk away.
The Ewen MacDonald trial has been unusual in many aspects, notably for the focus on some of the witnesses distress as they gave evidence, not once but many times. Veteran journalist has commented on that in today's East and Bays Courier noting that it is a disturbing trend. Of course a site which seeks donations is also a little unorthodox, particularly because it is set up by one of the benefactors, who, as it also happens, and taken another unusual step and retained a Media Representative, the ex All Black Andy Haden.
Additionally I read that Garth McVicar who earlier this week made a declaration that he wanted to, or would, 'review' the police file. He's backed away from that now, suggesting that he might hire private detectives, so we could be soon seeing Bryan Bruce applying for funding for another smoke and mirrors tv show. Where all this leads is difficult to say. One thing which seems apparent, at least for now, is that defamation will not be a tool employed by the Kylee Guy site, either because of the known recent history of law suits that have followed elsewhere, or purely from general propriety on her part or that of her advisers. I note there is talk of her perhaps 'selling her story' and of course no magazine will want to be associated with potential litigation.
At least, in the meantime, the hate-siters and their cancerous bile have been shown the door and that's got to be good for everybody. I recall not a few lawyers and a defamation expert Ursula Cheer saying that anybody alleging unlawful status against a person acquitted of a crime had a big hurdle to overcome because of the not guilty verdict and it seems that message has been heard, if not by the hate-siters, then by normal members of society who observe the law.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Teina Pora: liar liar, pants on fire.
I've written about Teina Pora before here under 'Teina Pora 20 years for being a liar'. He was the 17 year old that tried to collect a reward for the Susan Burdett murder by dropping senior Mongrel Mob members in it as the culprits. He was a junior or associate of the Mob but not bright enough to connect that he would not only need substantial proof but that if he was successful and gained the $20,000 prize his life and that of his family would forever be changed. Indeed, he probably brought significant trouble to his family and friends in the gangland depths of South Auckland. Not to forget that he has now served 20 years of a life sentence, in the backyard of the Mob - prison. So he ran 2 risks, that of trouble brought to himself or family for 'narking' on the mob, being stupid enough to 'assist' the police in a manner which ultimately saw him convicted of a crime in partnership with a known rapist whom I have no known reliable confirmation ever met the youth. - then having to be placed in prisons with high population of mob members, being the 3rd and added risk which resulted from his dim-wittedness. You could call that his 3rd strike.
We have to look past the fact that Pora couldn't even find the right street when showing police where he attended the rape and murder as some kind of look out. Then when shown the street he couldn't find the right house. Any problems emerging? Anything to say hold on this can't be right? But placing himself there, both eyes on the reward, and none on common sense changing his story in order to 'help' the detectives, and in order to get the reward. At subsequent Court hearings and at Pora's 2nd trial the focus was not only on his reliability as witness even against himself but getting him placed with the serial rapist Rewa whose semen had been located on the body of Susan Burdett, evidence which emerged 2 years after Pora's first conviction of the murder. Evidence, which was alone strong enough to have an a retrial ordered, and more rightly has time has shown to have the charge thrown out completely. The Court was critical of the police 'selection' from the many statements of Pora of what was correct and which wasn't, obviously anything that self-incriminated Pora was acceptable to the police and that which did not was a lie. Game set and match and own goal for Judicial reasoning to let any of the evidence go ahead, when the semen was from a 'lone wolf' rapist with no history of operating with others? Has to be. But no Rewa denied murder but claimed a 'relationship' with Burdett, still he was found guilty of the rape but not the murder. He was believed and not believed by the jury, he didn't kill her he 'merely' raped Susan. I think if you wonder why that could be was because the Jury might not have understandably been unable to differentiate between the truth of what Pora had said and that which was lies, in my book too dangerous to go ahead with without strong supporting evidence. That is even before seeing how the police 'linked' the 40 year old serial rapist and the 17 year old dysfunctional kid - yes, prison informants. Any worry there?
I can think of a couple, inducements for one. Also that in a city of 1 million people the man and the boy were never placed together by witnesses who might have nothing to gain, or by forensic proof, even Pora didn't say that he was with Rewa. He instead chose to say he was with the senior mob members, his bros. So on this occasion Pora was lying, covering up for a gang member from a rival gang. A little disturbing to anyone? Well, think about those prison informers, put aside that they might not simply be liars, or wanting to get out of prison early or any other inducement, but why Pora would be telling them the 'truth' when the 'truth' he told in the beginning was not, in his beleaguered mind, to incriminate himself but to incriminate mob members.
So there are a lot of variables and a few constants: the later being no forensic proof linking Pora to the murder scene, no plausible explanation why he would be out 'raping' with a 40 year old serial rapist who was profiled as always working alone, no reason why he wouldn't have known the house in his own neighbourhood or even the street. All bad enough before Dr Gudjonsson, a world leading expert of false confession says: 'I have no confidence in the self-incriminating admissions he (Pora) made about his alleged witnessing and participation in the rape and murder of Ms Burdett.' This disclosed in an 80 page report forming part of an application by Pora for an exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. This adds to concerns raised by 2 former detectives about the case, one of whom profiled and helped find the lone rapist Rewa.
But over20 years has gone since the day Pora couldn't find the correct street or house where alleged witnessing the crime for which he had applied for the reward. 20 years and now he is nearing 40 years old and still in prison because of, on the arguments of many, not only a false conviction but because he presents a difficult case for parole. How do these things happen. How does a Court overlook the danger of dealing with Walter Mitty like characters, if not in the beginning but when the case becomes farce, the real rapist and killer identified, the alleged rapists and killers exonerated, the 17 year old fantasist identified as being a 'plausible' liar when it suits the Crown with an implausible murder scenario and at all other times just a straight out liar.
We have to look past the fact that Pora couldn't even find the right street when showing police where he attended the rape and murder as some kind of look out. Then when shown the street he couldn't find the right house. Any problems emerging? Anything to say hold on this can't be right? But placing himself there, both eyes on the reward, and none on common sense changing his story in order to 'help' the detectives, and in order to get the reward. At subsequent Court hearings and at Pora's 2nd trial the focus was not only on his reliability as witness even against himself but getting him placed with the serial rapist Rewa whose semen had been located on the body of Susan Burdett, evidence which emerged 2 years after Pora's first conviction of the murder. Evidence, which was alone strong enough to have an a retrial ordered, and more rightly has time has shown to have the charge thrown out completely. The Court was critical of the police 'selection' from the many statements of Pora of what was correct and which wasn't, obviously anything that self-incriminated Pora was acceptable to the police and that which did not was a lie. Game set and match and own goal for Judicial reasoning to let any of the evidence go ahead, when the semen was from a 'lone wolf' rapist with no history of operating with others? Has to be. But no Rewa denied murder but claimed a 'relationship' with Burdett, still he was found guilty of the rape but not the murder. He was believed and not believed by the jury, he didn't kill her he 'merely' raped Susan. I think if you wonder why that could be was because the Jury might not have understandably been unable to differentiate between the truth of what Pora had said and that which was lies, in my book too dangerous to go ahead with without strong supporting evidence. That is even before seeing how the police 'linked' the 40 year old serial rapist and the 17 year old dysfunctional kid - yes, prison informants. Any worry there?
I can think of a couple, inducements for one. Also that in a city of 1 million people the man and the boy were never placed together by witnesses who might have nothing to gain, or by forensic proof, even Pora didn't say that he was with Rewa. He instead chose to say he was with the senior mob members, his bros. So on this occasion Pora was lying, covering up for a gang member from a rival gang. A little disturbing to anyone? Well, think about those prison informers, put aside that they might not simply be liars, or wanting to get out of prison early or any other inducement, but why Pora would be telling them the 'truth' when the 'truth' he told in the beginning was not, in his beleaguered mind, to incriminate himself but to incriminate mob members.
So there are a lot of variables and a few constants: the later being no forensic proof linking Pora to the murder scene, no plausible explanation why he would be out 'raping' with a 40 year old serial rapist who was profiled as always working alone, no reason why he wouldn't have known the house in his own neighbourhood or even the street. All bad enough before Dr Gudjonsson, a world leading expert of false confession says: 'I have no confidence in the self-incriminating admissions he (Pora) made about his alleged witnessing and participation in the rape and murder of Ms Burdett.' This disclosed in an 80 page report forming part of an application by Pora for an exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. This adds to concerns raised by 2 former detectives about the case, one of whom profiled and helped find the lone rapist Rewa.
But over20 years has gone since the day Pora couldn't find the correct street or house where alleged witnessing the crime for which he had applied for the reward. 20 years and now he is nearing 40 years old and still in prison because of, on the arguments of many, not only a false conviction but because he presents a difficult case for parole. How do these things happen. How does a Court overlook the danger of dealing with Walter Mitty like characters, if not in the beginning but when the case becomes farce, the real rapist and killer identified, the alleged rapists and killers exonerated, the 17 year old fantasist identified as being a 'plausible' liar when it suits the Crown with an implausible murder scenario and at all other times just a straight out liar.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Ewen MacDonald: Another idiot wants to rewrite the Law.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10817417
Typically after the Ewen MacDonald trial we have knee jerks from the knitting brigade. In this case someone whom I gather is a reporter takes umbrage at the right to remain silent. Interestingly, this dude has got his wires crossed as much as his knitting needles. In recent memory we've had the Law changed to remove provocation as a defence on a murder charge. That resulted from the 'Weatherston' case where Weatherston unsuccessfully attempted to employ the defence but saw it rejected by the Jury. Slowly on that one, the Law worked properly, recognising that no provocation existed in that particular case, but the Law was changed anyway the result being that a beaten spouse, or an abused person has no defence of provocation if they somehow caused the death of their assailant during, or in proximity of some attack, of some kind, on them. Hard for me to follow that 'improvement'.
Above Stevenson makes out his case to dismantle the Law largely using emotion, a proposition that the average person is sophisticated, of sound mind and competency not to accidentally incriminate themselves at the hand of a skilled interrogator. Unfortunately Stevenson destroys his own, pleading, argument by overlooking that in the MacDonald case EM in fact was interrogated by his own choice. EM, whose brother is a senior detective, no doubt understood when read his rights that he anything he may have said could have been used against him. He in fact said that he was told by his family that he could expect a 'good grilling' and that 's what he got. The video interview lasting some where near 4 hours, conducted by a detective no doubt who had been briefed on at least some aspects by Crown Law. 'The grilling' was played to the Jury, I can't imagine any other question could have been asked about MacDonald's actions before or after the death of his brother-in-law. The inquisition was complete and MacDonald came through it in many commentators point of view strongly, as strongly as a man telling the truth in a situation where he understood his adult life depended on it and for which he knew he need not have answered a single question. So the system worked, but a busy knitter frets none the same.
I doubt any lawyer would have advised MacDonald to undertake that grilling. Though, having known the man, perhaps might have encouraged him to do the interview perhaps even sitting in with him. Stevenson makes 'his' list of how the law must be changed to prevent something which (like the Weatherson case) didn't happen. He scoffs at centuries of Law without even acquainting himself with the facts of the case he is critical of and my goodness he's not even a politician, as far as I know, trying to whip up public anxiety to erode our civil rights. It might have been worth taking a critical look at some of the points arriving from the wonder mind of Stevenson had he been able to assemble the facts of the MacDonald case into his argument. He chose to deliberately ignore them just as he should be ignored.
At a time when Watson, Teina Paora and others remain in prison, when the investigation into the Crewe murders remains incomplete, whilst the public await the report in the compensation application by David Bain, while Alan Hall's bid to have his murder conviction quashed we need less anxiety. We need to let the police do their job without pressure to do some things which might be impossible, we probably need an independent or semi-independent review authority of more complex cases considered for suitability for prosecution. On that point I've wondered more at the expression of Ben Vanderkolk when the boot 'evidence' was destroyed in the MacDonald trial and perhaps we glimpsed for a moment a man feeling let down, perhaps even 'pushed' into a prosecution role of a case where he understood the evidence was marginal if not weak. However, that sits with other issues that need attention and a more positive attitude than the whining from Wellington.
Typically after the Ewen MacDonald trial we have knee jerks from the knitting brigade. In this case someone whom I gather is a reporter takes umbrage at the right to remain silent. Interestingly, this dude has got his wires crossed as much as his knitting needles. In recent memory we've had the Law changed to remove provocation as a defence on a murder charge. That resulted from the 'Weatherston' case where Weatherston unsuccessfully attempted to employ the defence but saw it rejected by the Jury. Slowly on that one, the Law worked properly, recognising that no provocation existed in that particular case, but the Law was changed anyway the result being that a beaten spouse, or an abused person has no defence of provocation if they somehow caused the death of their assailant during, or in proximity of some attack, of some kind, on them. Hard for me to follow that 'improvement'.
Above Stevenson makes out his case to dismantle the Law largely using emotion, a proposition that the average person is sophisticated, of sound mind and competency not to accidentally incriminate themselves at the hand of a skilled interrogator. Unfortunately Stevenson destroys his own, pleading, argument by overlooking that in the MacDonald case EM in fact was interrogated by his own choice. EM, whose brother is a senior detective, no doubt understood when read his rights that he anything he may have said could have been used against him. He in fact said that he was told by his family that he could expect a 'good grilling' and that 's what he got. The video interview lasting some where near 4 hours, conducted by a detective no doubt who had been briefed on at least some aspects by Crown Law. 'The grilling' was played to the Jury, I can't imagine any other question could have been asked about MacDonald's actions before or after the death of his brother-in-law. The inquisition was complete and MacDonald came through it in many commentators point of view strongly, as strongly as a man telling the truth in a situation where he understood his adult life depended on it and for which he knew he need not have answered a single question. So the system worked, but a busy knitter frets none the same.
I doubt any lawyer would have advised MacDonald to undertake that grilling. Though, having known the man, perhaps might have encouraged him to do the interview perhaps even sitting in with him. Stevenson makes 'his' list of how the law must be changed to prevent something which (like the Weatherson case) didn't happen. He scoffs at centuries of Law without even acquainting himself with the facts of the case he is critical of and my goodness he's not even a politician, as far as I know, trying to whip up public anxiety to erode our civil rights. It might have been worth taking a critical look at some of the points arriving from the wonder mind of Stevenson had he been able to assemble the facts of the MacDonald case into his argument. He chose to deliberately ignore them just as he should be ignored.
At a time when Watson, Teina Paora and others remain in prison, when the investigation into the Crewe murders remains incomplete, whilst the public await the report in the compensation application by David Bain, while Alan Hall's bid to have his murder conviction quashed we need less anxiety. We need to let the police do their job without pressure to do some things which might be impossible, we probably need an independent or semi-independent review authority of more complex cases considered for suitability for prosecution. On that point I've wondered more at the expression of Ben Vanderkolk when the boot 'evidence' was destroyed in the MacDonald trial and perhaps we glimpsed for a moment a man feeling let down, perhaps even 'pushed' into a prosecution role of a case where he understood the evidence was marginal if not weak. However, that sits with other issues that need attention and a more positive attitude than the whining from Wellington.
The question between Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss
Predictably, Kent Parker is celebrating another 'victory'. In his normal style of misinterpretation he convinces himself that something is achieved when in fact something is lost. This 'state of mind' goes right back to when he was going to complete a petition with 20,000 signatures and present it to the Minister of Justice. After 3 years nothing gained on that front. Similarly, he told the world that Joe Karam would never sue him, 2 years later and Kent is on his last legs heading toward a trial he can't possibly win and shutting out the fact that Trade Me, a fully resourced and financially powerful defendant in a similar action by Karam, apologised and settled.
There's no doubt Parker is delusional. If we needed a reminder we saw it on TV on Monday night, a 'musical protest' outside the High Court to an audience of none but for the delight of those that had confirmed what a nutter he has revealed himself to be. This was the man who was going to contest the election with a new party, a man with such 'deep' insight he can't connect that people remember all the things he has said he will do and achieve which over time he lets gradually slip off the table when a new 'venture' takes his fancy. The radio show last year where the host treated Kent like a fool but to which Kent remained blissfully unaware. We've been told about a concert tour last Xmas that never eventuated. Also how Kent claimed a victory last year in the litigation but this year admitted he had no idea of what he was doing earlier. We've seen him criticised for his lack of defence and Court Room nous by a High Court Judge year and then this year claim the same criticism against Karam as Kent endlessly reinvents the wheel.
So nothing new there. Kent deeper in it and still oblivious to reality, taking his own reading on the proceedings and being apparently unaware, or incapable, of understanding the reality that he's in a net of his own design. But suddenly the question between Parker and Purkiss emerges. Parker has acknowledged that Vic Purkiss is considering his situation with a view to settlement. One could observe that Purkiss has finally seen that the 'Emperor' has no clothes, is on the bridge of a sinking ship in a titanic storm and in blissful ignorance casting all others, including Vic, to perilous risk while playing a guitar.
If Purkiss has the common sense and guts to settle he should be applauded for that. His priorities can never have been over an old man he never met, or a spinner from Palmerston North, but to his family. Kent led Purkiss into the risky situation that he's in now. Purkiss was obviously unaware of the gravity of his situation and simply fed on the apparent insanity of Parker and the stirring of the witches of the hate-sites, those such as Curran and OBrien and others who were always supportive of others stupid enough to take risks to the applause of those who kept to the shadows. I recall on the radio show Vic saying that they were over the 'full bladder' scenario - something that had been significant to the misinformed in their persecution of David Bain. To me that was a positive sign that Purkiss had the ability to reason beyond the propaganda shoved down his neck by some ex cops and their media pals. There has always in the Bain case been time to consider in depth every point of debate, indeed there had always been plenty of time to consider all aspects of the case and evidence before the man was even charged. The stable door is open and the horse has fled, escaped into the truth of reasoning and logic all power to Vic Purkiss if he follows.
There's no doubt Parker is delusional. If we needed a reminder we saw it on TV on Monday night, a 'musical protest' outside the High Court to an audience of none but for the delight of those that had confirmed what a nutter he has revealed himself to be. This was the man who was going to contest the election with a new party, a man with such 'deep' insight he can't connect that people remember all the things he has said he will do and achieve which over time he lets gradually slip off the table when a new 'venture' takes his fancy. The radio show last year where the host treated Kent like a fool but to which Kent remained blissfully unaware. We've been told about a concert tour last Xmas that never eventuated. Also how Kent claimed a victory last year in the litigation but this year admitted he had no idea of what he was doing earlier. We've seen him criticised for his lack of defence and Court Room nous by a High Court Judge year and then this year claim the same criticism against Karam as Kent endlessly reinvents the wheel.
So nothing new there. Kent deeper in it and still oblivious to reality, taking his own reading on the proceedings and being apparently unaware, or incapable, of understanding the reality that he's in a net of his own design. But suddenly the question between Parker and Purkiss emerges. Parker has acknowledged that Vic Purkiss is considering his situation with a view to settlement. One could observe that Purkiss has finally seen that the 'Emperor' has no clothes, is on the bridge of a sinking ship in a titanic storm and in blissful ignorance casting all others, including Vic, to perilous risk while playing a guitar.
If Purkiss has the common sense and guts to settle he should be applauded for that. His priorities can never have been over an old man he never met, or a spinner from Palmerston North, but to his family. Kent led Purkiss into the risky situation that he's in now. Purkiss was obviously unaware of the gravity of his situation and simply fed on the apparent insanity of Parker and the stirring of the witches of the hate-sites, those such as Curran and OBrien and others who were always supportive of others stupid enough to take risks to the applause of those who kept to the shadows. I recall on the radio show Vic saying that they were over the 'full bladder' scenario - something that had been significant to the misinformed in their persecution of David Bain. To me that was a positive sign that Purkiss had the ability to reason beyond the propaganda shoved down his neck by some ex cops and their media pals. There has always in the Bain case been time to consider in depth every point of debate, indeed there had always been plenty of time to consider all aspects of the case and evidence before the man was even charged. The stable door is open and the horse has fled, escaped into the truth of reasoning and logic all power to Vic Purkiss if he follows.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Ewen MacDonald - a day later.
Well Ewen is not a free man today, in custody awaiting sentence on the arson and other charges. He's already been in custody in horrendous circumstances and I expect the Court to remit time for that. In fact I thought he may have been bailed yesterday in recognition of the less than substantial quality of the failed charge brought against him. He's been acquitted of the murder in what I greet as an excellent effort by the Jury to put aside the dramatics of the trial allowed by the Court. Weeping and distraught family members are real but Justice is not to observe emotion but to seek the truth unencumbered by feeling or emotion.
We must be very wary of surrendering to open Justice where efforts are made to influence opinion and potentially even the Jury. We saw it here, the OIC ushering the two wives into the Court through a side door. Deliberate, in my opinion, to impress the Jury with the 'danger' MacDonald presented, to also be seen as sympathetic to the women's plight - a friend against the emotional event. But what sort of 'friend' seeks to extend the number of times that the 'sympathy' walk is taken. One without good evidence I suggest. Apparently there is some new term for witnesses to be recalled to give evidence on each 'episode' of their evidence. New and dangerous territory to me and one which suggests a Jury might not otherwise follow the proceeding, patronising at best - manipulative at worst.
In the last 24 hrs we have seen the OIC defending her inquiry as though something had been achieved when in fact a lot of money was spent and a family in distress were further distressed. What price restraint? In this case restraint would have avoided an unnecessary trial and wouldn't have made resident in the family unnecessary conflict over an unprovable allegation. Ewen MacDonald wouldn't have escaped the charges he has pleaded guilty to, but the 'connection' to Scott's death would not have been the issue that has been so destructive as has proven. When Kylee left the Court screaming that EM had killed her husband the fact was that she didn't know that he did, but rather that she had been convinced that he did. Who may have convinced if not the police and their single piece of 'forensic' evidence, the boot print which eventually exonerated MacDonald rather than proved him guilty.
I doubt the Court will reflect upon it's decision to allow evidence of the poaching into the trial to show 'that MacDonald was a competent night hunter.' A decision that overlooked the type of weapon used in the killing as being one that required only basic competency to use to hit a target. While the prosecutor to whom much of the failure of the case rests at his feet, may be considering his 'conclusive' evidence of the pro line dive boots size 9. From which he did not have the adroitness to recover from even in his closing address. When he still insisted the boots were size 9 and were pro line. When in fact he had the 'opportunity' to say that MacDonald's boots quite likely were bigger, and that when he wore them he wore extra socks which may not be uncommon for hunters. But no he insisted the boot type and size were not what his own witness conceded under cross examination. If a Jury were to feel used, or indulged upon with lies, that may have been the time, if not by the procession of the family members required to trudge back into the Court many times each to give evidence that could have been given at one time.
The OIC Schwalager when commenting that the police had followed every lead made no mention of why the farm wasn't shut down at the outset, all firearms seized and individual statements taken as a matter of course. She also didn't reveal why Bryan Guy's shotgun was not examined until the following year, yet she maintained a position that a thorough investigation had taken place. Much like the detectives who gave self-praising evidence that they 'reduced' their suspect list from over 100 to 1. Need it be said now, the wrong 1.
We must be very wary of surrendering to open Justice where efforts are made to influence opinion and potentially even the Jury. We saw it here, the OIC ushering the two wives into the Court through a side door. Deliberate, in my opinion, to impress the Jury with the 'danger' MacDonald presented, to also be seen as sympathetic to the women's plight - a friend against the emotional event. But what sort of 'friend' seeks to extend the number of times that the 'sympathy' walk is taken. One without good evidence I suggest. Apparently there is some new term for witnesses to be recalled to give evidence on each 'episode' of their evidence. New and dangerous territory to me and one which suggests a Jury might not otherwise follow the proceeding, patronising at best - manipulative at worst.
In the last 24 hrs we have seen the OIC defending her inquiry as though something had been achieved when in fact a lot of money was spent and a family in distress were further distressed. What price restraint? In this case restraint would have avoided an unnecessary trial and wouldn't have made resident in the family unnecessary conflict over an unprovable allegation. Ewen MacDonald wouldn't have escaped the charges he has pleaded guilty to, but the 'connection' to Scott's death would not have been the issue that has been so destructive as has proven. When Kylee left the Court screaming that EM had killed her husband the fact was that she didn't know that he did, but rather that she had been convinced that he did. Who may have convinced if not the police and their single piece of 'forensic' evidence, the boot print which eventually exonerated MacDonald rather than proved him guilty.
I doubt the Court will reflect upon it's decision to allow evidence of the poaching into the trial to show 'that MacDonald was a competent night hunter.' A decision that overlooked the type of weapon used in the killing as being one that required only basic competency to use to hit a target. While the prosecutor to whom much of the failure of the case rests at his feet, may be considering his 'conclusive' evidence of the pro line dive boots size 9. From which he did not have the adroitness to recover from even in his closing address. When he still insisted the boots were size 9 and were pro line. When in fact he had the 'opportunity' to say that MacDonald's boots quite likely were bigger, and that when he wore them he wore extra socks which may not be uncommon for hunters. But no he insisted the boot type and size were not what his own witness conceded under cross examination. If a Jury were to feel used, or indulged upon with lies, that may have been the time, if not by the procession of the family members required to trudge back into the Court many times each to give evidence that could have been given at one time.
The OIC Schwalager when commenting that the police had followed every lead made no mention of why the farm wasn't shut down at the outset, all firearms seized and individual statements taken as a matter of course. She also didn't reveal why Bryan Guy's shotgun was not examined until the following year, yet she maintained a position that a thorough investigation had taken place. Much like the detectives who gave self-praising evidence that they 'reduced' their suspect list from over 100 to 1. Need it be said now, the wrong 1.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Kenty - busker bill?
Well at least Joe Karam took a photo of Kent busking outside the High Court in Auckland in what one of my friends described as a potential world wide YouTube hit of making an audience puke just from a sound bite.
I was intrigued by the 2 (or was it 3 other protesters.) I guess Kent was counting the 2 placards in the background and the open empty mouth of his guitar case that by 5pm only had two stray dogs urinate a donation inside.
Kent goes back in 2 weeks, and most of us know 2 week adjournments in the High Court indicate some urgency or frustration from the Court that one party is pushing the moron limits to the max.
How sad for camp mother to be reduced to singing outside the Court only to be saluted by 2 errant mutts pissing of the single remaining lettuce sandwich he brought all the way from Palmerston North.
I was intrigued by the 2 (or was it 3 other protesters.) I guess Kent was counting the 2 placards in the background and the open empty mouth of his guitar case that by 5pm only had two stray dogs urinate a donation inside.
Kent goes back in 2 weeks, and most of us know 2 week adjournments in the High Court indicate some urgency or frustration from the Court that one party is pushing the moron limits to the max.
How sad for camp mother to be reduced to singing outside the Court only to be saluted by 2 errant mutts pissing of the single remaining lettuce sandwich he brought all the way from Palmerston North.
Ewen MacDonald - We wait.
No verdict today. I'm a little surprised by that for reasons I've set out before. I think the trial has been constructed so that a Jury might well swim in speculation rather than facts. I note the Judge gave the required warnings not to pay attention to some evidence other than in a certain way, also to not extrapolate from certain evidence other possibilities. In my opinion a very confusing area for a Jury whom are told they're there as a cross-section of society to bring their experiences in order to judge one of their own kind. I think that all gets jumbled when a Jury are asked to ignore things, put things from their minds, not to use their life experience in reaching a reasonable conclusion but rather in some aspects simply shut things out.
I don't like it and I can hear those that say so what? I could say simply say experience, but I've read boards and public opinion sites in the last few weeks on this subject and there are not a few that voice their opinions based on the arson and so forth. To me that's a clear demonstration in what needed to be avoided in this trial, for the sake of the accused and for the sake of the families. My experience tells me that every effort in the world was made to have Callum Boe reveal some 'inner' details of the earlier crimes, the way EM acted and what he said - a whole speculative discourse to compare crimes of no violence other than to inanimate objects with another in which a man was killed on his own driveway. I believe the Jury needed not to look at things they would be told later to consider in another way than that which they might have first considered. I believe they needed incriminating facts analysed from that morning, not look elsewhere when there were none to be found.
The prosecutor warned the Jury not to look too closely at the evidence (or imo the lack of it) but use common sense, why possibly wouldn't a Juror accept that as an indication that the prosecutor 'knew' something that wasn't contained in the evidence that might be encompassed in the evidence the Judge would instruct them to ignore, and so it goes on. I repeat what I have said earlier if the Crown didn't have the evidence, and I still believe they don't, why proceed with the charges. Particularly in a manner so fraught with danger for the accused. As a country we need to have a broader belief in freedom and not in the anxiety to solve a crime, that might never be solved, or indeed be in danger of being 'solved' by a Miscarriage of Justice.
Names settle in the darkness tonight, like those of Arthur Thomas, Louise Nicholas and the baby Azaria where pictures were painted, primary evidence hidden, or produced from thin air. So tonight many close to this case will traverse a tightrope of emotions, most likely all not knowing the truth though some imagining for reasons of their own, and others told what it was - told in a way not supported by evidence. That's Justice fragile as it might be at times, and something to be learnt from and improved upon
I don't like it and I can hear those that say so what? I could say simply say experience, but I've read boards and public opinion sites in the last few weeks on this subject and there are not a few that voice their opinions based on the arson and so forth. To me that's a clear demonstration in what needed to be avoided in this trial, for the sake of the accused and for the sake of the families. My experience tells me that every effort in the world was made to have Callum Boe reveal some 'inner' details of the earlier crimes, the way EM acted and what he said - a whole speculative discourse to compare crimes of no violence other than to inanimate objects with another in which a man was killed on his own driveway. I believe the Jury needed not to look at things they would be told later to consider in another way than that which they might have first considered. I believe they needed incriminating facts analysed from that morning, not look elsewhere when there were none to be found.
The prosecutor warned the Jury not to look too closely at the evidence (or imo the lack of it) but use common sense, why possibly wouldn't a Juror accept that as an indication that the prosecutor 'knew' something that wasn't contained in the evidence that might be encompassed in the evidence the Judge would instruct them to ignore, and so it goes on. I repeat what I have said earlier if the Crown didn't have the evidence, and I still believe they don't, why proceed with the charges. Particularly in a manner so fraught with danger for the accused. As a country we need to have a broader belief in freedom and not in the anxiety to solve a crime, that might never be solved, or indeed be in danger of being 'solved' by a Miscarriage of Justice.
Names settle in the darkness tonight, like those of Arthur Thomas, Louise Nicholas and the baby Azaria where pictures were painted, primary evidence hidden, or produced from thin air. So tonight many close to this case will traverse a tightrope of emotions, most likely all not knowing the truth though some imagining for reasons of their own, and others told what it was - told in a way not supported by evidence. That's Justice fragile as it might be at times, and something to be learnt from and improved upon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)