Looks like it, judging by the tweaking of the rules as follows..
Message board
The message board is provided for the enjoyment of the entire Trade Me community and is moderated by them and, at times, by Trade Me staff. The person posting a message on the boards may be liable for its content. Trade Me is not responsible for the content.
The basic rules are:
It's a family show
Keep your messages clean. Don't start messages about offensive or contentious topics, or post messages that include swearing, offensive or adult content.
Respect others
Don't abuse or harass people on the message board. Personal attacks are not acceptable. You may express a view on an issue, or criticise a particular approach. But the message boards are not a place for you to attack a person or their character.
The message board is also not an appropriate place to raise concerns about other traders or their auctions. If you have concerns about an auction, please use Community Watch (at the bottom of each auction). If you're concerned about a trader, please contact us directly.
People have a right to their privacy. Don't post any contact details in the message board, including your own, or reveal personal information about others.
No commercial use or self-promotion
Over-posting or spamming of the message board ruins it for others. The message board is for open discussion only, so please don't advertise any auction, product, or service. This includes trying to facilitate a trade through the message boards (including wanted postings).
Keep it legal
In particular, do not name, drop hints, or post any other information which identifies members of the public who have name suppression.
You also need to be careful you don't post defamatory statements about anyone. A widely used definition is:
A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit. The statement may be in the form of words or pictures, visual images, gestures, and other means of signifying meaning.
Finally, anyone who breaches the rules above may have their message board privileges or membership removed.
In a week where there has been Judicial scrutiny of TM's message board operations they change their rules, or at least broaden them so that the very dim-witted might be better able to follow that when they post they're responsible for what they post, no less than TM are responsible for what is published on their boards (although the later are yet to fully concede that point.)
The moves, while short of pre-editing of posts, are welcome. Board users need to know that the can't attack and out others on TM boards, not only that they can't continue defamatory harassment campaigns on TM boards and what they say about others must be sustainable in fact and not be a backyard over the fence chat, or as the fat obook once claimed like a 'chat in the pub.'
The longest running Bain thread is gone. The idiots who have thought themselves to be above the law are on notice, those that have cut and pasted misinformation for years on end are under scrutiny, the Law speaks. Specifics of what are harassment and defamation are spelt out for the dim-witted who previously 'thought' they were entitled to harass families, stalk children and defame at will.
The world will not suddenly change, but it will certainly improve. A new decorum of public speech will be recognised as that of any type of publication. The hate-sites are pushed to the side, no longer able to imagine that TM will fight for them, or that their conduct as hate-sites is mirrored by what TM have appeared to set as precedent, because that has thankfully finally changed, or at least showed the signs of intention of change - if TM can maintain the discipline.
While there remain matters to be resolved, and others have long been critical of TM's policies, inaction, and inconsistency, a step is made, one which I've maintained will be easily adapted to by message board communities and consistent with the Law.
But will the sisters get it, eventually as things progress, the brighter among have already fled leaving the dullards, of which there are considerable number, to keep poking their fingers in electrical socks and touch spinning saw blades with the fascination of a moron for sparkling and spinning things. Spinners...hmmh.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Whoops Trade Me, looks like there is such a thing as defamatory harassment afterall.
If a point of law lives before the Courts it becomes a precedent, whether if fails or succeeds and eventually is polished into a life of its own. At the moment there is recognition that if people deliberately lie about another on a message board, such as Trade Me, or continue to target a person or their family in a way likely to cause them to feel harmed or harassed then an offence is committed under the common law by both the speaker and the publisher.
It's a very welcome advance as far as I'm concerned to know that if a 'men' like Bill Rodie and Ralph Taylor, publish day after day lies on a message board, then both they and the message board owner maintain a liability. That's very fair, and it's the way it works in the traditional media, it's something that protects people, it's the Courts recognising that in the real world a person, or a person's family cannot be stalked or harassed by anonymous creeps, have their children and family discussed by lurking strangers. Equally importantly it recognises that whatever a person says publicly, by way of message board or not, they have a responsibility to the truth when in fact what they write can impact negatively on the lives of others, and if they're not sure of the truth that they should button their lips because what they speak may be what bites them later. Who could ever promote the idea that the world is not a better place when inhabitated by the truth?
One of the words of the moment is 'inaction.' Trade Me may have fallen about laughing by the situation that 'inaction' could constitute a liability, when they stop giggling perhaps they should research situations where not providing the necessities of life or not assisting someone in peril (being 'inactive') or the probably even more common suit that might address lawbreakers 'act or omission' are recognised as components of offending. Actually, TM may not actually be falling about laughing and could be questioning the quality of their legal advice.
It's a very welcome advance as far as I'm concerned to know that if a 'men' like Bill Rodie and Ralph Taylor, publish day after day lies on a message board, then both they and the message board owner maintain a liability. That's very fair, and it's the way it works in the traditional media, it's something that protects people, it's the Courts recognising that in the real world a person, or a person's family cannot be stalked or harassed by anonymous creeps, have their children and family discussed by lurking strangers. Equally importantly it recognises that whatever a person says publicly, by way of message board or not, they have a responsibility to the truth when in fact what they write can impact negatively on the lives of others, and if they're not sure of the truth that they should button their lips because what they speak may be what bites them later. Who could ever promote the idea that the world is not a better place when inhabitated by the truth?
One of the words of the moment is 'inaction.' Trade Me may have fallen about laughing by the situation that 'inaction' could constitute a liability, when they stop giggling perhaps they should research situations where not providing the necessities of life or not assisting someone in peril (being 'inactive') or the probably even more common suit that might address lawbreakers 'act or omission' are recognised as components of offending. Actually, TM may not actually be falling about laughing and could be questioning the quality of their legal advice.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Dear Nos,
I can't help but thinking about the fleeing Syrian refugees, I saw some of the families being interviewed on TV and it kind of breaks my heart nos. I saw an old man surrounded by soldiers and being kicked by his own countrymen like the only law is repression and might, and that the old man's life and all the good he might have done, and love he shared was kicked from him the desert dust of his own homeland. The school girl managing a tentative smile, and saying she missed her friends while she sheltered under a tree with her father and siblings while they rested on their march to the border - everything I believe about a homeland and cherishing the land and memories of folks since gone from empty homes and abandoned schools.
Now we have a mass of volcanic dust circling the country, as if it observes us in our frail and stumbling ways trying to raise from dust a homeland in these southern isles, sprinkling and falling among us while we struggle for the moment, forgetting others and becoming mean about all except our own preservation. In Christchurch the shakes continue and people fret about their children and their futures, thinking of the question of refugees and pioneers who came and raised buildings from hewn rock and sawed lumber for learning and a place to be shared. It makes me sad, because I remember some of the young men lifting rock and fallen beam to rescue those trapped, and in that moment young and old were one, for a time people were outside themselves, unafraid to care and help, not anxious about who others were apart from that they were human and cared.
I wanted to write something happy nos, for the children in the desert and our own ones lost here but my strength seems gone for the moment, and I know I must wait watching out for the angels among us to come to lead us home.
Now we have a mass of volcanic dust circling the country, as if it observes us in our frail and stumbling ways trying to raise from dust a homeland in these southern isles, sprinkling and falling among us while we struggle for the moment, forgetting others and becoming mean about all except our own preservation. In Christchurch the shakes continue and people fret about their children and their futures, thinking of the question of refugees and pioneers who came and raised buildings from hewn rock and sawed lumber for learning and a place to be shared. It makes me sad, because I remember some of the young men lifting rock and fallen beam to rescue those trapped, and in that moment young and old were one, for a time people were outside themselves, unafraid to care and help, not anxious about who others were apart from that they were human and cared.
I wanted to write something happy nos, for the children in the desert and our own ones lost here but my strength seems gone for the moment, and I know I must wait watching out for the angels among us to come to lead us home.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Suicide gives no answer.
On a day it is revealed that 13 teenagers suicided in our North Island community of Kawerau in the last year, we also learn that David Gaynor has died after an 'accident' after an after ball in Auckland.
The following morning after Jordan Elliot of Kawerau hung himself his mother Michelle, finding him dead, screamed at his corpse the question 'why have you done this to yourself?' Of course he couldn't answer, his life was cut short in a way his mother might never understand of how her boy had gone, raw and mean for those left to wonder.
Meanwhile David is dead. Read from the news that King's College is 'reeling' after booze accusations against the school and students. But whether the booze accusations and David's death are linked is not established except for good newsprint copy while a hungry press seemingly delight in the 'fact' one of the Country's most prestigious schools has to deal with the death of a 4th pupil in 2 years for which, the blame, can be placed in accusatory headlines while a family and school friends are left dazed.
Michelle Elliot spoke about her loss and the agony of not understanding why her son had left so suddenly to death. About David, and what happened to him, we don't know except that he too is also dead, and forget for the moment that it is not news at all that a boy is lost until his family, like Michelle Elliot, has decided to do, speaks out. But David's name of course is attached to an illustrious school while the school to which Jordan attended escapes attention.
Suicide gives no answer, nor does traversing 'facts' that can never be connected but it is recognised that NZers kill themselves in great numbers and a vulnerable group are teenagers, and that alcohol or grief, or both, feelings of inadequacy, of missing friends whom one might be somehow connected with again in death, of the responsibilities of preparing to take the helm in one's own life where formerly a mother and father led with safe hands might be avoided and then they are gone.
So Michelle Elliot, tattoo showing on one breast, living in a town that the locals recognise as struggling, and the family of David wanting prosperity and happiness for their son are visited by the same horror question for which there is no answer. Why? The question for all of us to recognise those kids are just that, even when they seem suddenly arrived from another place and to walk with them so that they might always know that love is an answer, the only one when gambling chips are considered being put down.
The following morning after Jordan Elliot of Kawerau hung himself his mother Michelle, finding him dead, screamed at his corpse the question 'why have you done this to yourself?' Of course he couldn't answer, his life was cut short in a way his mother might never understand of how her boy had gone, raw and mean for those left to wonder.
Meanwhile David is dead. Read from the news that King's College is 'reeling' after booze accusations against the school and students. But whether the booze accusations and David's death are linked is not established except for good newsprint copy while a hungry press seemingly delight in the 'fact' one of the Country's most prestigious schools has to deal with the death of a 4th pupil in 2 years for which, the blame, can be placed in accusatory headlines while a family and school friends are left dazed.
Michelle Elliot spoke about her loss and the agony of not understanding why her son had left so suddenly to death. About David, and what happened to him, we don't know except that he too is also dead, and forget for the moment that it is not news at all that a boy is lost until his family, like Michelle Elliot, has decided to do, speaks out. But David's name of course is attached to an illustrious school while the school to which Jordan attended escapes attention.
Suicide gives no answer, nor does traversing 'facts' that can never be connected but it is recognised that NZers kill themselves in great numbers and a vulnerable group are teenagers, and that alcohol or grief, or both, feelings of inadequacy, of missing friends whom one might be somehow connected with again in death, of the responsibilities of preparing to take the helm in one's own life where formerly a mother and father led with safe hands might be avoided and then they are gone.
So Michelle Elliot, tattoo showing on one breast, living in a town that the locals recognise as struggling, and the family of David wanting prosperity and happiness for their son are visited by the same horror question for which there is no answer. Why? The question for all of us to recognise those kids are just that, even when they seem suddenly arrived from another place and to walk with them so that they might always know that love is an answer, the only one when gambling chips are considered being put down.
Friday, June 10, 2011
I must correct my claim that Scott Watson's
lawyers review and comment on Kirsty McDonald's report before any decision by the Minister as being unprecedented, because the same is happening in the Compensation Case of David Bain. As far back as 2010 The Minister instructed Justice Department Solicitors to work with the Lawyers of David Bain. So in fact the Watson and Bain cases are aligned in that respect, falling within the same basket.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.
The idiot kuklkulbelle strikes again...
Morons these days, they're not getting any thinner - between the ears or across the butt.
Sensing Murder looks pretty damned good in comparison to some of the far-fetched nonsense I have seen in NZ courts. Hell's bells we even had a situation once where a layman contrived an apparatus to illustrate how a murdered man committed suicide. You'd never believe it but props needed included headgear,rods and another person to help illustrate this unlikely scenario. Yes, I'd say that Sensing Murder looks rational compared to some defence teams efforts
Quote
kulkkulbelle (406 ) 9:35 pm, Thu 9 Jun #32329
Ah, the dear idiot sisters, trying to get some purchase from another lie by kuklkkulbelle. Some readers will remember she has the only copy in the world of a pathologists report so secret it wasn.t even used in the Bain re-trial!
She's all giggly and snotty (what's new with that?) over the skull cap, she's claiming that the skullcap was 'contrived' by a layman (she actually means the Irish pathologist) when in fact it was produced by the Crown (Dempster perhaps, to show the trajectory of the wound to rotten daddy's head.) It follows then that all the idiot sisters pedo pals fall about laughing at the exhibit produced by the Crown, which, nevertheless, showed the ease with which Robin Bain shot himself after murdering his family. Duh, duh for that.
The cap had a 600mm rod attached to show the trajectory and the defence threaded the rifle onto the rod to show the ease of Robin's suicide. But of course the dumbos felt that this showed that Robin needed assistance because they're so thick they thought he was wearing a skull cap on which he needed to thread the rifle when shooting himself. How thick can you be? In the pedo pals case - very.
Sensing Murder looks pretty damned good in comparison to some of the far-fetched nonsense I have seen in NZ courts. Hell's bells we even had a situation once where a layman contrived an apparatus to illustrate how a murdered man committed suicide. You'd never believe it but props needed included headgear,rods and another person to help illustrate this unlikely scenario. Yes, I'd say that Sensing Murder looks rational compared to some defence teams efforts
Quote
kulkkulbelle (406 ) 9:35 pm, Thu 9 Jun #32329
Ah, the dear idiot sisters, trying to get some purchase from another lie by kuklkkulbelle. Some readers will remember she has the only copy in the world of a pathologists report so secret it wasn.t even used in the Bain re-trial!
She's all giggly and snotty (what's new with that?) over the skull cap, she's claiming that the skullcap was 'contrived' by a layman (she actually means the Irish pathologist) when in fact it was produced by the Crown (Dempster perhaps, to show the trajectory of the wound to rotten daddy's head.) It follows then that all the idiot sisters pedo pals fall about laughing at the exhibit produced by the Crown, which, nevertheless, showed the ease with which Robin Bain shot himself after murdering his family. Duh, duh for that.
The cap had a 600mm rod attached to show the trajectory and the defence threaded the rifle onto the rod to show the ease of Robin's suicide. But of course the dumbos felt that this showed that Robin needed assistance because they're so thick they thought he was wearing a skull cap on which he needed to thread the rifle when shooting himself. How thick can you be? In the pedo pals case - very.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Scott Watson: A peek at Justice?
An announcement today from Justice Minister Simon Power that a report from QC Kristy McDonald will be passed to Watson's lawyers for comment before a final decision is made by the Minister - one which would, it appears, fall after the next elections.
As far as I know this is unprecedented in NZ Law and must be welcome to the New Zealand public for a number of reasons. Firstly it is in the interests of Justice that the report be tested by those defending Scott Watson before it is decided upon or made public, because NZ history is littered with reports that remain untested or discredited but which however have been relied upon to wield the sword of Justice against the aggrieved and innocent. Think of the 'inquiries' including applications for 'The Royal Prerogative of Mercy' into the Thomas case before Arthur was pardoned, and indeed consider the twisted people who trot out the IPCA report into the Bain case as some sort of vindication for their failed cause.
The reality is that these reports can be poorly constructed and then shored up with a bitter resolve by the authorities. Far better, as we see today, to allow the Watson defence team the right to comment before the battle lines are drawn over any report. This also allows a 'conference' type opportunity to resolve issues between the parties whilst also narrowing them to a point that they could be taken to Court for Judicial review if a substantial conflict remains.
The 'talking and dialogue' between the parties promotes far better the Public Interest than lines drawn in bitterness. It also clearly demonstrates that the Courts can become involved by way of Judicial Review and it allows a construction of the 'essence' of what might have been a 'wrongful conviction' and allows a test of that construction because it is evident that 'wrongful convictions' aren't accidents, but deliberate. Additionally, part of that deliberate effort is both the avoidance of 'unhelpful' evidence and grooming of other evidence. So when Kirsty McDonald has reported that she was unable to contact 'one of the two secret witnesses who testified against Watson' it is plainly evident to a healthy sceptic that the case against Watson, is, as it was always, in trouble. Better for that trouble to be analysed in a methodical and deliberate way by representatives of both parties that for a gulf to be widened.
And it is to be repeated and not forgotten, that the Courts, as they should, remain accessible to consider the validity of any decision made by any elected politician or their nominee. Also that the Courts must bear the full weight of the healthy scepticism that attaches to 'miracle evidence' and that which has been described elsewhere as 'golden bullet' evidence that emerges to bolster a struggling investigation, not withstanding that the reality that the evidence wasn't 'found' when first look for.
So a hopeful step both for Scott Watson and his family, and for New Zealanders generally to know that when it can be plainly seen, that things are so wrong that smokescreens, prejudice or reliance upon such things as 'secret prison witnesses' are observed as desperate and unjust.
As far as I know this is unprecedented in NZ Law and must be welcome to the New Zealand public for a number of reasons. Firstly it is in the interests of Justice that the report be tested by those defending Scott Watson before it is decided upon or made public, because NZ history is littered with reports that remain untested or discredited but which however have been relied upon to wield the sword of Justice against the aggrieved and innocent. Think of the 'inquiries' including applications for 'The Royal Prerogative of Mercy' into the Thomas case before Arthur was pardoned, and indeed consider the twisted people who trot out the IPCA report into the Bain case as some sort of vindication for their failed cause.
The reality is that these reports can be poorly constructed and then shored up with a bitter resolve by the authorities. Far better, as we see today, to allow the Watson defence team the right to comment before the battle lines are drawn over any report. This also allows a 'conference' type opportunity to resolve issues between the parties whilst also narrowing them to a point that they could be taken to Court for Judicial review if a substantial conflict remains.
The 'talking and dialogue' between the parties promotes far better the Public Interest than lines drawn in bitterness. It also clearly demonstrates that the Courts can become involved by way of Judicial Review and it allows a construction of the 'essence' of what might have been a 'wrongful conviction' and allows a test of that construction because it is evident that 'wrongful convictions' aren't accidents, but deliberate. Additionally, part of that deliberate effort is both the avoidance of 'unhelpful' evidence and grooming of other evidence. So when Kirsty McDonald has reported that she was unable to contact 'one of the two secret witnesses who testified against Watson' it is plainly evident to a healthy sceptic that the case against Watson, is, as it was always, in trouble. Better for that trouble to be analysed in a methodical and deliberate way by representatives of both parties that for a gulf to be widened.
And it is to be repeated and not forgotten, that the Courts, as they should, remain accessible to consider the validity of any decision made by any elected politician or their nominee. Also that the Courts must bear the full weight of the healthy scepticism that attaches to 'miracle evidence' and that which has been described elsewhere as 'golden bullet' evidence that emerges to bolster a struggling investigation, not withstanding that the reality that the evidence wasn't 'found' when first look for.
So a hopeful step both for Scott Watson and his family, and for New Zealanders generally to know that when it can be plainly seen, that things are so wrong that smokescreens, prejudice or reliance upon such things as 'secret prison witnesses' are observed as desperate and unjust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)