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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
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)