Sensible - really?

From a correspondent, and the link from Sunday Star Times:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7933892/Does-sentencing-trust-cross-a-line

It’s the bit at the end that I am particularly disturbed by – Sophie Elliot’s mother talking about vengeance. This is lynch mob stuff again.

We need more clarity about the purpose of sentencing. It has multiple purposes: punishment, removal of dangerous people from the public, rehabilitation. Nothing, but nothing, can undo a violent crime (as opposed to other crimes: theft can be repaid and so-on). But most violent crimes are committed by young males, and they grow out of it, usually, and can go on to be valuable members of society.

I think we need appropriate sentencing, where perpetrators’ punishments fit the crimes and they can learn from it. Examples?

Graffiti artists should be made to clean graffiti off – bloody hard work – and given an outlet for their ‘artistic’ or destructive impulses.

Drunk drivers should be made to work in some way with the aftermath of accidents involving drunk driving – clearing up, car or site repair, assisting with those disabled by such things.

Someone like Ewen MacDonald could be made to work with, say, the SPCA, helping with injured and mistreated animals.

In these circumstances, the convicts would be surrounded by those dealing with the aftermath of crimes similar to their own. They would see the disapproval, and learn about the damage it does, and, I believe, learn some deeper lessons about what it is to be a good person.

This is basic child psychology. If a child does something naughty and is told off or sent to their room, they are punished and just get resentful, and if they don’t do it again it’s for fear of being punished. If they are made to put things right, they learn, and don’t do it again because they have learned why it is wrong. One episode of drawing on the wall followed by a bit of hard work cleaning it off and perhaps repainting the wall is a lesson that lasts. 

Some very interesting comment to which I would like to add  later about the denials featuring in the response to questions of the SST, but firstly about this comment by Kim Workman.

It seems that SST sensible modelled the trappings of 'Christie's Law' from something similar in Britain. No trouble with using other models, but it also raises the spectre of McVicar waiting for tragedies to happen on which he can launch further designs of his intentions. Because McVicar didn't deny Kim Workman's allegation it can probably be accepted as true. What isn't said, but can be implied, is that Garth was waiting for such a tragedy that befell Christie to give fruition to a longer term plan.

"Garth has always been looking for something that looks like Christie's Law - to match the success of Sarah's Law, in Britain," says the Trust's long-time opponent, Kim Workman, a cop turned justice reformer.

"But when they produced the T-shirts and the hats and were selling them . . . it was just so tawdry. It was like they were marketing the whole incident."

Workman says the family's emotional response is understandable. His overriding concern is that victims like the Marceaus become trapped in their grief by the Trust and are left unable to ever reach peace.

Further along Workman says that evidence shows that if people lose sight of social change, and if it does for punitive purposes and of vengeance and retribution that this actually impedes people's hearing. More confirming evidence on that later from a SST proponent.

A drug and alcohol counsellor Roger Brooking called the Trusts's actions 'disgusting' and emotional blackmail that McVicar uses to attract media and public attention to push his get tough agenda. For her own part Tracey Marceau denies this and says...

"I think the Trust helped us deal with the situation and give us strength to do what we've done. I'm quite sure the people that criticise him are only in it for their own agendas."

However, she doesn't point out what she thinks those agendas may be. Although Roger Brooking's comment about Garth's 'get tough agenda' may give a clue that the 'common' enemy is first of all offenders, then secondly anybody who does't agree with the Trusts 'universal' views as to what should happen to them. In fact his 'deputy' Ruth Money spells it out...

No matter how you cut up the figures, crime is growing and is swelling, so more people are aware of victimisation."

As the article goes on to show, and as most people are aware, crime rates are falling - in NZ's case quite markedly to a 25 year below. This raises the question about the honesty of the campaign, why does Ruth Money claim a growing crime rate when evidence shows otherwise? This is the same person who was recently quoted as wanted to help and guide Judges, going by her own performance her 'guidance' would be toward perpetuating myth in order to achieve harsher prison sentences and prison conditions. That is displayed again as the Money and McVicar team continue on unblinkingly with McVicar claiming that the Trust never approach victims. When the reporter gives two instances where they have Money, despite the reversal of another SST claim, simply 'clarifies' that particular approaches were "It's not like I was saying this is what the Trust is about, come and join us," 

I see. So an approach is not an approach if it's 'not like I was saying' mmmh. The differences between what the SST advertise and what they do continue to be at odds according to evidence recorded in the article. First of all they claim they don't drag people to the platform (speech dias) which is abruptly contradicted by Priest John Howell who gives an example of exactly the metaphorical dragging of a victim to the 'platform' to give a speech. A strange connotation arises between platforms and the gallows in my mind - obvious something Garth and Ruth are unable to see. In the particular case John Howell spoke about he mentioned huge SST rallies in the town where the crime happened and how the deceased victim's parents chose not to speak although an Aunt did  who has since stopped speaking at Trust events.

A little further along the reporter, Kristy Johnston, reports or makes the following resounding comment....Perhaps the real problem in the justice debate is that, in disagreeing with McVicar, it can look like you're attacking a victim's right to be angry or to get better help.
A repeat of what various other people have said, certainly true. For example who would publicly voice any surprise about a nude calendar of those impacted by crime. It is possibly the first for the world, and may not be seen by a wider audience in the same way hoped for by it's promoters.

I think the article brilliantly demonstrates the points made by Workman, Brooking and others. But it is the voices of Garth and Ruth that reveal that they deliberately mislead the public and no doubt there own members. I guess most people would agree that any relationship that starts out with deceit is flawed. All of the things SST take issue with, Judges, Lawyers and the Courts they display themselves. The concept of corruption or 'people out of touch' is not demonstrated in their arguments, but their own dishonesty is making it very hard not to concur with those interviewed speaking about vulnerable people being taken advantage of and having their state of grieving and loss both aggravated and extended. The very idea of vengeance as I mentioned above is confirmed in the words of a Trust proponent Lesley Elliot...

Lesley admits being in a group like the Trust does "incite you a little bit more", but said it wasn't morbid when the group got together and told their stories each year at the group's annual conference. She says for the first two or three years she didn't feel vengeful, but feels more as time goes on.

"I start to think more about what we've lost. Sophie would have been 27 this year - that sort of makes me feel vengeful. He's got his life and Sophie doesn't have hers. So I guess the critics [of the Trust] are right but in another way, who's going to make the changes if you're not getting people who have been there, done that?"

I admire her for her honesty, particularly where she points out that what would have been milestones for her lost daughter make her feel vengeful. I like to think that the words of the opponents of SST mentioned in the article, all of whom are specialists in dealing with victims and some with offenders alike - show that Lesley and others like her would have a heck of a lot to contribute in a positive of embracing healing over hate.

As for the forthright words and common sense of my correspondent captured above.  'One episode of drawing on the wall followed by a bit of hard work cleaning it off and perhaps repainting the wall is a lesson that lasts.' I believe they reflect societal concerns, not only about basic right and wrong and remedies, but a release into understanding that hating is a power given away in increments of loss of love from the soul, but that healing, self-healing, with help if necessary, builds love of oneself - and for the one lost to show, that love finally overcame all, including grief.

Bob Jones kicks the wasps nest!

Something like a 101 comments before the Herald shut shop on them on the issue of Bob's call for David Bain to be paid compensation. Comments were about 50% either way, despite the hate-siters  'bombarding' the board and 'liking' each others posts in a rather incestuous way.

Interestingly, not one of the hate-siters, led by Parker and Don Bain, had any problem with the point made that David nor his team had received a copy of Binnie's report and recommendation. Obviously that David had evidence supporting his innocence hidden for over a decade doesn't bother them either - they are consistent to a fault. They have no problem with the unfairness that has been characterised in the treatment of David by the authorities. Whether they have the capacity to realise it or not they are clearly unable to accept that fairness and due process is part of Justice, whether a person is considered guilty or not.

Of course because they fall at the first hurdle they also do not understand that before making comments about identified people one must be sure of the truth of what they say. Parker faces charges right now because he ignored that, and it looks like his new mate Don Bain might well find himself in the same boat. Why would Don Bain continue to say that David's prints were found in blood on the rifle when there was no sustained evidence that they were found in anything other than gun oil, and in the carrying position, prints of indeterminate age of course and certainly not in blood. He speaks of the rifle being wiped down when in fact there were many fingerprints found on it, I guess he thinks people are so stupid as to believe those fingerprints were somehow 'wiped' around. Too much to repeat from this certifiable idiot from Victoria University but here's another humdinger...

The defence also used taxpayer's money to scour every corner of the earth until they found an "expert" contortionist who could demonstrate how Robin may have - just - been able to hold the gun and reach the trigger to shoot himself. No explanation as to why RB wouldn't have simply pulled the silencer off and held the gun to his temple with his dominant hand.

Sounds good if you don't know the evidence, or in Don Bain's case, distort it. The primary scene examiner and police Pathologist Dr Dempster actually lived in Dunedin in fact was called to the Bain household on the morning of the murders-suicide. He didn't need to be searched for and agreed that far from a contortionist's pose that it was quite feasible or perfectly compatible with suicide, this from the only pathologist to give evidence that actually studied Robin's wound other than by photograph. The same man who agreed that the blood smears on Robin's hands were 'heavily stained, rinsed but not scrubbed.'

In all the comments, and I noted nothing new from the tired old dis-proven or completely false stuff, not a single hate-siter wrote about that blood on Robin's hands that arrived there before his death and necessarily therefore during the annihilation of his family. Not one person, prepared in all other ways to persecute David would refer to some of the most, if not the most telling forensic evidence against Robin Bain. Somehow the strip search which showed that David had no injuries also was left out, so was the fact that the Crown conceded that the computer had been turned on before David arrived home. And so it went on, laboriously and hateful as always.

However, and more to a point of the article, why hasn't David Bain been given a copy of Binnie's report? He is the man central to this application for compensation, in fact the man who made the application. Why is it kept secret from him while Cabinet apparently consider it? A few on the Herald site repeated some opinion that the contents of the report present 'difficulties' for the Justice Department. We recently heard the Minister speak out firmly against those charged with upholding the law who might act in a similar way to prison inmates, in other words who break the law. The law certainly has been broken in the Bain case and a further clue to the direction of the report in getting to terms with the 'mechanics' of the Miscarriage of Justice might well be that Ian Binnie interviewed two police officers, one who admitted in evidence to misleading the court and who spoke of 'a stance' of the Crown being the reason why critical evidence was hidden.

So why mindless fools like Parker, Don Bain continue to try and make square pegs fit round holes the point Bob Jones was making went right over their heads: the report is the business of David Bain and he should have had a copy of it immediately that it was available. Particularly in the circumstances that his application for compensation wasn't rejected out of hand. Although the 'rules' may not be exactly clear on this, other law is precise about the rights of an individual to know what information is held about them, and there can't possibly be any question when the information flow started with an application by the person seeking to know the contents of a critical report.

By reason that such applications are few and far between Judith Collins doesn't seem to realise that the public are entitled to think that David and his support team should not be seen to be having information withheld from them, particularly where information was withheld that resulted in false imprisonment - that is part of the reason for this application for compensation. Until Bob Jones spelt it out I'd been mesmerised by the whole concept of the Government setting itself up as Judge and Jury. The fact they called an independent jurist in to do the review quelled those concerns somewhat, particularly when the minister said the report would eventually be made public. If the public will know later are we to expect that is how David Bain will find out, when the report is released from a MOJ site?

Judith Collins gave a time-table which should have seen a decision made by now. If it is the case that there in an 'awkwardness' within the Ministry over the contents of the report why should any concern be shown for that other than to protect the 'privacy' of some who might be charged or face other sanctions. That isn't David Bain's problem now, that was his problem during 12 years he was falsely held in prison. Nobody was protecting the interests or privacy of David Bain, the vitriol on the Herald site shows that. Yet still he is treated with contempt by the very people who falsely held him captive - I wonder if the Minister understands that many of the public see an association between the two events: hatred and secrecy.

Judith Collins generally presents as black and white, conservative. She has told the public that she will hold people accountable, but right now it looks like David is being held accountable for the feelings or the wrong doing of those that rail roaded him into prison and through our own Court of Appeal.

Greg King - a tribute.

The news broke on Saturday that Greg King had been found dead near his car on a deserted road in the Wellington hills. The circumstances as reported by the police were not suspicious and the case has become the subject of a Coroner's report sometime in the future. There is speculation abroad that his death may have been suicide, diabetes driven or perhaps an unfortunate combination of both. He was 42 and by all accounts destined to achieve much greater things in his life. Of course that tends to overlook that he had achieved an enormous amount in his profession - the Law.

He was not only the youngest person to ever provide a defence for an accused in a murder trial but had a number of times argued New Zealand cases before the Privy Council in England, a rare event for any lawyer once let alone a number of times. There was something disarmingly honest about Greg that was also very rare. In any age men like to promote their sporting prowess of earlier years and as fisherman get old the fish they once landed on a particular day are always getting bigger. In Greg's amateur boxing career he described bluntly himself as a 'canvas kisser.'

As an advocate for his clients, and while he took on many unpopular cases where the defendants  were literally hated, he still managed to find a rapport with the family of the victims, hard enough in any language. He was also the man prepared to engage with The Sensible Sentencing Trust, not agreeing with them necessarily, prepared however to listen to their arguments and advance his own. A single thing that has emerged about Greg from all quarters in the last few days, and from both 'sides of the fence,' was that he was a man that was prepared to listen. Someone that even if he might not agree with others respected their rights to an opinion. This same ability was that which the Auckland Crown Prosecutor spoke about publicly, that much of Greg's work was done unknown to the public in High Court and Supreme Court appeals, the analysis of Law that shapes the future and addresses the past.

All remarkable enough until we learn that Greg supported and helped sponsor his local rugby league club, and recently expressed hope of sponsoring an up and coming young boxer. So the two sides of the man working at all levels, advocating in the Highest Courts or encouraging young men even from the wrong side of the tracks into a sporting life. His cup was very full with kindness and concern for others. Today Bob Jones noted that he would have a go at Greg about some of Greg's clients and the greatest concession he might receive was that the particular person perhaps wasn't a nice person. So even in the confines and confidentiality of the home of his own friends Greg maintained discretion, one, which it seems, allowed him to see the good in others.

On the subject of friends Greg seems to have been one for all seasons. According to ex prison inmate John Barlow Greg took his unsuccessful appeal to the Privy Council free of charge. An appeal which I note from the small amount I knew about it should have won,  a case where the police scrapped round and found a scientist to give later discredited evidence that no other would. Two Lawyers also spoke out about Greg taking on their cases of having their right to practice removed for disciplinary reasons by the Law Society, one of those also done free of charge. Ironically in tributes that have followed Greg's passing have included those from the Law Society itself, Judges, Police and Prosecutors. In the modern world Lawyers seldom if ever take on cases free of charges but here was Greg doing it a number of times, those of ex Lawyers and criminals alike. In tough economic times many in the public and politicians see the Legal profession in a poor light, often as greedy - something that seems to find a universal home across society but here was Greg King: willing to work for nothing at times and also do the hard cases on the lowest pay - State funded legal aid.

So it is hard to keyhole the reputation of Greg King because of the breadth of his personality, his generosity and belief in the Law. I wrote to him near the outset of the Ewan MacDonald trial mainly because he'd looked to have been handed a case that was heavily prejudiced against the defendant, MacDonald, by some of evidence introduced from MacDonald's video statement and by an unorthodox procedure of calling back witnesses a number of times which I felt was for dramatic affect on the Jury. I simply offered support and my view that I was sure a host of people were silently supporting Greg in his work. Within a few hours I received back a warm reply in which he said he was genuinely touched. Of course as some that may have read here before realise I've trekked some fairly unusual  roads in my life yet I was able to appreciate that here was a man capable of a kind gesture even when under the pressure of conducting the defence in a hugely controversial murder trial.

More recently I discovered that Greg parents were prison officers. His father having been working in the same prison where Arthur Thomas served the last of his sentence before being pardoned and released for murders he never committed. An event that Greg was later to say formed part of his earliest memories of the Justice system. A prison in the barest bones of the middle north island fixed between streams and lakes of trout, watched over by snow capped active volcanoes. It also emerges that his father was connected to the tribe Tu wharetoa in that ancestral home land. The prison huts bleak enough in their low security setting wasn't far from an equally bleak officer's village where the young Greg and his family lived. Whether that background goes to explain the full landscape of Greg's life and where he walked without fear may now never be fully explained. Though somewhere, perhaps in the looming power of those volcanic peaks or the depths of the nearby Lake Taupo something formed in Greg, grew to span the depths and peaks of life for one remarkable young man who would touch so many.

Greg may have already left the district in pursuit of his education when his pugilistic pal Jones punched out at reporters  who had buzzed him in a helicopter as he fished for trout. No doubt a sometimes topic of conversation on the weekly visits to Jones library where Greg appears to have kept his cards close to his chest in terms of his clients but not his vision of Justice. Visits, which no doubt by Greg's admission of his propensity for alcohol, may have involved drinking wine. Wine, liquor,  booze something Greg admitted this year was too large a part of his life. On Saturday the public learnt that Greg had diabetes, more recently came the information that he'd had bad news at a Doctor's visit last Wednesday, the day before his death. It has also emerged that Greg was having trouble with his feet, hands and eyes, all symptoms I understand of the advance of diabetes that is not well managed or continuing to deteriorate.

I've learnt a little more about the effects of unmanaged diabetes, beside knowing of a near neighbour having to have  her legs amputated, and one could imagine that Greg's lifestyle and aspirations may have made cutting back on drinking difficult, also the management of blood sugars by injection if he indeed needed insulin intervention. When I think for a moment of a man at the peak of his intellectual powers, someone so frank about the limits of his earlier sporting prowess that relegated him to speak of himself in terms of being a 'canvas kisser,' with his interest in furthering the careers of league players and boxers alike - I can sense for a moment that part of Greg may have compensated his belief of physical short comings by promoting the opportunities of others. There could be further evidence of that in his choice of sports - not rugby, bowls or cricket - but the working man's blue of league and boxing, probably not a long way from the beer canteen at Hautu prison camp where his father was an officer. As for choice of friends, and they apparently appear to have been very wide and varied, he found a place for the wealthy and pugilistic Bob Jones, sometime boxer, promoter and manager, long term fan and a fearless litigant.

At 42, or even 60 or 72 diabetes would not be anybody's friend. Some of us will have known children with diabetes frustrated by what activities they couldn't undertake so I wonder where the diagnosis of this illness left Greg in the first place, let alone a year later when it appears things may have worsened. Here was a man equal to any orator with a piercing intellect to whom other lawyers looked for support when preparing complex appeals, and whose one known method of relaxation was with aspiring, current and ex sportsmen some of whom he may have enjoyed sharing a drink and experiences with men few Judges or lawyers could find company with. This too the man said to be unable to say no, whose clients he was unsuccessful in defending spoke highly of him. Someone outspoken in not supporting moves for a separate indigenous Justice system pushed for by some of his own people, and indication again of how sharply Greg understood the need for unity and not separation. Someone whom, as modest he was, understood how great his destiny may have been, unforgiving of himself for what he may mistakenly feared he might have been unable to achieve. Of course as a legal strategist few might have equalled or have mastered Greg, but in what at times for him may have been a somewhat lonely pursuit of his unique vision, and his batting away of controversy and praise I suggest he, who helped some many others in their lives, may have  felt betrayed by life itself.

I read somewhere the throw away use of the word manic he injected into a interview of either describing himself or the fact that some in Law retreat into drink for relief from pressure, and am reminded that sometimes in jest is the truth. Greg's life measured by any degree was peaks and troughs, as high as the volcanic peaks of his youth and the depth of the lake of his people. Though outgoing and friendly by nature his closing addresses to Juries were sometimes considered as almost theatrical and entrancing, perhaps giving a glimpse of the actor within the man and the possibility that he may not have always engaged with others as himself, but rather as someone he chose as the representation of himself. It is not a simple man that so easily undoes or grasps complexities without personal cost, cost which might be hidden or disguised to self-protect.

Of course I'm simply speculating and not out to achieve anything more than attempt to engage with what made Greg so special and what may have also made him perhaps equally fragile whether it was noticed earlier or not. I accept that I have little chance of answering my own questions about this man, but no doubt he will stand in memory as the giant he may never have realised or allowed himself to accept. What more to do but to salute him for a selfless life's work, fierce, subdued or simply persuasive and logical when necessary. Dare I say that one of the greatest Kauri's has fallen and bewilderment echoes in a long silence of footfalls lost.

Justice in NZ - a big step forward.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7857337/Case-thrown-out-over-false-arrest

I could say that the Judgement by Justice France above was the first such step but I recall a case earlier this year in Raglan where a search and seizure of drugs was ruled illegal because the Detective involved didn't have a warrant to enter the property but had a 'concern' for the defendant's safety and entered the property illegally and happened to find drugs he believed belong to the accused person. Straight forward abuse of process in many people's mind but  the type of thing long accepted in New Zealand Courts where Judges for whatever reason didn't focus on the transparency of how the 'ends' was achieved. From memory in the Raglan case, the officer also broke into a shed despite fully well knowing that the person of his 'concern' was located elsewhere.

On the face of it in the drugs Hamilton/Raglan case might have belonged to the defendant, just as in the case ruled on by Justice France that the targets of the uncover's investigation were  possibly dealing in drugs and part of an 'expansion' plan by a gang to spread into Nelson. In both events the police had their theories and good information but then they went about breaking the law to achieve it, such law breaking, or breach of procedure was rejected in Raglan and now we see the same in Nelson. Some will say that the targets were lawbreakers and police were only doing their jobs.

Of course it isn't the job of police to break laws and it certainly isn't the job of the Courts to turn a blind eye to law breaking, of any type - particularly where the Courts are seen to condone the 'ends justifies the means' approach by police that may not let legalities get in the way. Over many years the Courts might have been seen to accept irregularities without comment, the message to police being that there behaviour, if not condoned, wasn't an impediment to gaining convictions

Most people would agree that if police are not sanctioned to uphold the Law all areas of Justice are suddenly made grey. I'll mention 2 of my 'favourites' here; the lens in the Bain case, and the hairs on the blanket taken from the yacht of Scott Watson. In both cases the similarity; a case struggling for purchase, searches already made without success, then repeated later only to find pivotal evidence - normal result in a democratic country under the rule of Law: chuck the case out. But no, no matter how bad the case looks, how fill of holes it has become, how much logic is lacked in the sequence of events presented as evidence - the Courts have allowed them to continue on. Result? Miscarriages of Justice, one after another in a long line.

Bain, Watson and Thomas guilty despite planted evidence. Hall and Pora sentenced to life despite reliable information and proof that neither man was the killer in the particular crimes they were charged with. Others less clear but procedurally wrong, Tamihere - body found in the wrong place and with the watch an ex detective claimed he located Tamihere's son wearing. Rex Haig convicted on the testimony of a witness whose evidence was a supplied after a deal for immunity from prosecution. Ross Applegram (sp?) convicted like Tamihere, Hall, Watson and Pora on not only tainted evidence but also gaol house informers. Other similarities; same detective featuring in Bain and Watson case, Thomas and Tamihere, others possibly as well, coincidence or a feature of MOJ's in New Zealand? These number 9 here, the first five five are clearly innocent as was the main accused by the killer who got immunity and went onto kill again. At least 60% failures in Justice where the Judiciary have taken to look the other way or being willing to accept peripheral evidence when main evidence has failed.

All of these cases are those in which there has been Judicial tolerance to tampered with, planted, or withheld evidence. Of course tampered with, or planted evidence, is also that given by prison informers, accomplices or even principal offenders looking to escape prosecution. I don't for the moment remember the name of the person who killed the woman in Whangaporoa, earlier got immunity for another murder and went onto kill again. These are the men will say what they told, often with large embellishments  which on one hand sound contrived and bizzare, but on the other prejudicial and hopeful of getting a weak case across the line.

Watching all of this have been Judges, in the lower Courts, High Courts and those of appeal. In some cases Judges have looked to 'fill the gap' that might be shown in the credibility of evidence, or simply willing to overlook it and promote other evidence which 'proves' the defendant or convicted person guilty. Watched, apparently unconcerned that if any instance of police misconduct during an investigation then the whole case in doubt and should be thrown out. Or perhaps watched considering some other information they might know about the defendant but which wasn't in evidence, about his her character or badness - much as final guard preventing their escape.

On the process of repeats, the OIC of the case thrown out by Justice France 'happen's to also now be the man accused by Paul Davidson of giving inconsistent evidence about the secret, and illegal surveillance of another agency. The Minister of Police, relatively fresh to the job, talks about disappointment that the 'crooks' got away In Nelson or similar words but does not reprove who own department. So we can take it that at the top it is seen as okay for police to break the law even when the Courts rule firmly that is not.

I called this blog a big step forward. I believe it is but only if those, such as the Minister of Police, responsibly do their jobs and not lament broken laws but rather who might have got away. In the absence of that Justice Francis has kept the ball rolling as to what is not acceptable, perhaps this is the step toward cases when not only evidence, shown as planted or suspect, but where the logic of a Crown case or process defies credibility - being tossed out and investigators, the few they are that seem to populate the grey get prosecuted or kicked out leaving the integrity of police  with those that uphold it.

Kent Parker: Inside reports from the hate-sites.

Kent has been busy tidying up the JFRB site which he made private in late 2009. Of course like Counterspin and Guilty Free Forums JFRB (Justice for Robin Bain) has continued to leak. It was by reason of those leaks that information became available about the hate-siters stalking jurors and others. That's the way it was revealed that Melanie White wrote a false confession so distinct from reality that it would never have been accepted by a Court but charges nevertheless of attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice may have applied. The interesting thing about that 'confession' was that Melanie in a state of excitement kept changing the voice and perspective of the alleged 'confessor.' Real basic oversights, but thoroughly consistent with even police attempts at fabricated evidence, a false confession in the Bain case was no more ridiculous than the claim that eye lens had been photographed on the floor of Stephen's room out in the open days before it was found 'hidden' late at night under a ski boot. Or the other circumstances of the assertion that David sought to be seen on his paper round to provide an alibi - hello on that, the papers were never going to deliver themselves folks.

The most astounding leaks of all were probably those by Annette Curran's hate-site, where she utilised advertising that allowed entry by any person on the internet into the secret site. Capital D for Dumbo on that one. But what was revealed was very sick, people plotting to have children taken off those they felt were supporters of David Bain, Glenda O'Brien and others freely talking about false information they provided the SST who willingly acted upon it. All this under the guise they were 'right thinking' people. It has never occurred to them that 'right thinking' people don't plot against others using lies, don't persecute others on information that is fabricated, or spread lies and rumour in an effort to 'win.' No winning was ever going to come from what the hate-siters took it upon themselves to do, even when they saw themselves as messengers of the 'truth' engineering a deliberate campaign to keep David Bain in prison for crimes time has shown that he not only didn't do, but that he couldn't have done.

No members of any of these hate-sites were sworn to secrecy and no decent person finding themselves amongst a rabid bunch of nutters was obliged to either stay or keep 'mum' on the bad work afoot. So good on the infiltrators, the deliberate ones, and those that were just shocked and thought that they should do something about it and continue to monitor the activities of the hate-sites. It was from these activities slipped the information as to who was feeding the hate-sites information, ex police in some circumstances, media, some attached to the Otago University and the list goes on.

Now as we read of attacks on Justice Binnie's report of those that haven't even read it we see another step in the campaign.  But the participants are fewer now, some have simply had enough, others have put away worrying about doors on a van or what this person or that person said, or what somebody 'reckoned' and focused simply on that final death scene, the one that tells the entire story of the deaths of Bain family members. A scene that not one person in New Zealand that gave evidence, arm chair experts, media experts using smoke and mirrors has ever been able to reconcile in a way that disproved the fact that Robin suicided. The man both with blood smears on his palms and his fresh blood on a towel in the laundry. 10,000 or more pages of evidence, photographs, discussion of trajectory, blow back from a non-exiting head wound, spatter patterns that excluded another person being in the room when Robin shot himself showed more simply than the man with the damaged and bloody hands was the killer of his family, nothing more simple than that.

So as the hate-sites continue to leak and be purged by a desperate Kent Parker there is no distance in the world between the deaths of Margaret and three of her children than the blood left on their father's hands. There is something very sad about this whole case, those that support Robin destroy the memory of his family. Why do I say that, for the reason above there is no distance between the deaths of the Bain's and the blood smears found on the father's hands, not an inch or a millimetre. Millions of dollars has been spent to prove otherwise, as futile as arguments that water runs uphill, or that the earth is flat when any cop worth is salt asked himself why, if Robin had been a victim of murder, was there blood on his palms, cuts and bruises to his hands, blood flow across his lower left cheek unconnected to the flow of blood from his wound, and then stopped and listened to what Dempster had to say, and wait for test results as to whose fresh blood it was on that towel in the laundry.

So speaking of futility we see Kent Parker trying to clean up a mess he made years ago, much of which was recorded years ago as big mouths bragged about what ex cops had told them, bragged about talking to witnesses and how about how many 'jurors' they had. Futile, insane panic from those without guts to simply say they were wrong.

Police top brass working against themselves?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841490

The foregoing was published today describing lack of police progress in dealing with culture change toward correcting sexual inappropriateness within the force and a perceived scepticism by police dealing with complaints from the public of sex crimes.

Earlier this week there was a poll which indicated that their was public dissatisfaction with the level of trust held in the police generally and the way the police acted aggressively and over the top in some circumstances. That poll was attacked by a Deputy Commissioner and a number of allegations made against it which apparently lack any support or factual basis according to the organisation that ran the poll. In recent days there was a second a poll run on Yahoo that showed those that either don't trust the police, or weren't sure if they did or not, were in the majority compared to those that trusted the police.

Interspersed with this we had bizarre claims from the President of the Police Association that if police funding wasn't increased then gang members would infiltrate the police and a claim that there had already been efforts to do so.

The link above shows that progress has been slow in remedying a culture change. The fact that the above report is officially sanctioned may be why to this point that report has not been directly attacked, although a regular fall back positioin has been placed with the claim that progress has been made this year and a promise that police are getting on top of the situation. So three different situations where there is criticism, two are attacked by police top brass and the third is fudged.

The first poll mentioned released this week was attended by conclusions that the public wanted to see an independent authority investigating complaints against police, this drew the most criticism from police hierarchy. Rank and file members of the police don't get to speak publicly, the police hierarchy does and so also the Police Association. To be fair even politicians within the Government were highly sceptical about O Connor's, from the Police Association, claims of gang attempts at infiltration of the police force. So I think it is fair to say that police are represented by a hierarchy that is self-protective and an association that stretches reality. From an outsider's point of view those representations could be argued to deliver the reason why there is a loss of public confidence in the Police, one refuses to consider all evil within and the other seeks to create scenarios of all evil unless police funding is increased.

When the current Commissioner came into the job it was attended by the fact that he would be objective because of experiences working overseas, that he was in fact not 'culture bound', was a good manager and so on. A situation far from what we see represented today. The frustrating thing for many nzers, as the polls show, is that the police retain themselves from public opinion and expectation that the police, like any organisation, should not be responsible only to it's self. Some clues are thick on the ground that the police 'culture' that has been criticised is in fact a narrow culture of resistance at the top of police. If police management can't be attuned to modern standards of accountability, unwilling to be confident they're running a ship that is, or can be open to external scrutiny, then that is where the problem lies, not with the rank and file.

The introduction of women into the NZ Police has been significant benefit, but too soon we have seen resistance from, yet again, police administration for women finding their own way forward in the police, this is another symptom of what is wrong, not with police generally, but with police administration and public relations. The easiest way on the surface now is to no longer tolerate a police administration that resists open public accountability and instead adopts polices of 'retraining'  and other clichés to iron out problems. We saw most recently a senior police officer give evidence in an extradition case that for all appearances demonstrated to the NZ  citizens that police officer's evidence was at odds with the truth. Soon after the Commissioner spoke about his confidence in the officer concerned, not so subtly telling the public that he was the boss and what he said went - this from a public servant, no inclination toward accountability but speaking out with an authority buried deep in a closed culture.

But why does any organisation want to remain a closed shop and above the law despite public concerns that problems, conflicts, or even alleged law breaking are not dealt with in a transparent way? Why does the police brass not understand that the public have a right to know that police are liable for their actions like every other member of society. Why do police want to continue to operate under some feudal system of lords and serfs - probably because they can. Probably because they've ridden the edge of accountability so often that they simply adopt the old tried and true positions that allow them to remain responsible to themselves with only a semi-independent watch dog that has restricted powers. A watchdog which we have already seen takes an inordinate amount of time to complete findings and make recommendations which are most often answered by police with the claim that the changes have already taken place.

Clouding all of this, and added to the public unease, is that the 40 year old Crewe case is not resolved, Scott Watson remains in prison despite the evidence of scientists of hairs turning up on a blanket between critical 'searches,' Teina Pora in prison for another man's crime and a list of others that continues on. All in fact linked to a 'blind' police administration that might change personnel but never it's spots. This odd, and damaging holding of power and secrecy as if by a handed down parchment of some secret oath to self protect, while rank and file police day by day go admirably about their work often unappreciated because of a insular management inherited from one generation to another that conflicts with public perception of what modern police practices should be.

How about the appointment of an independent civil servant at the top of the police, somebody from outside the ranks to bring along the belated culture change and oversee the formation of an independent body with full powers to investigate complaints from the public about police misconduct. A manager without a recent police history of employment within New Zealand, an ex Judicial officer, high ranking civil servant or someone from the armed services with no axe to grind for or against the NZ Police - there would be nothing to lose from such an appointment but everything to gain not just for the public, but for the rank and file police working at the front far away from the ivory towers and hidden parchments.

Confused hate-siters?

Well yes, that goes without saying. But somebody actually able to confuse them even more? Try this.

Donaldob has yet again dug deeper in his latest comment on Counterspin where he draws attention to a blog by Chris Patterson, a civil lawyer, at http://www.patterson.co.nz/site/#blog&1259

Although Patterson is arguing that David is guilty and shouldn’t get compensation, Patterson says:

“A finding that David Bain did not, on the balance of probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that he is innocent, but is a finding that the prosecution against him should probably never have been brought, and that the jury should not (if they had all the currently available evidence before them) have ever delivered guilty verdicts.”

The poster Donaldbob from Otago University whose main impetus seems to be attacking the Jury in a variety of facetious ways tracked down the above blog by Chris Patterson.

I won't try to explain Chris Patterson's blog overall because I can't make head nor tail of it in many places. He was apparently in Dunedin at the time of the Bain familicide, presumably at Law School. Yet in a few short sentences he's said everything the hate-siters want to hear and everything they don't, maybe he should be congratulated for that.

Interestingly, he doesn't state any facts, but suggests a reader tears a strip of paper in two and on one half list the evidence against David and on the other the evidence against Robin. Though, most conveniently,  he makes no lists himself yet is somehow assured that the list for David will require extra paper. What a quaint and awkward fellow, and it is quite a fine distinction to be able to confuse the already deeply confused hate-siters. Or indeed to write an opinion piece making serious assertions but not offering any support for that other than having woken up one morning in Dunedin when it was cold.

This has left poor old donbob unsure whether he's Arthur or Martha which has set back years of productive counselling that left him with the strongest presumption that he was Martha after all. What a conundrum for him added to by the fact that the bewildered Chris Patterson suggests Binnie's finding is that David should never have been charged and prosecuted. He's exactly right on that. However this part which the hang-bainers will be wishing to concentrate on “A finding that David Bain did not, on the balance of probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that he is innocent” is wrong. A finding that David is innocent on BOP is exactly that – a finding that he is innocent.

Overall Chris does nail it, despite his fascination with making lists and tearing paper to shreds, Binnie will have found David innocent on the BOP. I believe Ian Binnie will be critical that the prosecution ever proceeded thus fitting with Chris's interpretation. When the police and Crown went ahead hiding evidence, planting evidence, an incomplete inquiry and overcome with an impression of guilt those were extraordinary circumstances for which Bain must be compensated. This case wasn't about a lack of evidence, it was about hidden, planted and misinterpreted evidence, mantra's and impressions of guilt fed through the media by police. It was the police's fault that Robin wasn't investigated, that such facts as blood on Robin's palms and damaged hands were overlooked, along with red material under his fingernails. The police never paused to test not only whose blood it was on the towel in the bathroom, instead presuming wrongly that it was Davids, but when they found out they then ignored the fact that before he killed himself Robin Bain wiped a heap of blood off himself from a freshly bleeding wound. That should have assisted them to finally understand that final death scene was in fact a suicide scene, and Robin's damaged hands, recent bleeding, his blood inside the barrel indicated the obvious fact that Dempster arrived at before Detective Sergeant Doyle decided, lo and behold that they 'had a murder to solve.'