Just over 12 hours to fight time and Joseph's mind is right where it should be, totally ready.
Edited 2/4/18
Less than 24 hours from fight time and a chance to distill an overview of the fight. Joshua boxed to win off his jab. He in fact didn't want Joe in close, an apparent acknowledgement to Joe's punching power. Joe looked best when going forward and rounds 5 and 6 looked like they would be a turning point as Joe put pressure on only for Anthony to maintain his reliance on the jab. Afterwards Joe said that he regretted not having pushed on more, a situation where he looked as though he could find dominance. Good effort by Joe, he came away with his credibility intact and fair to say his reputation enhanced. Look forward to his continued progress.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Why the Watson convictions must fail.
Scott Watson (SW) currently appeals his 2 murder convictions by way of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPOM.) This is 2nd attempt, having failed at the Court of Appeal (COA) and Privy Council (PC). The main reason he must prevail is because of a single word - process.
The Watson case had never followed process. SW was tried by media, this was acknowledged by the Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) who are statutorily restrained from having any real power. It can make recommendations and publish findings but mostly appear fairly 'toothless' but in the Watson case the IPCA acknowledge the not inconsiderable influence of the media in painting an unflattering picture of SW before his trial, even before his arrest - hence the reason many consider SW's trial was a 'trial by media.' The IPCA also upheld complaints about witness identifications and criticised police handling of witnesses which may have led to witnesses giving false evidence - about the strongest criticism the IPCA can make. So that was an abuse of process.
At the same time another abuse of process was going on, 'tunnel vision.' SW was the only suspect on the landscape and whilst police had evidence that the couple had boarded a ketch they soon stopped looking for a ketch despite getting 100s of reports of sightings and instead concentrated on SW single masted sloop. During the early stages of the inquiry there were reports of the missing couple Ben Smart and Olivia Hope being seen alive on a ketch a few 2 days after their appearance. Police maintained that the witnesses were mistaken, but despite one of the biggest manhunt's in NZ history, and to this day, the woman witnesses were said to be mistaken about has never been found and never come forward. Nor has the ketch she was seen upon ever found. So the police find no ketch even though witnesses see it, and never find the couple on board. We are asked to put that from our minds and to consider by implication that a ketch, its crew, and passengers never come forward to confirm that they were actually the people seen on the 2nd of January 1998 by 20 people. Again that is a disruption of process. Police were required to find that ketch and that couple, not just say 20 people were mistaken - innocent people going about innocent past times don't hide from police, they actually come forward.
Meanwhile investigation police in Endeavour Inlet are busy telling people they didn't see a 2 masted ketch, the actually saw a single masted sloop around half the ketch's size. If some witnesses are not convinced police tell them that SW is a dangerous psychopath and they need the witnesses help to get SW convicted. Failing that, and if the witnesses might have been smoking dope or breaking the law in some way they might be convinced that it is better to co-operate with police than face charges. If the witnesses still don't budge or submerged some of their evidence into silence they are told they are confused and mistaken - if as confused and mistaken witnesses they are still used at trial the Crown tell the Jury that the witnesses were confused or mistaken because they in fact saw a 2 masted scow, with not sails or ropework, no bright brass portholes and not looking anything like an ocean going ketch of similar colour but not size above the water line. An abuse of process highlighted by the header picture here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1981832275402540/
I've written previously about the abuse of process that was the forensic evidence in this case concerning 2-hairs said to come from Olivia Hope. How they were not found on any searches of SW's sloop the Blade, not found in several searches inside the ESR laboratory but eventually found on a subsequent search 3 months after they were first looked for among 100s of smaller in length brown hairs on a day when sample hairs form Olivia's home were in the lab despite rules that sample and questioned hairs should never been in the same lab and the same time.
Move forward 15 years to when Scott's first RPOM is thrown out. On that occasion there is new evidence from 2 primary witnesses that they were mistaken in identifying SW as a mystery stranger (remember here the Watson inquiry had been damned for its identification procedures.) That new evidence was actually evidence for a new Jury to decide as 'fact finders.' The Courts had learnt from the Bain Privy Council decision in 2007 that new evidence was for a Jury to decide its merits, but neither the Ministry of Justice or the RPOM reviewer Kristy McDonald used that the PC precedent instead they went back to Bain 2002 and 2004 decisions both of which had been overturned - again no process was in place. Correct process was to send the case back to the COA, not for McDonald to assume the role of a Jury patronise the witnesses good intentions but nevertheless say it didn't matter.
On what grounds then were the convictions upheld by McDonald? The 2-hairs, mysteriously found after months of searching. Because the 2-hairs were so controversial, and appreciating that forensic science in particular can move rapidly did Ms McDonald seek an update on developments in that area? No, an abuse of process once again. What would she have found if she had researched developments, here are a few;
a/That the subjective comparison methods of comparing DNA were no longer used.
b/The number of loci examined would no longer be 12 but rather 15+. In other words a broader and therefore safter sample.
c/ That the American FBI found 95% of convictions, using 'hair comparison' methods (as used by ESR in 1998) were overturned.
d/ She may also have found, by due diligence, that the reports by on British scientist in this case giving the odds of nuclear DNA (nDNA) was incorrectly used with Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) giving the mDNA is this case an overrated and incorrect emphasis.
e/ She may have also found that the ESR hair specialist was not a specialist at all compared to overseas specialists, did not have the same training, did not have updated training introductions to new systems or be assessed. In other words not a specialist and someone who had mishandled evidence and against accreditation rules 'tested' sample and questioned (evidentiary) hairs at the same time.
I think just the FBI fail rate of convictions would have been enough for a reasonable and cautious reviewer intent on proper process.
But these are not the only reasons why the Watson convictions must fail, there is the totality of evidence published in several books, magazines, papers, documentaries and a movie. All of this held up by 2-hairs? Leap forwards in science, and legal precedence as to what new evidence, and how evidence may not necessarily need to be new to warrant acceptance - makes no difference? Public disquiet makes no difference, the public interest not served?
There are actually 100s of reasons why the Watson convictions must fail, some of those promote a single reason why, others bind together in continuity to reveal a wider picture of innocence - the exact thing Kristy McDonald never did.
There has never been more known about this case, what was hidden, where the Crown cheated, and how evidence can be looked at afresh - it's about to burst open.
The Watson case had never followed process. SW was tried by media, this was acknowledged by the Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) who are statutorily restrained from having any real power. It can make recommendations and publish findings but mostly appear fairly 'toothless' but in the Watson case the IPCA acknowledge the not inconsiderable influence of the media in painting an unflattering picture of SW before his trial, even before his arrest - hence the reason many consider SW's trial was a 'trial by media.' The IPCA also upheld complaints about witness identifications and criticised police handling of witnesses which may have led to witnesses giving false evidence - about the strongest criticism the IPCA can make. So that was an abuse of process.
At the same time another abuse of process was going on, 'tunnel vision.' SW was the only suspect on the landscape and whilst police had evidence that the couple had boarded a ketch they soon stopped looking for a ketch despite getting 100s of reports of sightings and instead concentrated on SW single masted sloop. During the early stages of the inquiry there were reports of the missing couple Ben Smart and Olivia Hope being seen alive on a ketch a few 2 days after their appearance. Police maintained that the witnesses were mistaken, but despite one of the biggest manhunt's in NZ history, and to this day, the woman witnesses were said to be mistaken about has never been found and never come forward. Nor has the ketch she was seen upon ever found. So the police find no ketch even though witnesses see it, and never find the couple on board. We are asked to put that from our minds and to consider by implication that a ketch, its crew, and passengers never come forward to confirm that they were actually the people seen on the 2nd of January 1998 by 20 people. Again that is a disruption of process. Police were required to find that ketch and that couple, not just say 20 people were mistaken - innocent people going about innocent past times don't hide from police, they actually come forward.
Meanwhile investigation police in Endeavour Inlet are busy telling people they didn't see a 2 masted ketch, the actually saw a single masted sloop around half the ketch's size. If some witnesses are not convinced police tell them that SW is a dangerous psychopath and they need the witnesses help to get SW convicted. Failing that, and if the witnesses might have been smoking dope or breaking the law in some way they might be convinced that it is better to co-operate with police than face charges. If the witnesses still don't budge or submerged some of their evidence into silence they are told they are confused and mistaken - if as confused and mistaken witnesses they are still used at trial the Crown tell the Jury that the witnesses were confused or mistaken because they in fact saw a 2 masted scow, with not sails or ropework, no bright brass portholes and not looking anything like an ocean going ketch of similar colour but not size above the water line. An abuse of process highlighted by the header picture here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1981832275402540/
I've written previously about the abuse of process that was the forensic evidence in this case concerning 2-hairs said to come from Olivia Hope. How they were not found on any searches of SW's sloop the Blade, not found in several searches inside the ESR laboratory but eventually found on a subsequent search 3 months after they were first looked for among 100s of smaller in length brown hairs on a day when sample hairs form Olivia's home were in the lab despite rules that sample and questioned hairs should never been in the same lab and the same time.
Move forward 15 years to when Scott's first RPOM is thrown out. On that occasion there is new evidence from 2 primary witnesses that they were mistaken in identifying SW as a mystery stranger (remember here the Watson inquiry had been damned for its identification procedures.) That new evidence was actually evidence for a new Jury to decide as 'fact finders.' The Courts had learnt from the Bain Privy Council decision in 2007 that new evidence was for a Jury to decide its merits, but neither the Ministry of Justice or the RPOM reviewer Kristy McDonald used that the PC precedent instead they went back to Bain 2002 and 2004 decisions both of which had been overturned - again no process was in place. Correct process was to send the case back to the COA, not for McDonald to assume the role of a Jury patronise the witnesses good intentions but nevertheless say it didn't matter.
On what grounds then were the convictions upheld by McDonald? The 2-hairs, mysteriously found after months of searching. Because the 2-hairs were so controversial, and appreciating that forensic science in particular can move rapidly did Ms McDonald seek an update on developments in that area? No, an abuse of process once again. What would she have found if she had researched developments, here are a few;
a/That the subjective comparison methods of comparing DNA were no longer used.
b/The number of loci examined would no longer be 12 but rather 15+. In other words a broader and therefore safter sample.
c/ That the American FBI found 95% of convictions, using 'hair comparison' methods (as used by ESR in 1998) were overturned.
d/ She may also have found, by due diligence, that the reports by on British scientist in this case giving the odds of nuclear DNA (nDNA) was incorrectly used with Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) giving the mDNA is this case an overrated and incorrect emphasis.
e/ She may have also found that the ESR hair specialist was not a specialist at all compared to overseas specialists, did not have the same training, did not have updated training introductions to new systems or be assessed. In other words not a specialist and someone who had mishandled evidence and against accreditation rules 'tested' sample and questioned (evidentiary) hairs at the same time.
I think just the FBI fail rate of convictions would have been enough for a reasonable and cautious reviewer intent on proper process.
But these are not the only reasons why the Watson convictions must fail, there is the totality of evidence published in several books, magazines, papers, documentaries and a movie. All of this held up by 2-hairs? Leap forwards in science, and legal precedence as to what new evidence, and how evidence may not necessarily need to be new to warrant acceptance - makes no difference? Public disquiet makes no difference, the public interest not served?
There are actually 100s of reasons why the Watson convictions must fail, some of those promote a single reason why, others bind together in continuity to reveal a wider picture of innocence - the exact thing Kristy McDonald never did.
There has never been more known about this case, what was hidden, where the Crown cheated, and how evidence can be looked at afresh - it's about to burst open.
Friday, January 19, 2018
Watson, Tamihere and Lundy this year.
Not many posts for me recently because of things unfolding in the Lundy and Watson cases, the Tamihere case also being turned inside out. The further one goes inside these cases the uglier look of these Miscarriages of Justice becomes and is deeply troubling, so is the absolute police and Crown Law resistance of acknowledging fault or dealing with their own lawbreakers.
In one respect 2017 was a good year for confidence in New Zealand's ability to deal with Miscarriages of Justice, the door was further opened on them and closer scrutiny applied.
The Lundy appeal was dynamite in my opinion. Jonathan Eaton QC not avoiding the term 'miscarriage of justice', where he addressed the Court of Appeal about a very ugly example of scientific misadventure going wrong aided by junk science. Eventually, and I hope it is this year, the case of Marl Lundy will be finally understood that he is innocent, convicted on science that has only been used once, is not forensic in any context and was administered by quak who has fled the scene long before Mark's appeal. I look forward to an instructive and thoughtful Court of Appeal Judgement in the next few weeks and Mark's release. Failing that, the well oiled defence stepping forward to the Supreme Court and beyond if necessary.
What can anyone say about the Tamihere case, the guts ripped out of it with 8 convictions of perjury brought by a Maximum security prisoner Arthur Taylor who has never met David Tamihere. I hope the response by David himself is constructive, and rapid this year, because no Justice System can have credibility when a principle witness has been shown to have lied even once, let along 8 times. Sadly the Tamihere case shows that police officers corrupted on one case forever damn those they work with for years to come. Readers will know that the 'leader' of the Tamihere inquiry, the late John Hughes, cut his teeth in the Thomas case were evidence was also planted. Police stood by him and he continued on with his methods throughout his police career ,extending a blight that could have stopped if the 'leaders' of the Thomas inquiry had been charged for planting evidence. Arthur Taylor has chipped away at that block and I believe soon we will see private prosecutions against senior police who direct staff to do illegal acts when framing a person police leaders 'know, or believe' are guilty. I hope that will happen sooner rather than later, and that prosecutors who go along with corrupted inquirers are also be made to pay.
The Watson case is highly topical, the one that won't die. At the moment the Government are considering in which way Scott's latest RPOM will be considered. The Minister and the Ministry for Justice are said to be reflecting on the first Watson RPOM outcome, and the significance of 2 reports by the reviewer Kristy McDonald QC tendered with the recommendation to uphold the convictions based on the 'science' yes, that word 'science' again, of the '2-hair' evidence which time has shown is trash. There is nothing which indicates that McDonald QC updated herself on the science that she replied upon to keep Scott in prison. I could say that it is like a person who retains a black and white television when for 20 years people around her have colour TV, and when asked, the owner of the black and white set claims not to have known about the technology. Bad, bad bad. Meanwhile I have heard that there is paperwork abroad that a former Minister of Police and Justice obtained which indicated that Watson may have been framed, but that ex Minister did not act upon it any way. Often people make claims about the 'people at the top' being corrupt in some way out of pure, and mostly unfair speculation, at the moment I can say that does not appear to either unfair or speculation but documented material.
Cheers to the few members and the watchers here. Sorry about the long gaps between posts and all the best for the New Year.
In one respect 2017 was a good year for confidence in New Zealand's ability to deal with Miscarriages of Justice, the door was further opened on them and closer scrutiny applied.
The Lundy appeal was dynamite in my opinion. Jonathan Eaton QC not avoiding the term 'miscarriage of justice', where he addressed the Court of Appeal about a very ugly example of scientific misadventure going wrong aided by junk science. Eventually, and I hope it is this year, the case of Marl Lundy will be finally understood that he is innocent, convicted on science that has only been used once, is not forensic in any context and was administered by quak who has fled the scene long before Mark's appeal. I look forward to an instructive and thoughtful Court of Appeal Judgement in the next few weeks and Mark's release. Failing that, the well oiled defence stepping forward to the Supreme Court and beyond if necessary.
What can anyone say about the Tamihere case, the guts ripped out of it with 8 convictions of perjury brought by a Maximum security prisoner Arthur Taylor who has never met David Tamihere. I hope the response by David himself is constructive, and rapid this year, because no Justice System can have credibility when a principle witness has been shown to have lied even once, let along 8 times. Sadly the Tamihere case shows that police officers corrupted on one case forever damn those they work with for years to come. Readers will know that the 'leader' of the Tamihere inquiry, the late John Hughes, cut his teeth in the Thomas case were evidence was also planted. Police stood by him and he continued on with his methods throughout his police career ,extending a blight that could have stopped if the 'leaders' of the Thomas inquiry had been charged for planting evidence. Arthur Taylor has chipped away at that block and I believe soon we will see private prosecutions against senior police who direct staff to do illegal acts when framing a person police leaders 'know, or believe' are guilty. I hope that will happen sooner rather than later, and that prosecutors who go along with corrupted inquirers are also be made to pay.
The Watson case is highly topical, the one that won't die. At the moment the Government are considering in which way Scott's latest RPOM will be considered. The Minister and the Ministry for Justice are said to be reflecting on the first Watson RPOM outcome, and the significance of 2 reports by the reviewer Kristy McDonald QC tendered with the recommendation to uphold the convictions based on the 'science' yes, that word 'science' again, of the '2-hair' evidence which time has shown is trash. There is nothing which indicates that McDonald QC updated herself on the science that she replied upon to keep Scott in prison. I could say that it is like a person who retains a black and white television when for 20 years people around her have colour TV, and when asked, the owner of the black and white set claims not to have known about the technology. Bad, bad bad. Meanwhile I have heard that there is paperwork abroad that a former Minister of Police and Justice obtained which indicated that Watson may have been framed, but that ex Minister did not act upon it any way. Often people make claims about the 'people at the top' being corrupt in some way out of pure, and mostly unfair speculation, at the moment I can say that does not appear to either unfair or speculation but documented material.
Cheers to the few members and the watchers here. Sorry about the long gaps between posts and all the best for the New Year.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
The Scott Watson case hairs don't stack up and never will.
There has been much talk about the '2-hairs' in the Scott Watson case this week. I was encouraged to read on a blog a person saying that he didn't know it took 3 months to find the 2-hairs. Fact is most people don't, and the media generally mistakenly report the 2-hairs as being found on Scott's yacht, but they weren't. They were found in a lab 3 months after the couple's disappearance.
Scott's boat was pulled out of the water on January 11th 1998 after it was seized under a High Court warrant to look for 'bodies, body parts and forensic evidence'. The first searches were by police, it would be fair to say that each officer that went aboard the sloop would have been looking for any signs of evidence. Police were very interested in the sails in the forward department because of claims the bodies had been wrapped in sails and sunk in the Cook Strait. First things first, they found no bodies, no body parts and the sails were intact. Before we go further it must be remembered that a High Court Judge had been told there was evidence supporting the warrant, in 20 years there has not been a single clue or explanation as to what evidence existed to make the claim about bodies and body parts. I think after all this time we can say it was made up.
Soon after, at least 3 ESR staff searched the sloop, found hairs, and blood which were collected. They searched for fingerprints and recovered all they found including a scrubbing brush. The woman who found the hairs and blood inside the cabin identified the positions of the finds and noted them. None of those hairs were identified as being from Ben or Olivia, nor was the blood. The hairs in the brush also did not belong to the couple. So we come to the tiger blanket off the bed which was collected and taken away with clothing and other items of interest.
Over a year later The Crown would say that Scott had thoroughly cleaned down his yacht to hide traces of the couple, the lie to this of course was the blood and hairs, also the scrubbing brush, but the biggest indication of the lie was a further year later after Scott had been charged when, on a request from the defence, the Crown revealed that there had been 390 hairs found on the blanket - it's not certain how they reached that figure because a big mistake in this case was that nobody apparently remembered to count possible evidentiary hairs except from the 1st search of the sloop by the 3 ESR staff.
Sometime in January 2 ESR staff had the blanket released to them to take off all the hairs individually and place them in 2 plastic bags. Common sense tells us that those staff, like the earlier ESR staff aboard the sloop would have looked for long blond hairs because hardly a person in NZ would not have known that the missing Olivia had long blond hair. So now we are at least 2 or 3 police searches of sloop, and at least 2 or 3 ESR searches for hairs on the sloop. We have 2 more in the removal of hairs from the blanket - 2 staff, 2 searches. The 2 bags were then put the storage facility before being released to the ESR 'hair expert' Sue Vintiner, who searched the 2 bags in January and collected 11 hairs 'mostly with roots.' Hair roots are necessary for DNA analysis, she found that none of the hairs belonged to Ben or Olivia. In a memo she recorded this fact and said the case was a 'hard' one and that none of the hairs were Ben or Olivia's, so another unsuccessful search and this time by the celebrated 'expert.'
All of this is tricky enough. We have a warrant to look for bodies and body parts, none are found, however blood and hairs are found and none belong to the couple. When the cabin was searched the most obvious place was to search the bed and the blanket for that is where the alleged killings and rape must have silently taken place, with a couple apparently co-operating in their own deaths by remaining so silent that people on 2 other boats rafted up to Scott's sloop never heard a word or a scream. We have a blanket with 390 hairs on it after the sloop was cleaned down of evidence - I'd welcome anyone to explain that, cleaning down paint, leaving spots of blood, hairs and a blanket with 390 hairs on it. No sign of the 2-hairs yet and we're into March.
Switch your mind to the Thomas case, the Bain case and that of Lundy. Everything searched and nothing found - then suddenly a new search of the Crewe garden in the Thomas case and a cartridge found weeks after a full grid searches and sifting had found nothing. Then to Bain, Stephens room carefully gridded and checked for 2 days and then on the 3rd night of the inquiry a detective not tasked with the job going into the house after hours searching Stephen's room and suddenly finding a glass lens. Exhausting. Lundy, his shirt clean as a whistle, never put into the custody of the exhibits officer but instead kept in the 'safe' of the officer in charge, weeks later when the case is in deep trouble suddenly 2 small spots found on the shirt which are argued about until today and are currently the subject of appeal. Meanwhile between Bain and Lundy, its March of 1998 and Ms Vintiner decides to check the 2 bags again in the third month after the inquiry began, this day there is a someone in the Lab with her who is not from ESR or police, Vintiner also contrary to ESR accreditation rules has sample hairs believed to be that of Oliva taken from the Hope household, - also on a 2nd search for long blond hairs. Ms Vintiner searches the bags again like every other search since January finds nothing. But she doesn't give up just because she is finding the case 'hard' so she searches again and hello, not one long blond hair but 2! Whatever could have happened, but don't worry she is a 'hair comparison' expert. She could presumably walk past you in the supermarket note the colour of your hair and pick it off a table mixed with 100s of other hairs months later.
No surprises there, don't bat a eyelid. Not even for the next details. Until March 1998 and through all those searches the longest hair found was 7.5 cms. But wait, the 2 blond hairs that were never photographed or videod in situ were 25 and 15 cm long, twice and three times longer than any other hairs found. Before moving to the next point it should be noted that both times hairs were taken from the Hope household they were not counted so even if the hair expert had been surprised at the sudden find she couldn't count the Hope household hairs, find 2 missing and say 'silly me.'
There is a tonne of other evidence to show that the 2-hair evidence is decidedly weak despite that a previous Minister of Justice said the case against Scott was 'held together' by the 2 hairs. The strongest might be that 'hair comparison' methods our local 'expert' used were found to have to have resulted in 95% of those convicted by the American FBI using 'hair comparison' methods in the 20 years to 2015 being exonerated. Yes, 95%. In New Zealand, as it is in Britain, experts witnesses duty is to the Court, they are not there for the defence or Crown but as an expert to the Court. If as science methods change or faults are identified in processes, the experts are required to inform the Court of any cases they may have worked on where faulty process has been identified. I can tell you today neither Ms Vintiner or the New Zealand ESR have put their hands up, but have kept silent, deadly quiet.
Scott's boat was pulled out of the water on January 11th 1998 after it was seized under a High Court warrant to look for 'bodies, body parts and forensic evidence'. The first searches were by police, it would be fair to say that each officer that went aboard the sloop would have been looking for any signs of evidence. Police were very interested in the sails in the forward department because of claims the bodies had been wrapped in sails and sunk in the Cook Strait. First things first, they found no bodies, no body parts and the sails were intact. Before we go further it must be remembered that a High Court Judge had been told there was evidence supporting the warrant, in 20 years there has not been a single clue or explanation as to what evidence existed to make the claim about bodies and body parts. I think after all this time we can say it was made up.
Soon after, at least 3 ESR staff searched the sloop, found hairs, and blood which were collected. They searched for fingerprints and recovered all they found including a scrubbing brush. The woman who found the hairs and blood inside the cabin identified the positions of the finds and noted them. None of those hairs were identified as being from Ben or Olivia, nor was the blood. The hairs in the brush also did not belong to the couple. So we come to the tiger blanket off the bed which was collected and taken away with clothing and other items of interest.
Over a year later The Crown would say that Scott had thoroughly cleaned down his yacht to hide traces of the couple, the lie to this of course was the blood and hairs, also the scrubbing brush, but the biggest indication of the lie was a further year later after Scott had been charged when, on a request from the defence, the Crown revealed that there had been 390 hairs found on the blanket - it's not certain how they reached that figure because a big mistake in this case was that nobody apparently remembered to count possible evidentiary hairs except from the 1st search of the sloop by the 3 ESR staff.
Sometime in January 2 ESR staff had the blanket released to them to take off all the hairs individually and place them in 2 plastic bags. Common sense tells us that those staff, like the earlier ESR staff aboard the sloop would have looked for long blond hairs because hardly a person in NZ would not have known that the missing Olivia had long blond hair. So now we are at least 2 or 3 police searches of sloop, and at least 2 or 3 ESR searches for hairs on the sloop. We have 2 more in the removal of hairs from the blanket - 2 staff, 2 searches. The 2 bags were then put the storage facility before being released to the ESR 'hair expert' Sue Vintiner, who searched the 2 bags in January and collected 11 hairs 'mostly with roots.' Hair roots are necessary for DNA analysis, she found that none of the hairs belonged to Ben or Olivia. In a memo she recorded this fact and said the case was a 'hard' one and that none of the hairs were Ben or Olivia's, so another unsuccessful search and this time by the celebrated 'expert.'
All of this is tricky enough. We have a warrant to look for bodies and body parts, none are found, however blood and hairs are found and none belong to the couple. When the cabin was searched the most obvious place was to search the bed and the blanket for that is where the alleged killings and rape must have silently taken place, with a couple apparently co-operating in their own deaths by remaining so silent that people on 2 other boats rafted up to Scott's sloop never heard a word or a scream. We have a blanket with 390 hairs on it after the sloop was cleaned down of evidence - I'd welcome anyone to explain that, cleaning down paint, leaving spots of blood, hairs and a blanket with 390 hairs on it. No sign of the 2-hairs yet and we're into March.
Switch your mind to the Thomas case, the Bain case and that of Lundy. Everything searched and nothing found - then suddenly a new search of the Crewe garden in the Thomas case and a cartridge found weeks after a full grid searches and sifting had found nothing. Then to Bain, Stephens room carefully gridded and checked for 2 days and then on the 3rd night of the inquiry a detective not tasked with the job going into the house after hours searching Stephen's room and suddenly finding a glass lens. Exhausting. Lundy, his shirt clean as a whistle, never put into the custody of the exhibits officer but instead kept in the 'safe' of the officer in charge, weeks later when the case is in deep trouble suddenly 2 small spots found on the shirt which are argued about until today and are currently the subject of appeal. Meanwhile between Bain and Lundy, its March of 1998 and Ms Vintiner decides to check the 2 bags again in the third month after the inquiry began, this day there is a someone in the Lab with her who is not from ESR or police, Vintiner also contrary to ESR accreditation rules has sample hairs believed to be that of Oliva taken from the Hope household, - also on a 2nd search for long blond hairs. Ms Vintiner searches the bags again like every other search since January finds nothing. But she doesn't give up just because she is finding the case 'hard' so she searches again and hello, not one long blond hair but 2! Whatever could have happened, but don't worry she is a 'hair comparison' expert. She could presumably walk past you in the supermarket note the colour of your hair and pick it off a table mixed with 100s of other hairs months later.
No surprises there, don't bat a eyelid. Not even for the next details. Until March 1998 and through all those searches the longest hair found was 7.5 cms. But wait, the 2 blond hairs that were never photographed or videod in situ were 25 and 15 cm long, twice and three times longer than any other hairs found. Before moving to the next point it should be noted that both times hairs were taken from the Hope household they were not counted so even if the hair expert had been surprised at the sudden find she couldn't count the Hope household hairs, find 2 missing and say 'silly me.'
There is a tonne of other evidence to show that the 2-hair evidence is decidedly weak despite that a previous Minister of Justice said the case against Scott was 'held together' by the 2 hairs. The strongest might be that 'hair comparison' methods our local 'expert' used were found to have to have resulted in 95% of those convicted by the American FBI using 'hair comparison' methods in the 20 years to 2015 being exonerated. Yes, 95%. In New Zealand, as it is in Britain, experts witnesses duty is to the Court, they are not there for the defence or Crown but as an expert to the Court. If as science methods change or faults are identified in processes, the experts are required to inform the Court of any cases they may have worked on where faulty process has been identified. I can tell you today neither Ms Vintiner or the New Zealand ESR have put their hands up, but have kept silent, deadly quiet.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Liam Ashley's death, 11 years later.
Liam Ashley was 17 years old in 2006 when he took his parents car without permission. Apparently at the stage he was playing up a bit, nothing too serious according to his parents at the time who considered that laying a complaint with the police could be just the good shake up the young teen needed. Liam was arrested and his parents declined to support his bail so he was remanded in custody. I recall reading later that his parents considered a small stint on remand in Auckland's old Mount Eden prison would straighten him out. Shortly after he was strangled and stomped in the prison escort van by 29 year old George Baker who would say he thought the young boy was a 'nark.' The day after, Liam's life support was turned off in Auckland Hospital.
George Baker was classified as a dangerous prisoner with mental health issues who more than likely in a less rigid of the appraisal between mad and bad would have been in a mental health institution and no where near the youngster said to be 'gentle and kind.' How the young boy could apparently be a nark, the term for an informer, at the age of 17 and without any criminal background is another indication of the mental health of George Baker who was sentenced to life with a minimum parole period of 18 years after pleading guilty. Understandably the public concern was high and the Minister of Corrections Damien O Conner was under attack by the opposition shadow Minister Simon Power.
The escort vehicle was not a Corrections van but a contractor's secure van operated by Chubb Security. In 2007 Chubb expressed the desire to give up the contract no doubt because they broke the rules and put a large dangerous adult offender with a small teenager first offender. It was with that situation in mind that I read a letter from the Howard League of Penal Reform (Wellington) dated 16th October 2017 regarding Chubb operating transport for woman offenders between Auckland and Wellington. The letter sets out that the minimum trip time is 12 hours during which there is only one toilet break and no food or water short of a packed breakfast. The prisoners cannot stand (lack of headroom) and are given no chance to alight and walk around to stretch their legs, most are low security and from the description given the conditions are deliberately cramped for financial reasons. 60 cm of bench space per prisoner, inadequate leg space, steel interior, with only small grills for ventilation, they are generally handcuffed. The accommodation has been described as steel cages, without windows. These for women with minimum security ratings that allow them freedom to work outside in prison grounds. Women also prepared to undertake a rehabilitation course to be better mothers and better citizens.
These trips indeed follow rehabilitation programmes the women have completed at Arohata Prison, Wellington before being returned to the Auckland Women's Prison. The Howard League letter discloses a 2006 Ombudsman report which includes a quote from Corrections as saying;
'There is no formal national policy on the provision of food, water and rest breaks or for providing opportunities for prisoners to stretch their legs. Most prisoner transport will consist of relatively short journeys and would not necessitate the need for rest breaks for food and water.'
In 2007 the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, described Corrections 'prisoner transport polices as inhumane.'
I think it is fairly clear that New Zealand Justice changes are generally reactive and most often follow some exposure or 'whipping up' of public outrage. A good example for that is any debate on sentencing where the 'outraged' always have a specific case that they can quote to show the prisons are soft, sentences too short and so on despite their being no correlation for that which is objective rather than subjective. New Zealand is not good at standing back and being objective about such things and anything to do with imprisonment is soon politicized from both sides of the spectrum, generally favouring the outraged who are not in anyway personally involved.
One reaction following Liam's death was against the mentally disturbed George Baker, such are the complexities of the man that I recall him writing (or it may have been by video) to the Court to support his appeal by saying that he had spoken to his mum and they agreed that 18 years was too long. Another was Chubb saying they would walk away from their contract, probably a less than subtle threat to Corrections. Possibly the most recent has been the escape of the prisoner to Brazil from a home leave visit, this resulted in all prisoners having home leaves stopped (some apparently recently beginning again after some 2 years) all work outside prisons was also stopped in some South Island prisons for minimum security prisoners which is apparently still in place. Think of the maths for that. Around 10,000 prisoners is the current prison population. 1 escapes 9,999 suffer for that. Consider the message as being similar to men and boys taken away from their villages in Europe or the Middle East because of a single event against the powers that be, or because of their ethnicity, never to be seen alive again.
A person sent to prison is encouraged to take part in reform programmes in the belief that they can improve themselves, gain assistance for psychological or behavioral problems they may help gain an early release and lead to an improved life for themselves, children or future children. All sounds good. This is the system extolling the benefits of prisoners taking a good look at themselves, looking to take responsibility for themselves and ultimately benefit society by not breaking the law, instead working and being productive in some way. Then 1 escapes, and 9,999 get clonked with the hammer one way or another, reduced chances to visit family toward the end of their sentences, to work outside the prison or eventually work on parole but not because they did something wrong but rather because a person they don't even know did something wrong, got caught and was re-imprisoned. So what actually is the lesson?
It appears to go like this, you've broken the law and at anytime in the future you can be held responsible for something that you didn't do or did not know about. There is something missing here obviously. I'd called it fortitude. When Simon Power put pressure on Damien O'Connor there was a fair chance neither man knew that Chubb would put Liam at the mercy of the madman Charlie Baker, in fact would have been horrified at the thought, presumably think that it could possibly never happen as did the public. However, a battle waged - perfectly understandable in the political spectrum of the time. However is it understandable now? With a prison population of over 10,000 and a solid effort being made to 'command' the re-offending problem by the current and past Government will the politicians continue to wave the big stick as to who is tough on crime and who is not? More than likely, assuming that it will let's go back to the van and being 'reactive.'
What happens if that van catches on fire, does the door open automatically? Is there even an emergency exit as is required on a bus or a plane.
What happens if the vehicle crashes, goes off the road into deep water?
What happens if the vehicle breaks down in an isolated area, say the desert road?
What happens if the steel cage is kicked to touch and the women are moved in Transit van or similar, even a people mover? So that stops can be made, a chance to walk around for both the staff and those in their custody - will the sky fall in? Will the women fail to appreciate that if just 1 of them does something wrong 9,999 others will be punished in some way.
Liam was described as 'gentle and kind'. I wonder what he would have said about this had he not be locked in a cage with a man twice his size who imagined he was something that he was not, who didn't see just a frightened young man being given what was hoped to have been a lesson not to drive the family car without permission and instead felt sorry and protective of him.
George Baker was classified as a dangerous prisoner with mental health issues who more than likely in a less rigid of the appraisal between mad and bad would have been in a mental health institution and no where near the youngster said to be 'gentle and kind.' How the young boy could apparently be a nark, the term for an informer, at the age of 17 and without any criminal background is another indication of the mental health of George Baker who was sentenced to life with a minimum parole period of 18 years after pleading guilty. Understandably the public concern was high and the Minister of Corrections Damien O Conner was under attack by the opposition shadow Minister Simon Power.
The escort vehicle was not a Corrections van but a contractor's secure van operated by Chubb Security. In 2007 Chubb expressed the desire to give up the contract no doubt because they broke the rules and put a large dangerous adult offender with a small teenager first offender. It was with that situation in mind that I read a letter from the Howard League of Penal Reform (Wellington) dated 16th October 2017 regarding Chubb operating transport for woman offenders between Auckland and Wellington. The letter sets out that the minimum trip time is 12 hours during which there is only one toilet break and no food or water short of a packed breakfast. The prisoners cannot stand (lack of headroom) and are given no chance to alight and walk around to stretch their legs, most are low security and from the description given the conditions are deliberately cramped for financial reasons. 60 cm of bench space per prisoner, inadequate leg space, steel interior, with only small grills for ventilation, they are generally handcuffed. The accommodation has been described as steel cages, without windows. These for women with minimum security ratings that allow them freedom to work outside in prison grounds. Women also prepared to undertake a rehabilitation course to be better mothers and better citizens.
These trips indeed follow rehabilitation programmes the women have completed at Arohata Prison, Wellington before being returned to the Auckland Women's Prison. The Howard League letter discloses a 2006 Ombudsman report which includes a quote from Corrections as saying;
'There is no formal national policy on the provision of food, water and rest breaks or for providing opportunities for prisoners to stretch their legs. Most prisoner transport will consist of relatively short journeys and would not necessitate the need for rest breaks for food and water.'
In 2007 the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, described Corrections 'prisoner transport polices as inhumane.'
I think it is fairly clear that New Zealand Justice changes are generally reactive and most often follow some exposure or 'whipping up' of public outrage. A good example for that is any debate on sentencing where the 'outraged' always have a specific case that they can quote to show the prisons are soft, sentences too short and so on despite their being no correlation for that which is objective rather than subjective. New Zealand is not good at standing back and being objective about such things and anything to do with imprisonment is soon politicized from both sides of the spectrum, generally favouring the outraged who are not in anyway personally involved.
One reaction following Liam's death was against the mentally disturbed George Baker, such are the complexities of the man that I recall him writing (or it may have been by video) to the Court to support his appeal by saying that he had spoken to his mum and they agreed that 18 years was too long. Another was Chubb saying they would walk away from their contract, probably a less than subtle threat to Corrections. Possibly the most recent has been the escape of the prisoner to Brazil from a home leave visit, this resulted in all prisoners having home leaves stopped (some apparently recently beginning again after some 2 years) all work outside prisons was also stopped in some South Island prisons for minimum security prisoners which is apparently still in place. Think of the maths for that. Around 10,000 prisoners is the current prison population. 1 escapes 9,999 suffer for that. Consider the message as being similar to men and boys taken away from their villages in Europe or the Middle East because of a single event against the powers that be, or because of their ethnicity, never to be seen alive again.
A person sent to prison is encouraged to take part in reform programmes in the belief that they can improve themselves, gain assistance for psychological or behavioral problems they may help gain an early release and lead to an improved life for themselves, children or future children. All sounds good. This is the system extolling the benefits of prisoners taking a good look at themselves, looking to take responsibility for themselves and ultimately benefit society by not breaking the law, instead working and being productive in some way. Then 1 escapes, and 9,999 get clonked with the hammer one way or another, reduced chances to visit family toward the end of their sentences, to work outside the prison or eventually work on parole but not because they did something wrong but rather because a person they don't even know did something wrong, got caught and was re-imprisoned. So what actually is the lesson?
It appears to go like this, you've broken the law and at anytime in the future you can be held responsible for something that you didn't do or did not know about. There is something missing here obviously. I'd called it fortitude. When Simon Power put pressure on Damien O'Connor there was a fair chance neither man knew that Chubb would put Liam at the mercy of the madman Charlie Baker, in fact would have been horrified at the thought, presumably think that it could possibly never happen as did the public. However, a battle waged - perfectly understandable in the political spectrum of the time. However is it understandable now? With a prison population of over 10,000 and a solid effort being made to 'command' the re-offending problem by the current and past Government will the politicians continue to wave the big stick as to who is tough on crime and who is not? More than likely, assuming that it will let's go back to the van and being 'reactive.'
What happens if that van catches on fire, does the door open automatically? Is there even an emergency exit as is required on a bus or a plane.
What happens if the vehicle crashes, goes off the road into deep water?
What happens if the vehicle breaks down in an isolated area, say the desert road?
What happens if the steel cage is kicked to touch and the women are moved in Transit van or similar, even a people mover? So that stops can be made, a chance to walk around for both the staff and those in their custody - will the sky fall in? Will the women fail to appreciate that if just 1 of them does something wrong 9,999 others will be punished in some way.
Liam was described as 'gentle and kind'. I wonder what he would have said about this had he not be locked in a cage with a man twice his size who imagined he was something that he was not, who didn't see just a frightened young man being given what was hoped to have been a lesson not to drive the family car without permission and instead felt sorry and protective of him.
Friday, November 3, 2017
There's something about Witness C
There was a lot missing at the sentencing of Witness C at the Auckland High Court on 8 counts of perjury. I am not sure what I really expected. The police and Crown have done a lot to protect their informers over many years. The argument has always been that secret witnesses are a last resort, but vital to prosecutions. For the first time the New Zealand public may generally be disturbed that such witnesses may lie, but also lie extravagant detail, and consider the result as the absolute failure of the system to take any interest in the truth. When did the truth first appear to emerge in this case after David Tamihere had been convicted of the murders of the Swedish hitchhikers Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen?
When Urban's body was found buried in bush the 'stolen' watch was still on his wrist, his mortal injuries far different than what witness C had said of his being bashed to death and dumped at sea. Somehow the New Zealand Court of Appeal, despite this fresh evidence that went to the heart of the case, said that the Tamihere convictions built around the Hoglin watch being found in the Tamihere home where it was said to have been gifted to David's son, were 'safe,' At some point during the perjury sentencing Richard Francois, appearing for the 'prosecution,' dismissed the Court of Appeal of that era disdainfully. I was surprised that in the Auckland High Court I would hear the words I often repeat myself about the Court that failed to recognize the Miscarriages of Justices embodied in many cases through that 'era' starting with Tamihere, David Bain, Teina Pora, Scott Watson and Mark Lundy - a Court which filled the gaps for ailing prosecutions, painted over the cracks and administered, heartless, injustice. They were assassins disguised in black gowns forming a medieval Court who could look into the minds of Jurors, defendants and the lawyers themselves always to protect the prosecution. The Court that was never disturbed that Pora, not yet 16, had been held incommunicado, cultivated by the promise of money, lied to, then ignored the big gaps in his story and the inducements he was offered and kept in prison for 2 decades without a single recrimination for Rutherford, the 'tough' nosed South Auckland cop who ignored the real culprit and 'lone wolf' rapist and long time informer Malcolm Rewa, choosing a youth instead that couldn't describe the victim in his 'confession' and didn't know where she lived.
Informers have always been looked after, the authorities are seldom concerned about the truth when in comes to informers, they cover for them as they did in Tamihere and Watson where they said the informers evidence wasn't pivotal and that the prosecution would have still won without the tainted evidence. No explanation ever given, why if the evidence wasn't needed, the hazardous and highly prejudicial was given to the jury. A few days after 'C's' hearing I appreciated that it was right to tell the High Court of the shortcomings of the Court of Appeals in many different Miscarriages of Justice. The Court is after all meant to be a place of truth, a place where the 'truth' as offered by secret witnesses should be viewed as unnecessary and dangerous as case after New Zealand case has shown. So it was an appropriate truth at the sentencing of C in the Auckland High Court that the Court was reminded how the Justice system had been abused by police using secret witness for decades, confident that the Court would back them up. 98 years of false imprisonment on just the names mentioned above when added to Arthur Thomas's 9 years.
I am not sure of what had drawn me to the Court though it would appear to be for the chance to look at C. The once barrel chested Ngapuhi with the velvet tongue was reduced by age, pulling an audience, apparently comfortable and aloof. Hard to read, nothing indicating any sort of remorse for his relationship with the late policeman John Hughes who had helped C get early parole for a double murder only only for him to re-offend and spend longer in prison on his recall than he did for his original sentence. It was spoken about in the Court of C having continued to be 'active' in offering perjured evidence to apparently willing police, there are hints that he had been an informer for over 4 decades. He obviously treated it as a full time job.
Behind him and to his left was David Tamihere a man with an easy smile and also weathered by many years in prison thanks to C's evidence that the Appeal Court would later say wasn't needed. How blind could a Court be to think that 'confessions' that when heard by the Jury causing some to cry - could not have mattered to them. At one stage Tamihere said to a woman sitting close to me that he didn't care what sentence C got but that it was the convictions for perjury that mattered as surely they do. On that Wednesday morning on the grounds where NZ's first Parliament had stood the country moved a little closer to coming of age where the institutions of Justice themselves saw their own covered lack of skepticism exposed to the light by 8 convictions against the heart of Justice.
Around 10 kilometers away in Maximum security Arthur Taylor waited for the outcome of his successful prosecution, a minimum security prisoner held in maximum security, the same prison where both Tamihere and C had spent years and years, the bleak place from where the 'story' 'Henry went last night' was penned, the fresh faced young south islander who took his life there during one short period where 8 or 9 men hanged themselves and a protest began that Arthur would eventually join and become locked in a battle for prisoner's and their families rights. Arthur has won many battles in the Courts, to this point in time none have been more significant than the exposure of the Court of Appeal of 2 decades or so ago and the police confident of 'getting away' with bringing perjurers to Court to gain convictions. Not a single police officer has ever been prosecuted, not in Thomas, Tamihere, Bain, Watson or Lundy. The Courts don't bother to comment and police just keep going paying the mealy mouthed with money, goods or a quicker chance of freedom. Freedom is an interesting word to use in a blog about C who stole an innocent man's freedom abetted by police.
Miscarriages of Justice have many of the same characteristics case by case, sure signs that are ignored, never raised by the Courts or the police. They appear to never looked for and memory of this is shut out when faced with another case that has the same characteristics. Now it is up to all of us to remember the perjury of C. Forget the man himself as the problem, and remember the police and Judges who were his enablers.
When Urban's body was found buried in bush the 'stolen' watch was still on his wrist, his mortal injuries far different than what witness C had said of his being bashed to death and dumped at sea. Somehow the New Zealand Court of Appeal, despite this fresh evidence that went to the heart of the case, said that the Tamihere convictions built around the Hoglin watch being found in the Tamihere home where it was said to have been gifted to David's son, were 'safe,' At some point during the perjury sentencing Richard Francois, appearing for the 'prosecution,' dismissed the Court of Appeal of that era disdainfully. I was surprised that in the Auckland High Court I would hear the words I often repeat myself about the Court that failed to recognize the Miscarriages of Justices embodied in many cases through that 'era' starting with Tamihere, David Bain, Teina Pora, Scott Watson and Mark Lundy - a Court which filled the gaps for ailing prosecutions, painted over the cracks and administered, heartless, injustice. They were assassins disguised in black gowns forming a medieval Court who could look into the minds of Jurors, defendants and the lawyers themselves always to protect the prosecution. The Court that was never disturbed that Pora, not yet 16, had been held incommunicado, cultivated by the promise of money, lied to, then ignored the big gaps in his story and the inducements he was offered and kept in prison for 2 decades without a single recrimination for Rutherford, the 'tough' nosed South Auckland cop who ignored the real culprit and 'lone wolf' rapist and long time informer Malcolm Rewa, choosing a youth instead that couldn't describe the victim in his 'confession' and didn't know where she lived.
Informers have always been looked after, the authorities are seldom concerned about the truth when in comes to informers, they cover for them as they did in Tamihere and Watson where they said the informers evidence wasn't pivotal and that the prosecution would have still won without the tainted evidence. No explanation ever given, why if the evidence wasn't needed, the hazardous and highly prejudicial was given to the jury. A few days after 'C's' hearing I appreciated that it was right to tell the High Court of the shortcomings of the Court of Appeals in many different Miscarriages of Justice. The Court is after all meant to be a place of truth, a place where the 'truth' as offered by secret witnesses should be viewed as unnecessary and dangerous as case after New Zealand case has shown. So it was an appropriate truth at the sentencing of C in the Auckland High Court that the Court was reminded how the Justice system had been abused by police using secret witness for decades, confident that the Court would back them up. 98 years of false imprisonment on just the names mentioned above when added to Arthur Thomas's 9 years.
I am not sure of what had drawn me to the Court though it would appear to be for the chance to look at C. The once barrel chested Ngapuhi with the velvet tongue was reduced by age, pulling an audience, apparently comfortable and aloof. Hard to read, nothing indicating any sort of remorse for his relationship with the late policeman John Hughes who had helped C get early parole for a double murder only only for him to re-offend and spend longer in prison on his recall than he did for his original sentence. It was spoken about in the Court of C having continued to be 'active' in offering perjured evidence to apparently willing police, there are hints that he had been an informer for over 4 decades. He obviously treated it as a full time job.
Behind him and to his left was David Tamihere a man with an easy smile and also weathered by many years in prison thanks to C's evidence that the Appeal Court would later say wasn't needed. How blind could a Court be to think that 'confessions' that when heard by the Jury causing some to cry - could not have mattered to them. At one stage Tamihere said to a woman sitting close to me that he didn't care what sentence C got but that it was the convictions for perjury that mattered as surely they do. On that Wednesday morning on the grounds where NZ's first Parliament had stood the country moved a little closer to coming of age where the institutions of Justice themselves saw their own covered lack of skepticism exposed to the light by 8 convictions against the heart of Justice.
Around 10 kilometers away in Maximum security Arthur Taylor waited for the outcome of his successful prosecution, a minimum security prisoner held in maximum security, the same prison where both Tamihere and C had spent years and years, the bleak place from where the 'story' 'Henry went last night' was penned, the fresh faced young south islander who took his life there during one short period where 8 or 9 men hanged themselves and a protest began that Arthur would eventually join and become locked in a battle for prisoner's and their families rights. Arthur has won many battles in the Courts, to this point in time none have been more significant than the exposure of the Court of Appeal of 2 decades or so ago and the police confident of 'getting away' with bringing perjurers to Court to gain convictions. Not a single police officer has ever been prosecuted, not in Thomas, Tamihere, Bain, Watson or Lundy. The Courts don't bother to comment and police just keep going paying the mealy mouthed with money, goods or a quicker chance of freedom. Freedom is an interesting word to use in a blog about C who stole an innocent man's freedom abetted by police.
Miscarriages of Justice have many of the same characteristics case by case, sure signs that are ignored, never raised by the Courts or the police. They appear to never looked for and memory of this is shut out when faced with another case that has the same characteristics. Now it is up to all of us to remember the perjury of C. Forget the man himself as the problem, and remember the police and Judges who were his enablers.
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Double Murder convictions rarely safe in New Zealand?
There is enough evidence to say that double murder convictions in New Zealand high profile cases are unsafe, not just because of yesterday's convictions of witness 'C' for eight counts of perjury he committed in the David Tamihere double murder convictions. The bad run started in Arthur Thomas's case from 1970. Arthur was twice convicted before being pardoned. At the Royal Commission which followed, police tried to bring in 2 secret witnesses who claimed Arthur had confessed, such was their obviously manufactured evidence that the Royal Commission showed them the door and commented adversely against their kind.
A relatively at the time, young detective, John Hughes featured in the Thomas case where the primary evidence was a planted cartridge case, said to been fired in the Thomas rifle, but later discovered as not having been manufactured at the time of the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. The country was told after Arthur's pardon that the Thomas case was a one off and couldn't happen again. But from that garden where the planted shell case was found something else grew, a police propensity by some officers to plant evidence. There were other cases, one being Ngamu where Hughes made a false confession attributed to Ngamu confirming his part in an armed robbery. When Hughes left the room Ngamu took the false confession out of the rubbish bin and managed to pass to his lawyer Barry Hart. Nothing happened by way of police discipline against Hughes, as nothing had happened with the planted Thomas shell case. Already, for those so inclined in the police, administrators would turn a blind eye to planted evidence and the Courts would be equally ambivalent.
Hughes was in charge of the disappearance of a young Swedish couple Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen, soon attention was drawn to David Tamihere, who would admit having stolen the couple's car. Quite quickly it would later emerge, 3 prison snitches would be helping out Hughes, one of them, 'C', would eventually say that his testimony was fabricated by yes, John Hughes. For this observer that was the signature of the 1970s corruption that began in the Thomas case. There may have been prison snitches before that time, but after the Thomas Royal Commission they became more prevalent like a disease inflicted on Justice in this country which the Courts were willing to ignore, and for which police would never be held responsible. By this time time snitches had 'handlers' who went into prison to gain help to fabricate false evidence. Snitches had become an extension of 'policing' in NZ.
One of the familiar characteristics of 'snitches' testimony was the lack of imagination, there appeared only one tactic, outlandish and sick 'confessions' by accused in cases where there was little other evidence, in which the 'snitches' would hold the weak case together with their reported confessions, often given by seasoned criminals who happened to be 'sickened' by the confessions to the point they contacted police. Most often the snitches would be particularly brutal criminals themselves, in at least 1 case, a snitch blaming a life long friend for the murder of a young Auckland housewife would go onto being convicted of a similar crime after the man he falsely accused of murder suicided in prison before he went to trial, that case has never been resolved - and the false accuser now serves life imprisonment for an identical crime to that he blamed long term friend for.
It was no surprise for this observer that when Scott Watson was eventually arrested for the 'Sounds murders' that secret witness were involved, 2 prison inmates and an anonymous couple who after changing their stories several times would accuse Scott of revealing that he was a violent women hater prepared to kill. The 2 prison witnesses for their part would reveal yes, of course, sordid details they alleged Watson revealed to them and for which they were overcome by outrage and reported it to 'police snitch handlers'. That their confessions were dissimilar never caused a batted eye lid in the Court system, as it had not in Tamihere. The only proceedings where such witnesses were tossed out was from the fiercely independent Thomas Royal Commission who had no truck with such bottom dwelling liars.
A few more years and we advance to the Mark Lundy retrial and find, with the case somewhat in trouble, a good old 'snitch' who claimed Mark Lundy confessed to him in a prison yard where Mark had never been held. So the idea that planted evidence and stoolies was moved on from in the 1970s was proved to be false once again. The Teina Pora case also had snitches as prime witnesses, showing that it doesn't require double homicides but rather high profile cases which police struggle to solve.
The reality is that 'snitches' don't solve cases, they become an obvious part of miscarriages of Justice that Courts and Governments continue to ignore. Justice does not benefit from lying prisoners or secret witnesses, a high majority of controversial cases show that plainly no more that the reminder given by the eight guilty counts in the private prosecution brought by Arthur Taylor which police refused to do themselves.
As a matter of interest, the Lundy appeal is next month and the highly suspect 'novel science' is going to be scrutinised as it has never before been. The key evidence against Mark Lundy is highly suspect and has no authenticated forensic basis, there is no other evidence against him that would result in a conviction and the story to be revealed, I am told, is a shocking revelation that brings no credit to the New Zealand Courts and prosecuting authorities.
I am also told that the Watson case is to be re-visited, not just because 1 of the secreted witnesses there 'recanted', 'reaffirmed' and then disappeared, well at least Kirsty McDonald QC couldn't find him after 4 years of searching around her office, and never asking police for help finding their 'contact.' But also because highly suspect forensic evidence in the case, upon which the Watson convictions barely hang is no longer strong enough in the modern forensic context to solely uphold the Watson convictions as Ms McDonald claimed in 2013 after mulling over the papers for 4 years and being paid over $400,000.
Justice as we know it in controversial cases in NZ, corrupt and sinking by the minute.
A relatively at the time, young detective, John Hughes featured in the Thomas case where the primary evidence was a planted cartridge case, said to been fired in the Thomas rifle, but later discovered as not having been manufactured at the time of the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. The country was told after Arthur's pardon that the Thomas case was a one off and couldn't happen again. But from that garden where the planted shell case was found something else grew, a police propensity by some officers to plant evidence. There were other cases, one being Ngamu where Hughes made a false confession attributed to Ngamu confirming his part in an armed robbery. When Hughes left the room Ngamu took the false confession out of the rubbish bin and managed to pass to his lawyer Barry Hart. Nothing happened by way of police discipline against Hughes, as nothing had happened with the planted Thomas shell case. Already, for those so inclined in the police, administrators would turn a blind eye to planted evidence and the Courts would be equally ambivalent.
Hughes was in charge of the disappearance of a young Swedish couple Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen, soon attention was drawn to David Tamihere, who would admit having stolen the couple's car. Quite quickly it would later emerge, 3 prison snitches would be helping out Hughes, one of them, 'C', would eventually say that his testimony was fabricated by yes, John Hughes. For this observer that was the signature of the 1970s corruption that began in the Thomas case. There may have been prison snitches before that time, but after the Thomas Royal Commission they became more prevalent like a disease inflicted on Justice in this country which the Courts were willing to ignore, and for which police would never be held responsible. By this time time snitches had 'handlers' who went into prison to gain help to fabricate false evidence. Snitches had become an extension of 'policing' in NZ.
One of the familiar characteristics of 'snitches' testimony was the lack of imagination, there appeared only one tactic, outlandish and sick 'confessions' by accused in cases where there was little other evidence, in which the 'snitches' would hold the weak case together with their reported confessions, often given by seasoned criminals who happened to be 'sickened' by the confessions to the point they contacted police. Most often the snitches would be particularly brutal criminals themselves, in at least 1 case, a snitch blaming a life long friend for the murder of a young Auckland housewife would go onto being convicted of a similar crime after the man he falsely accused of murder suicided in prison before he went to trial, that case has never been resolved - and the false accuser now serves life imprisonment for an identical crime to that he blamed long term friend for.
It was no surprise for this observer that when Scott Watson was eventually arrested for the 'Sounds murders' that secret witness were involved, 2 prison inmates and an anonymous couple who after changing their stories several times would accuse Scott of revealing that he was a violent women hater prepared to kill. The 2 prison witnesses for their part would reveal yes, of course, sordid details they alleged Watson revealed to them and for which they were overcome by outrage and reported it to 'police snitch handlers'. That their confessions were dissimilar never caused a batted eye lid in the Court system, as it had not in Tamihere. The only proceedings where such witnesses were tossed out was from the fiercely independent Thomas Royal Commission who had no truck with such bottom dwelling liars.
A few more years and we advance to the Mark Lundy retrial and find, with the case somewhat in trouble, a good old 'snitch' who claimed Mark Lundy confessed to him in a prison yard where Mark had never been held. So the idea that planted evidence and stoolies was moved on from in the 1970s was proved to be false once again. The Teina Pora case also had snitches as prime witnesses, showing that it doesn't require double homicides but rather high profile cases which police struggle to solve.
The reality is that 'snitches' don't solve cases, they become an obvious part of miscarriages of Justice that Courts and Governments continue to ignore. Justice does not benefit from lying prisoners or secret witnesses, a high majority of controversial cases show that plainly no more that the reminder given by the eight guilty counts in the private prosecution brought by Arthur Taylor which police refused to do themselves.
As a matter of interest, the Lundy appeal is next month and the highly suspect 'novel science' is going to be scrutinised as it has never before been. The key evidence against Mark Lundy is highly suspect and has no authenticated forensic basis, there is no other evidence against him that would result in a conviction and the story to be revealed, I am told, is a shocking revelation that brings no credit to the New Zealand Courts and prosecuting authorities.
I am also told that the Watson case is to be re-visited, not just because 1 of the secreted witnesses there 'recanted', 'reaffirmed' and then disappeared, well at least Kirsty McDonald QC couldn't find him after 4 years of searching around her office, and never asking police for help finding their 'contact.' But also because highly suspect forensic evidence in the case, upon which the Watson convictions barely hang is no longer strong enough in the modern forensic context to solely uphold the Watson convictions as Ms McDonald claimed in 2013 after mulling over the papers for 4 years and being paid over $400,000.
Justice as we know it in controversial cases in NZ, corrupt and sinking by the minute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)