Sunday, July 6, 2014

Joseph Parker comes of age.

Joseph Parkers win over Brian Minto in Auckland last night showed how far the young heavyweight might go. Suddenly it looks like there is no heavyweight in the Pacific basin who might beat him. Not only is he continuing to hone rare boxing skills but also to display 'ring intelligence' and 'savvy.' I've written about the potential of Parker's relationship with Kevin Barry before. For the first time since their time together as coach and pupil did we see the finer hand of Barry moulding the younger man. In particular Parker controlling his natural inclination to 'mix it up.' In a little over a year he's become a more disciplined boxer who doesn't readily go into the alley but who however remains disciplined and uses his strengths rather than mixing it as a brawler at times.

Parker readily showed the deficiencies of the aging Brian Minto. For those that might remember Hollyfield 'bullying' Tyson - Parker took a page out of that book, literally bullying and muscling Brian out of the match. He also once again showed his power and his continuing to improve left jab. He showed little vulnerability and opponents in the future will know that Parker has come of age with experience and improving skills. I think his jab will become devastating and the cornerstone of his style as it should be with a taller, quick fighter.

No cuts last night as he learns to stay out of the way of potential head-butts. If anything we saw that Parker now deflects the brawlers elbows, head butts and hooks by effectively using his strength and tying them up before moving back to his distance and bringing his jab into the fray once again. We also saw the 'fine tuning' that Kevin Barry, and we fans, must enjoy - a heavyweight using and continuing to define his skills. How many times we heard that the redoubtable David Tua was adopting new techniques while with Parker he simply shows them in the ring. Some punters would have noticed that as Parker tied Minto up at times he looked toward his corner as though to confirm his adoption of not only Barry's fight plan but that it was working. Also to note was that he is capable of listening to instructions between rounds and that he is very smart and open to learning. Complete those with his natural attributes and New Zealand has the classiest heavyweight perhaps the Country has produced.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Is McVicar threatening John Key?

In response to a press release from Corrections and Police Minister Anne Tolley that it is the Government's intention to proceed with legislation for a sex offender's Register, a clearly upset Garth McVicar, had this to say:

“The Prime Minister seems to be an astute man; my advice would be that he makes sure there are no unpleasant surprises behind the action against SST and proposal to bar public access to the sex-offender register."

The full link is here; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00421/government-about-to-repeat-legal-high-mistake.htm

Of course 'no unpleasant surprises behind the action against SST ' refers to the SST being taken to Court by the Privacy Commissioner for publishing an offenders details and historical convictions as a breach of the Privacy of that offender and his family. What McVicar doesn't speak about is that the offences dated back over 25 years, the offender had gone on to lead a law abiding life and was approached for money on the basis that if it wasn't received then the offenders details would be given to the SST for publication. In other words, a form of blackmail. While there is no suggestion that I'm aware that the SST approached the man directly it remains that if the money or published 'threat' is true then not only did the SST ignore the threat, or find nothing untoward about it - they helped carry it out. Exactly why John Key should be concerned about 'unpleasant surprises' for not condoning 'private' activities of this nature, which have the hall marks of vigilantism, is unclear to probably most people - but clearly not McVicar.

Although the 'work' of the SST is being increasingly marginalized as the Government looks to balance the books on the public safety aspect of some offenders and where they might live in the future, and with whom, SST have no doubt played a role in encouraging the Government along these lines. But to be fair also the cases of abusers 'adopting' roles in new family situations have given Government cause to take effective action. It seems that McVicar rather than support the Government's initiatives appears to see them as taking something from McVicar himself, and the SST, rather than giving security to the public.

This was always going to be an issue it appears because of the 'position' McVicar saw himself entitled to take. Regardless of that 'position' his inability to recognize the Law first, and foremost, put him on a likely collision course with the Authorities. In a sometimes highly emotive subject, child sex offender's in particular, boundaries were not only going to be tested, but also broken. That is the reason why the SST has been taken to Court, because it saw itself as a Law unto itself - this brought a whole range of other problems and shortsightedness. Where the SST have seen the rights of victims as being foremost they have never shown the capacity to see their position has created victims. An example of this could be the man at the centre of the dispute between the Privacy Commissioner and the SST. After a cup of tea to settle down, it would be hoped that McVicar would see that the man was entitled to get on with his life privately, not be subject to blackmailing but mostly not have his family affected by his past being re-visited in a very public way.

I listened to Anne Tolley interviewed about her plans for a Register, her opinions are very considered and sit inside a frame work of Privacy, rights of the individual and so on. She is dispassionate about creating greater protection for the public. Although it is clearl, she is highly motivated that it is a Government role and not one for a group many see as vigilantes ready to support attacks against families who are expected just to weather the storm as a husband, or father is attacked publicly for historical convictions. One can almost imagine that the lack of the vision by the SST on this, indicates that the SST has a position that the families 'deserve' to be outed or simply seen as 'collateral' damage.

Enough of that for now, and putting aside that McVicar may simply be distressed that the Government is taking action that he has long called for himself it's important to consider how far the vigilantism has reached while successive Governments have either sat on their hands or conducted a relationship with the SST. The current case is one, there are others that we may not hear about and at least one more that will test the credibility of those running the SST to the max. Firstly however, it is important to highlight the distinction between those 'running' the SST and the genuine membership of victims. The actions of the administration, lack of action, compliance in threats doesn't reflect on the genuine membership nor should  it do so. Many, including myself have said that the SST hierarchy takes advantage of the vulnerability and distress of the genuine membership.

The test of whether some are being used by others is perhaps best characterized by the fact that the most vocal in the SST are not themselves victims. Taking a broader look at the membership it is unfortunately confirmed that many members of the SST were either members or associates of the 'hate' sites successfully sued by Karam. Those individuals, sadly to say, are recorded as threatening to send gang members to the houses of those opposing them, taking their children and laying false complaints with the police and other organisations. Most of that is recorded in material leaked from the hate-sites or expressed in 'on line' anger of the 'hate site' membership.

The distinction between the broader membership and motivation of the SST administration and 'hate sites' membership is also characterised by 'advice' from 'Lawyers' of a nature to say the least is stunningly stupid and down right vicious. Of course I exclude the late Greg King here and point to the current 'legal advisors' of the SST and other disbarred or disgraced Lawyers who advised or encouraged Kent Parker to jump off a 'financial' cliff even knowing that he is an ex mental health patient.

In many ways the SST strive for legitimate recognition has resulted in the SST being subject to the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. Both Acts which on the face of it one would expect a legal and charitable organisation to embrace - however the fact that those Acts, along with boasts on the hate-sites else where have made stored information of the SST available despite the 'belief' that the 'open' organisations were operating in secrecy. Ironic of course that while the SST have no hesitation in releasing information that is not authenticated to an acceptable level, or even subject to a legal and reasoned policy, that the SST itself shrouds it's activities and membership in 'secrecy' it accuses others of holding.

Of course the tirade of McVicar produced above will fly under the radar. But for the informed, and those that will continue to be informed as the activities of the SST and hate-sites are continued to be investigated - will already be seeing a quite startling pattern, threats, support of blackmail, false accusations etc as giving pause for thought as to why Anne Tolley could possibly not be on the right track.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Joe Karam wins against the hate-sites.

The word hate-sites continues to grate with some who observe that the JFRB groups and Counterspin were established to get 'Justice' for Robin Bain.  The subject of Justice for Robin is emotive at the very least, such calls overlook the fact that something in excess of 15 million dollars has been spent defending Robin on the basis that David was guilty. It is the Prosecuting authorities in the Bain case who have represented Robin and failed to produce a case in his defence by proving to the satisfaction of a Jury that it was David, not Robin, who was guilty of the deaths of the Bain family beyond a reasonable doubt. This 'cry' for Justice was misguided from the outset because New Zealand Law had functioned as it should, the person The Crown considered was guilty was tried and The Crown insisted that the killer of the family could only be Robin or David.

Even before David's retrial the internet was ablaze with all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of David's guilt, that he had received psychiatric care, that he was lazy and unhappy with his life, it was even claimed that he was guilty of incest. In short what would never come out in Court because it wasn't true would be spread through the internet by the disciples of hate in order that the real 'truth' go out, and hopefully to any prospective Jurors long before the trial. One person who I have named before had even 'seen' photos of scratches to David's chest that 'must have' resulted from a fight with Stephen, his younger deceased brother. Of course the photos were never produced, indeed the Doctor who examined David found no such marks on his chest. When I first noticed this stuff on Trade Me I was surprised. New to the internet I was somewhat shocked that such allegations could be posted without sanction. When I happened along I was at first greeted by the sisters (as I later named them) as someone who could be influenced to their cause. However after reading the Privy Council decision I was far from convinced and anything I questioned resulted in unsatisfactory answers that didn't ring true or resonant as realistic. I asked about both (David and Robin's) hands and was told the lie that Robin's were clean of blood and had no damage. Soon the mood turned against me, I guess I became the enemy because I wouldn't accept that which made no sense.

Some of the rest of that story is history. I started to complain to TM after the re-trial that the sisters continued to freely call David a murderer despite that he had been found guilty. I knew full well that in the print media rules applied to such comments and they wouldn't be allowed. Eventually I was banned and then a campaign was started against myself and my family the tail of which continues to be mopped up. It was in this background that I felt I had to resist. A common theme was 'free speech.' The sisters demanded that their hate spiel be viewed as free speech while all the time doing everything possible to silence their critics to the point of threats and stalking. Rather than further that conversation I should revert to the context of the sisters position it was to do harm to David Bain, Joe Karam and anybody who stood in their way. This wasn't a matter of debate or truth,

Rather it was evil at work mostly perpetuated by older folk keen to avenge being unhappy or lonely it seems - in much the same way Robin was late in his lfe. In such an environment they were accepted, comments they made too bizarre to be true were accepted without question. None sanction others as they set about 'investigating' and denigrating the Jury, witnesses or simply those that disagreed with them and their motives. None challenged those that stalked or threatened families, particularly children as though they were collateral and not real beings or simply those that should be protected from a vitriolic hatred. There were major 'leaks,' in fact a whole web site was made accessible by it's owner through google ads and copied. The contents showed the inner workings of the minds of these individuals as they plotted to claim David had confessed and other such rubbish, not least who their targets were and how they would be dealt with. All of this of course in the name of 'Justice for Robin Bain.' It appears none were able to connect that Justice for anybody is not achieved by the proliferation of lies and threats against others.

Joe Karam of course stood against this, and in the right way - he took his case to the Courts. One after another the big respondents settled, Fairfax, NZ Herald, Trade Me etc it was only the bewildered Kent Parker who 'defended' himself after his co-defendant having proved his sincerity to the cause of Justice for Robin Bain by fleeing. Interesting to note here that much of what populates Kent Parker's mind and that of his followers was projected onto Karam, David Bain and other supporters of the two. For example the allegations of incest against Robin were spread to David. As was the fact Kent Parker himself detained as a mental health patient became an allegation that David had spent time in psychiatric care in Australia. Even the reports of a young Arawa Bain telling a friend of her father placing his fingers inside her were described as a matter of fact, common event of fathers to daughters by a Palmerston North man who posts bitterly against anyone not accepting that Robin is innocent - such projection tells more of the man himself than answering the allegation made against Robin. This, the same man who wrote to police for details of David's strip search and 'released' the details, which however did not match what was contained in released documentation obtained under the Official Information Act, The same man who expressed some petulance at not being allowed to be involved in the Compensation Claim by David and who offered to 'review' Binnie's report. Of course this was all denied, as is everything denied by the sisters and even when the paperwork is referred to they switch to another subject of the case. Parker's fragile mind is an interesting point, I was able to pick by reading his correspondence, being reasonable at times then switching to a polar opposite view in a heartbeat. But more interest is those that surrounded him, it says more about their judgement and character that they either could not discern Kent's mental health struggles, or chose to ignore them without cautionary warnings as to where associating with his crusade might lead. The answer to that is fairly simple, they're all as mad as one another - the reason why the numbers of hate-site members continued to fall as though some emerged from an intoxicating belief that they were right and everyone that didn't agree with them was wrong.

They did not exit in style however. Those that had promised Kent financial help abandoned the idea and only a few such as the Palmerston North child abuse apologist had thick enough skin to imagine that his relationship with Kent was sustained despite the apologist not fronting with the promised money. On the same man, and if it's to his credit (surely something must be) agree to give written testimony in support of Kent only to have it rejected as irrelevant. Another example of how a million words, promises or questions have been unable to cut to the question of Robin's blood stained hands in relation to the deaths of his family, or in fact the allegations against Karam of being corrupt or only after money. Justice Courtney has dismissed those allegations now without a word needed from the gas bag from Palmerston North, a man who interestingly enough was found to have made a third person published statement that defamed Karam. Where that may lead is interesting because on the face of it he is liable because a High Court Judgement has declared his statement defamatory.

I've read a number of comments about disappointment with the Courtney Judgement in that she didn't take a 'global' view of the individual accusations of defamation, but looked at them singularly. That criticism isn't correct to my mind, because Courtney referred to 'ill will.' Those words encompass a 'global view' in the way that my previous post criticised the Court of Appeal for not being able to see that there was 'ill will' at work in the Bryan Bruce documentary where he discussed the emotive subject of 'defamation' of Robin Bain along side suggestions that Daryl Young had not been truthful on a peripheral matter in evidence given at the trial. Those peripherals are the forte of Bruce and the 'crime reporter' Van Beynan, who after years of writing on the Bain case are yet to explain why they didn't make it clear that David had no scratches on his chest when examined by the police doctor hours after the murder, or how Robin Bain came to have blood smears on the palms of his hands, a towel soaked with his own blood in the laundry, and his dna discovered deep inside the rifle highly likely proving the suction effect of suicide by gunshot wound to the head. They were more interested in who was on the Jury, such is the standard of the analysis given the Bain case and the popular fuel feed to the hate-sites as a result. It could be argued that the hate-sites might never have fostered members if Van Beynan for example had been truthful about the condition of Robin's hands and his blood in the laundry and in the rifle barrel - even the slower members of the community of the hate-siters group could not have lied about facets of the case had they been reported faithfully, and by literal importance by Van Beynan. That the hate-sites claimed having the confidence of Van Beynan and supported him in Jury hunt for which he was warned by the Justice Department shows how fundamental Van Beynan was to the attacks on Karam.

The role of Van Beynan and Bruce give a full scope picture of  the mentality of the hate-siters. Examples of this are that when Bruce claimed that the door on a certain van was in a different place that what Daryl Young had said - the hate-sites immediately stretched that to meaning David was guilty. It never would occur to them that the position of a door on a van didn't explain why Robin had marks likely to have been from loading the magazine on his hands, an example of pointless evidence from the extreme edge overcoming (at least in the mind of the deluded) hard forensic evidence against Robin. That Van Beynan appears to have overlooked publishing such critical evidence, appears to show an effort to foster public opinion against Karam and David Bain. Briefly returning to the 'projection' mentioned above, when Parker gave a description of Karam as an insight into his character it now prevails that it was close to the psychiatric picture mirrored by Parkers own need for psychiatric care. So too the propagandist claim of Karam as being Nazi like is revealed by Parker himself under cross examination to have been exactly his own tactics and not Karams.

Another unfortunate 'common' characteristic of the hate-siters is how many of them are or were members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This was shown by the 'leaked' website hosted by Annette Curran who has incidentally changed her name and looks to be heading her life in another more fruitful and less hateful direction. Because the SST has been declared an agency over which one Act of Parliament applies, and with the likelihood of a 2nd Act also applying there is sure to be more official investigation into those links and any law breaking which may have followed.

In the meantime congratulations to Karam and Michael Reed for the unfortunate but ultimately role they were cast into defending against liars and charlatans. It seems to me that the Courtney Judgement is a fundamental finding that indeed favors free speech and sets a lawful chart into the waters of the internet. More on that later.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Is the Court of Appeal of this world?

2 days ago the New Zealand Court of Appeal released a decision that makes me wonder how far from earth the Court may be. This was the case of Daryl Young claiming defamation against Bryan Bruce, Television NZ and others relating to a 'program' in which Daryl Young, a defense witness in the Bain retrial, was characterized as an example of what 'is' wrong within the Justice system by virtue of the dead not being able to speak for themselves. A situation with all the hallmarks of the middle ages and convening with the dead. The fact is in the modern world, a deceased person alleged to have been murdered is 'spoken for' by investigators in the first instance and the Crown if the matter proceeds to Court. The Crown 'take over,' making out the case for murder, offering relevant evidence to that claim and countering any potential claims by an accused person against the deceased.

Before going further I have to say that Daryl Young's evidence was never pivotal to the acquittal of David Bain and therefore the acceptance that his father Robin had killed himself after dispatching 4 members of his family. No conviction would have been entered against David had Young not given evidence, and there was no evidence that Young gave that bore any consequence on forensic evidence that Robin was the killer and that David was not. Also, I admit not having watched the 'show,' primarily because Bryan Bruce's use of music and shaded sets reminds me of a poor relation of 'shows' such as 'Sensing Murder' where folks rub beads or their belly's or some such thing while 'talking' with the dead.

So just to be clear again there was no evidence which Daryl Young gave that was pivotal to the forensic proof against Robin as the murderer of his family. The event which Young described took place in a different location and at a time earlier than the murders. Additionally, it's clear that Young never gave an opinion on the point that Brown tries to make that the dead cannot defend themselves as though he is the only person in the history of the world that does not follow how the criminal Justice system works. That is The Crown taking the case for the deceased believed to have been murdered, to speak of their demise and prove that another, and still 'quick' person, killed them.

It's frankly amazing that the Court of Appeal (COA) are unable to link that Brown was effectively saying that it was 'evidence' such as that given by Young which resulted in David Bain being found not guilty leaving his deceased father as the only other 'suspect' and therefore perpetrator. Brown put the face of the prejudice, he claims befall the dead, on Young. He did that in this show and it would be obvious to the public in general, in fact members of the hate-sites and others immediately claimed that Young was a perjurer and therefore, somehow, responsible for the unexplained blood smears on Robin's palms consistent with him having murdered his family for example. That's what happened in the real world although perhaps not in the space ship where the COA reside.

The Judgement is on line. Much is made of Young's claim of 'ill will' on behalf of Brown and TV1 which on the face of it appears that there was no 'ill will.' That is of course before 'stepping back' from the details of the programe, associated advertising and comment. That a lot of comment arising from the 'speaking ill of the dead unable to defend themselves' centered on Young has completely missed the COA, who, one could say have being either myopic, or sought to favour positions that might remedy in some small ways criticism that Court faced from the Privy Council on an earlier Bain appeal. Whether the 'miss' was deliberate or not, it beggars belief that the COA has not tied the 2 issues into one and has been completely taken in by Brown's 'submission' of a problem within the system, along with a 'face representative' of that problem.

It goes further though unfortunately. Brown called for balance between the rights of an accused and the dead. He said that nobody had spoken for Robin when plainly they had, many witnesses giving evidence supportive of the character of Robin Bain - so that 'position' was far from accurate. Even more inaccurate however is that Brown claimed that hearsay about Robin was unfair, how he managed to do that with a straight face while ignoring the amount of hearsay submitted against David on the other hand was fairly remarkable. The Court said 'Given the capacity of ordinary reasonable television viewers to 'read between the lines' the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of includes their inferential meaning. Quite true, as does the sub text that Young was a liar who represented the purge of 'hearsay' that Young was focusing on in his show. The Court continues with what also viewers would reasonably infer from what was said, true again, an inference that Young was representative of those speaking ill of the dead, and a 'liar' to boot.

Let's look at that 'liar' question. First of all Brown and TV1 would eventually rely on a letter from police that claimed that Young was 'untruthful' in his evidence. I don't think that 'untruthfulness' was specifically pointed out and the police concluded that he would not be charged. Going over that again, the police 'decided' that Young was untruthful - in other words 'convicting' him without the ability to prove it in Court - a dangerous precedent but one which Brown and TV1 nevertheless used against Young. It seems that Young's Lawyer unfortunately did not 'assemble' for the Court the emphasis and impact of the linking of the 'defaming' of the dead to the denouncement of a 'defamer' in the same show. Nevertheless, it is plainly visible to what the 'reasonable' person the Court spoke of, was able to infer - something the Court chose to ignore without comment.

The Court referred to claims by 2 persons associated with Mr Young who were either interviewed or quoted in the programe. 2 people, who of course, unlike Daryl Young, did not give evidence and were not cross examined. Again however, looming in the background of what the 2 persons said wasn't the fact that the police had no proof of the standard to warrant a prosecution against Young, but rather the image of the deceased Robin Bain, maligned and unable to speak for himself - that was the inference, white versus black, good versus evil - a 'game' in which Young was entrapped and with no actual recourse to defend himself on one hand without evoking anger for something he was not in any way responsible for.

We then move to the 'importance' of a ambush style phone call by Brown to Young with effectively an ultimatum that Brown didn't know if Young had told the truth because there were 2 individuals or had conflicting versions. At which point Brown in the program speaks about balance. Yes balance, Young somewhat ambushed and Brown expecting him to co-operate with a party who is a 'believer' in the innocence of Robin Bain, and who in fact has spoken about talking to people who found Robin to be kindly, but who had apparently not spoken to people who found Robin, toward the end of his life, to have been withdrawn and angry - even aggressive. The Court then goes onto state that the watched the programe and could not find anything to make them disagree with an earlier decision by Gilbert J as to the contents of the show that it inferred Young was a liar. Ahem, so relying on another view that looked at detail rather than the overall picture in which is included from Brown's own mouth that he does not believe that Robin Bain killed his family, balance? Sure.

Where on behalf of Young, Mr Morten, points that Young's evidence was the 'piece de resistance, climax or sexy bit the Court disagrees. Describing the part dealing with Mr Young's evidence as the 'sub set' rather than concluding the obvious that Young's was the face to put the 'despair' of Robin (the dead) being 'defamed' (something that actually cannot happen under our Law) characterizing a failure within the Legal system. One which by Brown's definition, may have led to Robin being held responsible because of David's acquittal. The face of Young had little to do with Robin's role in the murders as decided by the majority of the Jury and everything to do with his hands exhibiting that he been in a bloody fight that morning before he handled the magazine found beside his body.  For 'balance,' as described by The Court, that is a place where Brown needed to be. He needed to be saying to the viewers that of course the conflicting stories of Young and the 2 others didn't touch about the thrust of the forensic evidence which implicated Robin and exculpated David. That's balance, an overall picture of the important evidence in the case - something which it appears that Brown totally ignored while plucking at the heart strings of those that have trouble following the Law and who speaks for who.

The Court continues with discussion about the role of Law Makers in terms of the Defence not being required to list their witnesses in the way The Crown are required to do. A fair point, however the COA seem unable to comprehend that it is Young's face that many in the public will have linked to this apparent ambiguity, one which neither David Bain or Daryl Young are responsible for. To this point I begin to see that which has happened to David Bain as being very similar to that which has happened to Daryl Young In Young's case that it appears deliberate and calculating on the part of Bruce who focused on what suited his 'arguments and inferences' and ignored the more significant amount of material that did not - no balance despite his 'clever' use of the word. Where did he speak about Robin's dna being found in the rifle or the blood smears on his palms - no where. Additionally, where did he put in context that David would have been found not guilty anyway despite the evidence of Young because The Crown were unable to overcome the evidence contained in the lounge and on Robin's body which showed it was he who had been involved in a bloody fight that morning.

The ironies that remain, despite this Judgement, is that the letter from the police saying that Young was 'untruthful' and later distributed by both Brown and TV1 remains an 'alive' issue in his claim. Also that both Brown and TV1 now say that they were not claiming that Young was a liar, mmmh, well why didn't they declare that in their 'balanced' show to remove all inference. Not a good analysis by the COA, and a complete failure to 'step back.' Also deciding what a Juror might decide was, or was not defamatory - as incapable of having particular meaning. It is not for The Court to place themselves in a Juror's mind as the COA did in an earlier Bain decision which was overturned. A particular meaning can be 'evoked' by a particular scenario as was portrayed by Brown and TV1. That isn't speculation because 1000s of on line claims were made along with talk-back comment after the show saying that Young had lied - that's the real world, not an artificial one when a 'program' is made by a certain producer that has a 'stance' and goes out to prove it, lacking all balance.


Sunday, February 23, 2014

So David Bain finally lands, softly.

I've been noticing a diminishing of the campaign against David Bain, a respite, a sobering as good sense perhaps or tiredness takes hold. Although it may have seemed a time that would never come, the campaign against David Bain is waning. There is little energy left for the 'twisted sisters' to continue, they've done their dash, written millions of words, pulled and stretched the truth of their position until the point came where even they realized their 'truth' was unbelievable, that their shame at being wrong is best faced by slinking into the shadows.

Of all the immovable objects between the Bain 'case' and the truth it's perhaps only 2 that were foremost. 2 that I have mentioned many times but which have no answer despite the millions of dollars spent trying to prove that black is in fact white. A person who is murdered by stealth does not have evidence of being in a fight left on his or her hands, nor blood, nor bruises, cuticle stained red and so it goes on. There always needed to be a complete answer to that from Robinson and Doyle who set in motion the 'case' against David Bain. An innocent, laying down dead person, murdered by surprise, doesn't have the remnants of crime left visible on his or her hands. So also the 2nd unexplained 'event' in the Bain case, a person strip searched by a police Doctor who fills out a prescribed form requiring fine and precise detail does not overlook injuries of either substantial or minor nature, nor scars, nor abnormalities or distinguishing features. If you add these 2 together it's clear why David Bain is innocent of killing his family and why his father Robin is guilty

Relatively recently, in a dying gasp from the hate-sites it has been explained that Robin 'only' had small amounts of blood on the palms of his hands, when he shot himself or by the alternative explanation was murdered. Suddenly the retreat is about the amount of blood where once the declaration was that he had no blood at all on the palms of his hands, and no injuries to his knuckles. To acknowledgement that Robin had blood on his palms means that there is agreement that he had been handling items covered in blood or made physical contact with his deceased family either before, after or during their deaths - though there was never an explanation in the Crown case for that. This is a good time to note that several people have been convicted on murder for having a single speck of dna on them, while in fact Robin had copius blood on his palms that couldn't have arrived there from his shot to the head. Moving on from cries that Robin is dead and not able to defend himself, none of his defenders have been able to explain why Robin, settling into pray as was his 'custom,' had bloodied hands. Or indeed why a 'holy man' would pray with 'small' amounts of blood on his hands or where he could have got them in the house where 4 other people lay dead - his estranged wife and 3 of their children, battered and shot in their beds.

So to the second fail:

The evidence which did exist - Robin's bloodied and bruised hands, were said to have been clean and clear of any evidence which pointed to him having killed his family despite the photos that show otherwise. Conversely a 'scratch' on David Bain's chest not seen when he was examined only hours after the killings by a police Surgeon - and despite not a single word in the Doctor's notes, nor a photograph when things of lesser importance were recorded was 'evidence' against David. Repeating that evidence which existed against Robin was denied by his supporters, meanwhile they argued that evidence which didn't exist against David, time relevant, proved he, and not his father was guilty. Despite that, great choirs, led by Martin Van Beynan for example and others, sang of evidence which didn't exist and ignored evidence which did. That is what a persecutor will do. A persecutor will not be fair, seek balance rather than flat denials, oversights or down right lies. A persecutor will say until they are blue in the face that Robin had no cuts and bruises to his hands nor blood on his palms, and at the same time say that David had scratches on his chest only hours after his family were killed - but there will no evidence of that, absolutely none.

After considering those like Van Beynan who deliberately left out compelling evidence against Robin Bain, but who 'used' non existent evidence  against his son in a campaign against him, then we see why David finally lands softly. Nobody can put blood on hands or take it off during an autopsy. Equally, nobody can leave evidence of being in a fight, scratches to the chest, hands or elsewhere out from a police Doctor's report or from supporting staff and a photographer. Nobody except a persecutor. But as we perhaps begin to see now, persecutors, the mistaken, or the misled cannot forever discharge bile in the face of facts. David Bain at last begins to land softly from terror where only 'small' amounts of blood are ignored and things which don't exist are crowed about.

If the vacuum effect test is applied to the Bain case and all evidence is suddenly disappeared apart from the Pathologist's report and photographs and that of the police Doctor, disallowing all the hyperbole about the funeral arrangements, the glass lens, the washing, the dog and on and on forever - then all that is left is the opportunity for a comparison between the 2 men's hands, the visibility or absence of blood on their hands, the visibility or absence of a scratch on David's chest, blood visible from the area of Robin's nose, marks on his hands consistent with handling a magazine, in short all the evidence of murder against one and none against the other.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

John Key on Teina Pora - does he get it?

POLITICAL REACTION
Prime Minister John Key said the Privy Council decision showed the strength of the justice system.
"Somebody who believes there's been a miscarriage of justice can continue to test their rights and this is a very historical case, it's complex."
Key said some "interesting things" had been raised.
"But all I can say is everybody has the right to continue to test whether they are innocent or guilty.
"If they believe they are innocent they can put up a genuine case which is certainly the situation here where the Privy Council has given leave for Teina Pora to take his case back, and let's see what the Privy Council says."
Justice Minister Judith Collins said the decision showed the justice system was working.
"What it shows is the matter is still before the courts and the system actually works very well," she said.
"The decision from the Privy Council is simply that Mr Pora has been granted leave to appeal and so we now will go through the process and see what the decision is from that."
She said she could "not possibly" comment on why the Privy Council made its decision.
"I think it suggests that the Privy Council has found enough for them to be interested in looking further and that's quite a right thing to do if that's what they decide."
Pora did have an application in with the minister to consider granting a pardon.

A spokeperson from Collins' office said that application had been placed on hold at the request of Pora's lawyers, while they pursued a Privy Council hearing.

John Key is quoted above from Stuff that the Privy Council decision (in the Pora case to grant leave to Appeal) shows the strength of the Justice System. On the contrary it shows the weakness of the Justice System. It's only by virtue of the age of the Pora case that the man has been able to have his case heard at the Privy Council which is no longer available to New Zealanders as the highest Court. That right has long been swept away by a previous Government. John key says that this is a historical case, yet all the cases that emerge, as shown to be Miscarriages of Justice in New Zealand, particularly murder convictions resulting in life sentences, are historical casesThey become 'historical' because of the length of time it takes for such cases to be remedied. In other words using the word 'old' or 'historical' doesn't displace the urgency of resolving such cases it simply shows New Zealand's abysmal ability to correct injustice delivered through the Justice System.

John Key also notes that the case is 'complex,' again I disagree. The only complexity in the Pora case is that the police held a young man incommunicado under the pretence of helping him gain a reward, that he gone to solicit from them, but ultimately showed him the crime scene and used the teenagers below average intelligence as a weapon against him to extract a confession. When it was later revealed that the victim Susan Burdett's body revealed the dna of serial rapist Malcom Rewa, the police tried Rewa for rape and murder arguing for the first time the older man had been an accomplice of the teenager. He was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of rape. In a separate re-trial Pora was again found guilty. The only people ever able to place Pora and Rewa together were paid informants. There was no dna or physical evidence linking Pora to the murder, all the 'evidence' resulted from the information given to him by the police and stitched together in the first instance without the name Rewa ever being mentioned. All of this is now for the Privy Council to deliberate. However the decision of Pora's appeal is highly likely to join 2 other recent cases, Bain and Lundy where the PC found injustice had occurred that New Zealands Appeal Court had 'overlooked' for what were analysed as the Court placing themselves in the seat of a Jury and second guessing what they 'might' have decided.

So the word 'complex' used by Key is clearly linked to 'historical,' that is the amount of time that a case might take to wind its way through the system. However, that also reveals another reason why cases become 'historical.' Defendants are not funded to appeal. An inmate perhaps in maximum security, no income, no means is expected to pay their own way in order, as Key puts it,  to 'show(ed) the strength of the justice system.' Although in the Lundy case costs toward the hearing at the PC were granted by way of Legal Aid, that wasn't the case with Bain or to this point with Pora. Moreover, the Lundy 'costs' didn't include the work done by his counsel for years before being able to have the case heard in London. So another way the 'justice system' shows its 'strength' is by inhibiting appeals, shutting the door on them unless a convicted person is fortunate enough to have help offered at no cost - yet even then the hurdles will remain in place. I say that because there is none of the current controversial cases where the police or prosecuting authorities have taken a 'fresh' look at the ambiguities of the Miscarriages of Justice and not contested them at appeal or at Trial. In fact in Lundy it took prosecutors some 12 years, or so, to have over information from it's own file and experts which stated that Lundy should not be convicted on the basis of degenerated dna. 14 years, adds a long time to history, or making the case 'historical' as our Prime Minister comfortably describes in his 'health report,' that neither mentions lack of funding, and indeed a Superior Commonwealth Court that New Zealanders are now denied by their own Government.

Turning to the comments of the Minister of Justice above, in particular this ,,,,,,"The decision from the Privy Council is simply that Mr Pora has been granted leave to appeal and so we now will go through the process and see what the decision is from that."
She said she could "not possibly" comment on why the Privy Council made its decision.
"I think it suggests that the Privy Council has found enough for them to be interested in looking further and that's quite a right thing to do if that's what they decide."  

We are treated to a version that is 'simply' that Pora has been granted leave to appeal. That 'simply' has been the highest possible hurdle for a convicted person, with no money, no lawyer, possibly no public interest in the case and a Minister that seems unable to comprehend is not in anyway the constitution of the word 'just.'

The worst feature of the Pora case will be that 'historically' it will be revealed that the police and Crown were in bed with the real killer Rewa, and essentially let him go to 'cover' their framing of Pora.

Correction added 2/2/14: It appears that Mark Lundy also did not receive Legal Aid to take his case to the Privy Council. This adds further emphasis as to how wrong the Prime Minister is with his claims that the 'justice system' is working unless one considers 'working' as meaning imprisoning the falsely convicted and leaving them to their own devices or the help of others to find their freedom.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Auckland Rate Payers: Had a gutsful of Mayor Brown?

Like most of the country I've watched the Brown debacle unfold. When the salacious details of his affair were released I didn't bother reading them as it seemed some were more interested in the sordid details rather than the fact that Brown's character had been 'outed.' What came next was a classic move by Brown, he fessed up. In doing so he flattened the attack against him and so it was revealed that the bombshell attack had been less effective than leaks of details that Brown would have either had to denied or swallowed the bullet and fronted with a public admission. At that point Brown looked stronger and resilient than otherwise might have been the case as war raged between the left and right. I was surprised by his tenacity, which on reflection I shouldn't have been because the Mayor that had built his reputation on honesty, social conscience and being a Mayor 'for all of Auckland' - in the process duping the public, was a master manipulator to the point it became obvious that even his own family don't know the 'real' Mayor Brown.

That in itself is disturbing, but for parents and ratepayers the issues were different, it was his capacity to run the city and in the polls had least he still mandate. I mention parents because Brown for years has fronted school assemblies with his own kind of 'hip' and the revelation that there was 'another' Mayor Brown who didn't have normal family values must have been disturbing to parents - he was no longer a role model. So it seemed he had weathered the storm, that is until an external audit of conduct in respect of 'benefits' he had received showed that he'd compromised himself and Council by some of the 'gifts' or 'upgrades' to accommodation he received. It was then that I believe Brown made a fatal mistake, it was as though his political instinct was lost, he didn't pre-empt the release of the report (he knew the details and had argued for parts of the report to be removed under the possibility of pursuing legal action.) Hard to know if he was worn down, taking the wrong advice or had simply lost sight of the fact he was answerable to the public.

Whichever it was, and it appears to me likely to have at least in part been that he was no longer 'answerable' because he couldn't be sacked. he had misread the reaction. Suddenly both sides of the political spectrum had their fill of Brown. On the issue of his being sacked early on there had been revelations that Rodney Hide was responsible for not including in the setting up of the Super City legislation that could sack the Mayor. The claim that Rodney Hide was somehow responsible is ludicrous. Hide himself is a seasoned politician well versed with the procedure that sees politicians resign from office even when they can not be forced to do so. I think Hide would have had the general expectation that a politician was taken at his or her word and when that was found to of no currency he or she was gone. That is the public expectation as well for many. Many who voted for Brown will feel they were deceived by the way Brown sold himself compared to exactly who he was. Others that decided not to vote if faced with opportunity again would possibly be so moved by Brown's 'thick skin' would vote against him.

This however is not the dead end street it seems. I don't know if there is little appreciation of the Local Body Act 2001 but on reading it one finds a 'consequence' that can be tested in the District Court as to the conduct of a candidate.

93 Petition for inquiry
  • (1) Any candidate or any 10 electors with a complaint about the conduct of an election or poll may file a petition in the District Court demanding—
    • (a) an inquiry into the conduct of the election or poll; or
    • (b) an inquiry into the conduct of a candidate or any other person at the election or poll.
    (2) A petition under subsection (1) must—
    • (a) be filed within 21 days after public notice is given declaring the result or, as the case may be, the amended result of the election or poll; and
    • (b) be filed in the District Court to which the voting documents for the election or poll to be inquired into were forwarded; and
    • (c) be accompanied by the prescribed deposit; and
    • (d) specify the specific grounds on which the complaint is based; and
    • (e) be heard and determined by a District Court Judge.
    (3) If a petition under subsection (1) is filed at a District Court, the Registrar of that court must immediately send a copy of the petition to the electoral officer.
    Compare: 1976 No 144 s 99
 

As reading above shows 10 rate-payers may apply by Petition to the District Court to effectively overturn an election result within 21 days of an election being held. That 21 days may seem restrictive on first reading until it is considered that the 21 days limit can be read as specific, in Brown's case, to conduct of a candidate. The Act is silent on what may happen after that 21 day period has passed but it could never be successfully argued that if a candidate had got 'away with an irregularity' during the relevant period that he or she was immune from action when, and if, any material information as to an irregularity after the 21 day period arose.

The Local Body Act may have been superseded in part by Legislation empowered for the Super City. Read here the Legislation that appears to have been the responsibility of Rodney Hide to draft for Parliament. Although there was a transitional period with the Legislation there can't be any serious  argument that it was ever intended by Hide or Parliament to create a vacuum for which any electoral misconduct could escape after a mandatory period.

In The Act it is made clear that a DC Judge has all the Powers of his Office when ruling on a petition from 10 or more ratepayers citing an 'irregularity' they believe may have affected an election result. The following are the steps a Judge can take.

98 Result of inquiry
  • The District Court Judge must determine whether,—
    • (a) as a result of an irregularity that in the Judge's opinion materially affected the result of the election or poll, the election or poll is void:
    • (b) in the case of an election, the candidate whose election is complained of, or any and which other candidate, was elected:
    • (c) in the case of a poll, any and which proposal was carried.
    Compare: 1976 No 144 s 104
99 Election or poll not void by reason of certain irregularities
  • (1) If subsection (2) applies, an election or poll must not be declared void on the ground of—
    • (a) any irregularity in any of the proceedings preliminary to the voting; or
    • (b) any failure to hold the election or poll at any place appointed for holding the election or poll; or
    • (c) a failure to comply with the directions contained in this Act or any regulations made under this Act as to the conduct of the election or poll or the counting of the votes; or
    • (d) by any mistake in the use of prescribed forms.
    (2) This subsection applies if the District Court Judge conducting an inquiry into the conduct of an election or poll, having taken account of whether the election or poll was conducted in accordance with the principles set out in section 4, considers that the irregularity, failure, or mistake referred to in subsection (1) did not affect the result of the election or poll.
    Compare: 1976 No 144 s 120
 
'irregularity' seems to be the key word here, and if a Court was able to confirm that deliberately presenting a false persona to voters in order to win their votes was 'regular' or not. Then of course whether that affected the election. Brown would be in a compromised position of needing to argue that Aucklanders would have still voted for him despite knowing the way in which he had already compromised the office of the Mayor. Of course if he didn't feel he was compromised by his own conduct then there is the question as to his 'honesty' in not revealing something he was confident wouldn't harm his reputation.
 
Many Aucklanders have been 'sold' the idea that Brown cannot be made to go. However, it appears to be in the hands of ratepayers to question the method by which he became Mayor and whether that was honest and consistent with the reputation he carefully cultivated. I think Brown's conduct at the election was fraudulent, I think is reputation is shattered, I don't think he has a voter mandate - he may have had but he lost that, if not when details of his affair came out, then when it was revealed that he had compromised his own office with accepting 'undisclosed' gifts. Brown has said that there needs to be clarity around the 'rules' regarding gifts. I agree, and that there also needs to be clarity around misleading the voting public and ratepayers at election time. Brown isn't the Mayor of 'all of Auckland' confidence is lost in him. If a group of rate-payers decide to test for any 'irregularities
 in Brown's election we can assume Brown will confidently support that - if he is an honest man with the support of his electorate. Any bets on that one?