In our last post in this investigative series we left readers with the promise that we would bring a little evidence that proved that District Court Judge Mary-Beth Sharp was likely hand chosen to take care of criminal barrister Anita Killeen. We are still working hard on that investigation and hope to bring readers a little more in the near future.
Mary- Beth Sharp was of course the district court judge that found, somewhat strangely, that Killeen was not responsible for her clearly criminal actions; having forged a series of emails she had designed to cause personal embarrassment to her boss, SFO director Adam Feeley.
Upon hearing about Killeen’s sentence, or lack of any, we must say that we had a bit of sympathy for Doug Graham for the fact that he would have never conceivably tried such a lame excuse when he went down for millions of dollars of fraud, which he might now regret.
Possibly Doug Graham could have got counsel, of course corroborated with some testimony from some fuck knuckle National Party member academic, to allege that Doug’s “misjudgment” was based on his copious consumption of alcohol during $5,000.00 board room luncheons.
Now our readership should be feeling a bit desperate for Bain no matter which side of the fence you sit as to his guilt. The fact that the system is so corrupt means that Bain has not got a chance at compensation, and neither have a large number of New Zealanders that allege their innocence a chance of a fair hearing.
Back to the part of this story about Fisher committing criminal offending when on the bench in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and why he has been hand picked by Judith Collins.
“Fucktard-fat-tart Judith Collins monster of injustice and celebrated National Party cuckquean; she is valued by powerful men for her tireless desire to clean up their “messes”.
When sitting with Robert Fisher in the Court of Appeal we believe that Justice Gallen was asleep most of the time when the corruption of Fisher and Thomas JJ was going down against a New Zealand businessman that had taken on the National Government at the time involving the corruption of the likes of Jenny Shipley, Doug Graham, and Jim “spud” Bolger supporting criminal businessmen that had stuffed millions of dollars into the party political coffers.
It would appear that the businessman involved hit the nail on the head with now convicted fraudster Sir Doug “tea leaf” Graham. The businessman charged Graham in a private prosecution, but this was stayed by Solicitor General John McGrath. The businessman alleged that Graham, as Minister of Justice, was party to a conspiracy to defeat and pervert the course of justice by not charging car dealers where the SFO had sufficient evidence. Having stayed the private prosecution the Solicitor General confronted David Bradshaw, [then head of the SFO] who had also been charged with the offending, and this resulted in the SFO charging and convicting the fraudsters.
Before we look at the Fisher corruption story we need to address the recent background to the Bain acquittal, as the recent background impacts on why Judith Collins decision to involve a corrupt jurist such as Robert Fisher [avid porn critic] is tantamount to a conspiracy to defeat the course of justice.
As we say we have read Fishers report and confess to having a little “chuckle” as to how he attempts to discredit Binnie J’s comprehension of the law. It is trite to say that commonwealth law is mostly alike rather than unlike. Is New Zealand law badly written or something – or is it lost in interpretation?
We will leave our evidence based attack on Fishers integrity to a later report [over the holiday period], and will concentrate on why Fishers interim findings are the biggest load of shit on a shingle since convicted crim previous Justice Minister Doug “tea leaf” Graham tried to refuse compensation to wrongly convicted David Dougherty.
The early history of the Bain criminal case, post the conviction of Bain, involved what most New Zealanders thought was a tireless one man crusade to get a clearly guilty man, David Bain, off murder. Over time, the release of several books designed to question the evidence that the Crown relied upon to convict Bain, earned Joe Karam, rather than Bain, a following that grew in size from a few hundred to a significant portion of the adult population.
Karam’s books were, by their self-serving content, designed to impose a ‘reasonable doubt’. However when the same evidence was placed before New Zealand’s appellate Courts, Karam failed time and time again to prove an injustice had been suffered, and it appeared for good reason according to the judges who found that no “reasonable” doubt could be sustained when the totality of the evidence was looked at.
However those Judges were of the same calibre as Robert Fisher QC, although they were not sacked for “surfing the net for cuckold and snuff flicks” when he should have been listening to argument.
Along the same timeline New Zealander,s heard of the allegedly wrongful convictions of Scott Watson, Mark Lundy, and David Tamahere. It seemed that, according to the convicted multiple murderers, they were all wrongly convicted.
During the same period, through the supply of fresh DNA evidence, David Doherty was cleared of raping his neighbors underage daughter, and Rex Haigh was cleared of the murder of his crew member, Mark Roderique, when his appeal to the Court of Appeal submitted 14 affidavits that either implicated Haigh’s nephew, David Hogan, in the murder of Haigh’s crew member Roderique, or prima facie proved that it was Hogan alone that shot and killed Roderique, and then threw the body into the sea never to be recovered.
The fresh evidence went as far as claiming Hogan admitted to the murder saying to numerous persons that he had shot Roderique and then thrown him over board attached to a heavy anchor so that he would be lost forever.
Additionally affidavits supplied to the Court of Appeal succinctly incriminated Hogan in the murder of one of Haighs key witnesses, Mr Anton Sherlock just weeks before Sherlock was to give evidence in Haigh’s appeal.
The Dougherty case resulted in a compensation payment following a report by senior barrister Stuart Grieve QC found that Dougherty was innocent on the balance of probabilities. Whereas Mr Haigh was unsuccessful in proving his innocence to Robert Fisher QC and his bid for compensation was denied. Fisher claiming, as to Mr Haig’s alleged innocence;
“If anything the inquiry suggests the reverse,”
As for Messrs Watson, Lundy, and Tamahere their campaigns to clear their names continue. Within the last month Mr Lundy’s lawyer Michael Hislop QC filed an appeal in the Privy Council, claiming;
“Non disclosure by the Crown and police of expert shopping, (and) flawed science as to time of death.”
Lauda is aware of an extremely wealthy businessman that lives in Kumeu that has been bankrolling Lundy’s efforts to turnover his convictions. Like Karam, this gentlemen is obsessed, and will believe anything that Lundy says. It is trite that like Bain, Lundy has a problem with motive, and the amount of evidence that “indicates involvement unless wholly discredited”.
Sure the attack by Joe Karam on Robin Bain’s integrity was very easy given that Robin was dead and could not protect himself. Can we only imagine how the trial had panned out if Robin had decided not to top himself, but still denied guilt? Was any incriminating DNA found on Robin, but not reported?
But this is not the issue, and at the end of the article, you, our readership will hopefully understand what is at stake with compensation, and what went through the minds of the jurors.
Giving an early hint; is it possibly that all of the DNA was planted on Davids cloths, and DNA was purposefully not reported on the cloths of Robin?.
Just think of the trial and tribulations of Arthur Allen Thomas and his clearance after an English Journalist David Yallop published his book “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”.
It is absolutely certain that the two lead detectives in that case got away “scott guy free” with falsely accusing Thomas and so why are New Zealander’s up in arms over Bains acquittal?
Convicted double murderer Mark Lundy, we are told from reliable sources, is blaming “gang members” who had been hired to allegedly scare him. The supposition is that a “P addled” gang member “botched” the job, and went “berserk” killing his wife and daughter. Gang informants have indicated to Lauda that Lundys claims are “fucking bullshit bro”.
It would appear that Lundy, like Bain, had to “create” doubt as to why DNA evidence was found on clothes that the police said belonged to them. Equally there are ‘timelines’ found to be important in both crimes. Both crimes involved an alleged motive to obtain financial gain, and were said to have been planned well in advance, and carried out with the calm collected methodology of a monster.
Of course it remains a tenet of law that guilt is for the prosecution to prove. But of course this is made that much easier when the accused comes to the dock from the holding cells and is referred to as the prisoner until he is found not guilty.
Of course it is impossible that one human being could, once being designated as a ‘police officer” commit a crime against another person. Apparently, according to the Police Association resident Fucktard Greg O’Connor, police officers are so honest they admit to being wankers.
Both defence teams (Bain and Lundy) claimed a defence that both men were not capable of such atrocities, and in the end, with the behavior of the jurors on the Bain case, Joe Karam had done enough, we suspect with the ‘evidence’ in his books, rather than the evidence that was given in the Courtroom. Bain it was put to the Jury, as part of his defence, would have become a top international baritone opera star, but for the fact that the police convicted him for slaughtering everyone called Bain within a 50km radius.
It would appear that the New Zealand victims of a miscarriage of justice require someone bankrolling the experts that give evidence “for a cheque”; with such evidence frequently being the exact opposite to that of the Crowns expert witnesses.
Lauda will, over the festive season, look at the role of expert witnesses and how, to our mind, their role is given far too much weight given that they are often far from expert, or independent, and ultimately the decision as to which expert is more likely correct, is left to 12 members of the public that are just as likely to decide on prejudice rather than a critical appraisal. Here are some quotes from people of note that seem to share our opinion;
“A lot of fellows nowadays have a B. A., M. D., or Ph. D. Unfortunately, they don’t have a J. O. B.
– Fats Domino
What’s an expert? I read somewhere, that the more a man knows, the more he knows, he doesn’t know. So I suppose one definition of an expert would be someone who doesn’t admit out loud that he knows enough about a subject to know he doesn’t really know how much. – Forbes Malcolm S.
Experts often possess more data than judgment. – Powell, Colin
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy. – Weinberg, Steven
Consultants are people who borrow your watch and tell you what time it is, and then walk off with the watch.
– Townsend, Robert
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. – Russell, Bertrand
A specialist is someone who does everything else worse. – Ricci, Ruggiero
After having heard such experts speak about this and that we have been left wondering which fucktards would accept this evidence as being likely, not that it was possibly. Possibly is not the test where there is reliance on 20 “possibilities” occurring to explain away 20 matters that the prosecution say indicate guilt, when just 10 “likely’s” remain that prove guilt beyond the balance of probabilities.
That is a matter of adopting a common sense approach to a ratio of explanations being acceptable. In other words David Bain, or rather Joe Karam, had a fuck of a lot of explaining to do, and it all just sounds a bit impossible to a large number of New Zealander’s that all of the evidence proving guilt could be explained away by accepting the most unlikely, but still mathematical possible, explanations.
This is one very reason why the Dougherty case got compensation but where the Bain case will not before Robert Fisher QC. Dougherty’s semen, whilst initially “seeming to” match the semen found on the victims pyjama pants, was found, subject to further truly independent testing, not to be the DNA found on the victim, and the actual culprit was then found whose DNA was 700,000 million times more likely than any other unrelated man to have caused the stain on the victims pyjama pants.
However Dougherty’s path to compensation was far from easy with (now convicted fraudster, but then National Party corrupt Minister of Justice), Doug Graham, denying compensation even after the Police, having re-investigated the case, cleared Dougherty of any involvement and declared him completely innocent. Graham retorted that the Polices opinion was their opinion only. What a bright boy Dougie “tea leaf” Graham was.
This does not bode well for Bain. Even when Stuart Grieve QC looked at the compensation claim on the balance of probabilities he obtained another DNA examination before finding Dougherty innocent on the balance of probabilities. Below is a timeline that should create a surge of anger inside every New Zealander given the indisputable outcome that Dougherty was innocent;
David Dougherty’s ordeal October 1992: An 11-year-old west Auckland girl is abducted from her home and raped. She claims David Dougherty is her attacker. He is arrested and charged but maintains his innocence and gives DNA samples to prove it.
June 1993: Dougherty is found guilty of rape and abduction. DNA evidence is inconclusive. Dougherty begins a seven-year, nine-month jail term.
October 1993: Dougherty’s defence seeks more sophisticated testing of the existing samples from the ESR. Scientist Peta Stringer identifies another man’s semen in the complainant’s underwear but claims there are also traces of DNA which cannot exclude Dougherty.
October 1994: Dougherty’s Court of Appeal bid is thrown out. Scientist Arie Geursen questions the finding and begins investigations with lawyer Murray Gibson.
January 1996: Overseas experts back Geursen, saying tests show unequivocal evidence of another man’s semen.
April 1996: Gibson petitions the governor-general to intervene and refer the case back to court. The Sunday Star-Times begins its campaign.
June 1996: The petition succeeds. Dougherty is granted another appeal.
August 1996: The appeal court quashes Dougherty’s convictions saying the interpretation of the ESR results by the other three scientists is materially different from Stringer’s. Dougherty is released.
January 1997: Melbourne scientist Stephen Gutowski does further testing on the samples and finds a clear profile of someone other than Dougherty in the semen on the girl’s clothes and no evidence implicating Dougherty.
April 1997: A High Court jury acquits Dougherty on both charges.
November 1997: Justice Minister Doug Graham rejects Dougherty’s bid for compensation, saying his innocence has yet to be proven on the balance of probabilities.
January 1998: Lawyers for Dougherty file for a judicial review of the minister’s decision not to compensate.
October 1998: The Star-Times reveals the results of a lengthy police re-investigation into the case, which finds Dougherty’s involvement in the crimes is “not an option”.
November 1998: Graham rejects the police findings as “the musing of some cop”, but refers Dougherty’s claim for compensation to QC Stuart Grieve.
August 1999: Grieve asks for further DNA tests on the crime scene samples.
June 2000: The new DNA tests, carried out in Tasmania, show a clear profile of another man.
November 2000: Grieve finds Dougherty has proven his innocence on the balance of probabilities and recommends he receive compensation.
July 2001: The government announces a payout of $868,728 to Dougherty and apologises to him.
May 2003: Nicholas Reekie is found guilty of the 1992 rape and abduction of Dougherty’s neighbour.
It must be remembered that the Crown had DNA evidence that they alleged proved Doughertys involvement in the horrendous crime against a child. One must wonder if that evidence was “actual” evidence, or whether it was simply “fabricated”. After all DNA is supposed to be able to indicate ‘associations’ of varying degrees with the odds of similarities coming from related persons only. Initially it was only Dougherty or someone very closely related to him, when the real truth was that it was impossible to have found those results. Can you imagine the jury when Dougherty protested his innocence before them in the first trial?. Maybe the DNA evidence was planted on Bain’s clothing; the jury in the re-trial had to have believed that this was a “possibility” to acquit Bain. This was the “possibility” that also cleared OJ Simpson.
It was a final three to one ratio that led Grieve QC to conclude that Dougherty was more likely innocent than guilty. What the fuck was anyone thinking when having to spend probably $400k on a report from Grieve QC when the Courts, the Police and every single member of the public knew Dougherty to be innocent?.
Dougherty only got paid out a figure that was twice what was paid to Grieve QC. How does that fairly compensate Dougherty when the money paid to Grieve could and should have been paid to Dougherty on top of what was paid.
The two criminal cases that disclose two different outcomes when the evidence seems to be equally strong that both men could prove that they were innocent of the crimes, beyond the balance of probabilities, are the cases of Doherty and Haigh.
Rex Haigh’s book “Rough Justice” jointly written by Rennie Gould claimed that Hogan had lied to extricate himself of the murder of Roderique.
What is of considerable interest to Lauda Finem is that Haigh continued his appeal when released from prison and won the appeal two years after release. Of further interest the Court of Appeal did not order a retrial, which is, to our mind, a sufficiently strong indicator that the appellate Judges believed that a retrial would have led to the same result; that being that Haigh would be acquitted. This is a very strong indictor that three judges felt that Haigh was not the killer on the balance of probabilities.
One Court of Appeal Judge described Hogan as an “utterly unreliable witness”. In plain speak this finding is that Hogan had lied and would lie again.
In the Haighs book “Rough Justice” Haigh talks about his frustration and level of anger towards the justice system that saw him take a hostage whilst in prison and in doing so finally obtaining a commitment by the system to reinvestigate the events.
The subsequent reinvestigation by Ex Police Detective Inspector and latent Private Detective Bryan Rowe resulted in the capture of the damning evidence against Hogan being the culprit for the murder of Roderique.
Rowe, who died last year, was also remembered for his investigation and final acquittal of three innocent South Auckland teenage girls who had been fitted up by the Police for a serious crime they did not participate in.
Again this type of work by the likes of John Rowe and Dermot Nottingham have led the general public to rightfully distrust the Police. Then again the New Zealand Polices reputation internationally is one of thick fucks fitting up even thicker fucks.
The girls served a significant amount of their prison terms before being released. Whilst they received compensation from the Crown Mr Rowe was not happy as to the amounts. But the Crowns attitude was take the sum or go piss off.
Rex Haigh strongly believes that his nephew, Hogan, should be charged with the crime and we cannot accept that Haigh’s position, given the level of evidence against Hogan, is imbalanced. Our reasoning is this simple.
The Court of Appeal found the evidence sufficiently strong against Hogan not to order a retrial against Haigh. Given that Haigh was effectively convicted on the evidence of one lying man, (being Hogan), should not the combined weight of 14 witnesses evidence against Hogan be sufficient for a prima facie case as against Hogan. However to convict Haigh the Crown gave Hogan immunity. So they fucked up not only in getting the wrong man, but have operated to give the guilty man immunity. Where are the New Zealand media, why aren’t they screaming at this injustice; a guilty man “getting away with murder”.
In the case against Haig, Tony Sewell and David Hogan were all considered as suspects but it would be David Hogan who, after accepting a reward of around $13,000 and immunity from the Solicitor General, would testify against Rex Haig and become the key crown witness. David Hogan kept changing his story. In the summing up it would be made very clear by Justice Hansen that David Hogan’s evidence was highly unreliable and...”without Hogan’s evidence there would not be a Crown case”.
In a similar situation to the evidence given in support of Scot Watson not being the killer of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart, Peter Squires was another boat captain who told of seeing and even talking to Mark Roderique when he reboarded the Antares after the fighting incident. He stated that he heard two rasied voices from the Antares, identifying one of them as Roderiques. Squires said;
“he was saying I’m sorry, I didnt mean to do that…”.
The other voice was not recognised by Squires but evidence would suggest that it would not be Haig. Another of Squires crewman who was at Talley’s Depot, told Police that Rex Haig was still there with Tony Sewell at this time, and therefore a person other than Haigh was the person that “hated Roderique” and killed him.
Unfortunetly, in yet another twist of fortune for Hogan, defence witness Peter Squires later drowned when his boat capsized near Greymouth. The question must be asked is Hogan a suspect in all three killings, Roderique first, and then the witnesses Anton Sherlock, and Peter Squires.
The reasoning behind the Crown not moving to charge Hogan is obvious. What if they were successful, which they likely would be with a charge of perjury. They had done a deal giving $13,000.00 and immunity from prosecution for murder to a murderer, and likely a serial murderer. That would have been a disaster for the Crown and a complete exoneration of Haigh. Haigh would have be cleared, and due compensation?.
How the Crown dealt with this issue was to “entertain” Haighs claim for compensation, and then hand that “problem” over to Robert Fisher QC to “resolve” in a manner that typifies Fishers “style”.
Fishers “style” is very expensive and very similar to that of other National Party corrupt jurist and gravy trainer Kristy McDonald
The National Party are no doubt grooming the likes of sycophant gravy training, previous university fuckbike, and successful drunkard Kate Davenport; another Bankside chambers scumtroll, to replace McDonald when McDonalds bank accounts have no more room for the rewards of her corruption.
We have no doubt that Robert Fisher QC had already been given a copy of Justice Binnies report before agreeing to “take on and discredit Binnie”. We believe that he will consider Binnies findings “inconsistent with a sufficiency of evidence that could conceivably prove that David Bain was the Killer of the entire Bain family” as Fisher did in the case of Haigh.
We also believe that Fisher can, and will, look at evidence that was ruled inadmissible and find that, whilst it was inadmissible to be put to a jury, that is no barrier why he could not look at the evidence, given his position as one of the most incredibly intelligent legal minds in the universe.
Yes you will learn through our disclosures that Mr Fisher is quite the narcissist, and is just plain nasty and very dishonest. His involvement in watching porn on Court computers whilst he should have been listening to evidence being given by defence teams could fade into the background if he stopped Bain being compensated on the order of the National Party bigwigs. You never know he may be back on the bench as a Supreme Court Judge.
When Robert Fisher QC decided to rob Rex Haigh of a million plus payout he relied on the following evidence that he said was evidence that Mr Haigh was still possibly the killer;
“Witness Mr Barr was an invalids beneficiary whom shared lodgings in Yarrow Street. According to Mr Barr, Mr Hogan seemed “a bit strange” after the last fishing trip. Mr Hogan told him he had “blown someone away”. Later in another conversation Mr Barr said that Hogan had beaten the victim up first and when he got back on the boat had “blown him away,” wrapped him up in a anchor net and thrown him over the side. In June Mr Barr stated that Hogan had told him the dead man’s name was Mark Roderique. While the crown prosecutor Mr Garland questioned whether Mr Hogan had said “I” or “We” blew him away Mr Barr said he was sure it was “I”..*
*The Southland Times. November 8, 1995
Mr Anton Sherlock
In his statement to police Mr Sherlock states that while at the home of Mr Barr, while having a cannabis joint alone with David Hogan, Hogan had told him that he had killed someone. When asked where, Mr Hogan replied at sea and later implied he had beaten him first and then shot him. He went on to say that the victim was thrown over the side of the boat, and sounded as if there was someone else involved. Sherlock states “He said he would kill me if I said anything.”*
Source: The Southland Times. November 8, 1995
As we have already reported Mr Anton Sherlock was himself murdered only hours before the trial was to begin, and witness Peter Squires also died when his boat “capsized”. More evidence that went before Robert Fisher QC;
“Prior to coming out in the news media that Mark Roderique was missing, David Hogan told me that somebody had been shot and killed.”
“He said the he had got away with killing two poeple, and he laughed.”
“(Greg Iverson) said that Hogan had paid him to shut Sherlock up, to stop him from testifying in court about the killing of Mark Roderique.”
David Hogan told me that he and Rex Haig together killed Mark Roderique. He said that they killed him with a metal object, a metal pole, something heavy.”
“He said he had used a hunk of pipe and ‘they’d turfed him overboard’…I said to David Hogan ‘did you do it?’ and he said ‘yes I did’.”
“David Hogan said that Haig had held a gun at him and told him to hit the other person with the iron bar.”
“David Hogan said that he and the other crewman kept smashing this other person over and killed him.”
He told me that… Rex Haig should never have been in Jail. He said that Haig wasn’t really involved as much as what was made out.”
“David Hogan said that he had shot this person. He did talk about the gun and some other stuff…I also remember Hogan saying…’I knocked him off.”
Now we here at Lauda Finem are fully aware that some of the statements made above by various witnesses seem to inculpate Haig, but so what? The evidence of Hogan at trial was that he was not involved, and that Haig acted alone. Hogan is clearly a liar.
But the evidence proved that Haig was somewhere else when Hogan stated Haig was on the boat, so Hogan is again, a liar.
Hogan asked for immunity, and this supports that Hogan thought that he could be charged with the murder, and so wanted immunity in case his evidence did not finally succeed against Haig.
The appeal court understood this, and quashed the convictions finding that there was a miscarriage and that Haig should never have been convicted, or was convicted on false testimony.
As we understand New Zealand law, it is an adversary process in which, to the victor goes all the spoils. When the Crown is successful convicting someone, it obtains the satisfaction of the Court ordering the convicted person to serve a deterrent sentence; unless of course you are a doctor or a lawyer in New Zealand. Then you plead guilty and do not have a conviction entered against your name.
Is it not completely in balance that when a convicted person “proves that they are not guilty” that they should obtain recompense for whatever happened to them when it should not have happened? Is it not that simple?
We at Lauda Finem think it is, and believe that any reasonable person would agree. Why then is there such a division between New Zealander’s over David Bain. Well one reason is the amount of evidence that proves that Bain could have been the killer of his five family members.
Then there is the motive of the family’s property holdings, which were reasonably considerable, and would have gone to Bain upon the execution of his family members. Whereas Robin Bain, the only other “suspect” had no motive other than he wanted Bain to be the only one left alive. Which would seem unreasonable that a sociopath serial killer would want one particular person to remain alive after he had taken his own life.
The defence argued that Robin Bain was insane but allegedly still had the presence of mind, after killing everyone else, excepting Bain, to start up an old computer, wait for it to warm up, come on, activate the program, and write what he must have known was Davids only hope to be removed as a suspect. Surely a more acceptable, or believable situation, would have been if Robin had left a quickly scribbled handwritten note with his signature.
Robin then kills himself using a rifle in the most extraordinary manner that could equally (and more easily) replicate Bain killing Robin.
Add to this the vicious fight that the killer had with Steven, Bains strong and athletic 14 year old brother, and the fact that only Bain allegedly knew where the key was to obtain the bolt of the rifle, and that the rifle regularly misfired, and had misfired during the murders, and had been cleared to keep the killing on target, and only Bain knew how to clear it to fire; then we at Lauda Finem accept unreservedly that Bain could never ever be considered as having been proved innocent.
Further there is the DNA evidence, there is the time that Bain allegedly took to ring the police; the fact that he washed his cloths before ringing the police.
The fact that eye witnesses reported that Bain had threatened family members days before the killings whilst holding the gun used in the killings.
Then there is the evidence of a friend that said that Bain had mentioned a similar alibi used by Bain involving his paper round, when Bain was “fantasizing” about how he could get away with such a crime.
Now the evidence of the last witnesses mentioned immediately above was not allowed to be given in evidence at trial, but it can, and most likely will, be used by Fisher when he strongly advises cabinet to reject Bains application for compensation.
We understand that Karam will allege that all of the above is nonsense and can be explained by other theories of what could have occurred, but in the end we feel that Karam’s exuberance about Bain’s innocence is tainted by his desire to have been proven correct in the end and to obtain payment for all his work.
An additional argument that will be raised by Fisher to reject Bain’s claim will be the fact that Bain, in isolation in New Zealand history, has received many millions of dollars in legal aid money which enabled him to “get over the line in front of a very prejudiced jury”.
Now this argument, intellectually, has considerable merit, as if Bain had not “accessed” these funds he would never ever had a hope in hell of winning the retrial. The prejudice in the jurors was based on the disparaging content of Karam’s books, and this was made evident by the “third jurors” comments about the behavior of the jurors during the second trial.
But of course the New Zealand cops are amongst the most corrupt in the western world as are the country’s judiciary and Crown Law. And we suspect that Bain was in the right place at the right time. And it is only getting worse with the likes of what Lauda Finem has exposed in this article about the saturation level of corruption in New Zealand’s justice based agencies.
Nevertheless Bain has been acquitted and the meaning of an acquittal is the following;
- In criminal law, the legal finding, by judge or jury, that an accused person is not guilty of the crime he is charged with. Once the acquittal is reached, the defendant may not be prosecuted again for the same criminal act or transaction.
- In contract law, the release or discharge from a debt or other contractual obligation.
Now put simply the difference between a person that is obviously innocent and a person that is possibly innocent cannot be drawn as separates from the meaning of “to acquit”.
In the civil sense, the release or discharge from a debt or other contractual obligation means there has been “relief” or a “benefit” to the victor. The matter is not re-litigated to decide whether the Judge was wrong or right using another higher test in the civil Court. The same test is applied in any appeal. Why should there be another test in the criminal arena, especially when Bain had to jump through numerous hoops inclusive of the Privy Council.
It is suggested that the Crown knows that if it had to compensate on the same form as a litigant that loses a Court case in the civil arena, that being that the result is the order of the Court, then it would motivate many more prisoners that allege that they were “fitted up” to keep on fighting and that would be a bad thing all round. Because Bain got millions to fight his appeal why should not everyone else?. Well plainly that is impossible.
Whereas, if Bain is not compensated then why would a wrongly convicted person bother as Bain did four fifths of his sentence in any event and Karam had the taxpayer fork out millions to fund Karams efforts. If Karam had given up, Bain would still be inside, whereas Haigh fought to win two years after he had been released.
We must say again that Karams desire to get compensation is not all about Bain being paid, and it is as likely motivated by a desire for Karam to be compensated. Now that aspect would need to be looked at with a microscope as, if the information that is being circulated in Australian legal circles is correct, that being that Karam and his son were being paid $150,000.00 [each] annually
New Zealanders of average intelligence, which number is decreasing by the day, need to ask this simple question. Sure there were obviously strong opinions on the jury as to the likely innocence of Bain, as who would have truly let a mass murderer free if they truly thought that there was no doubt that he was the killer of his family?
Does it not axiomatically follow that Bain spent 13 years inside a prison when factually the case against him was not strong enough to convict?
It would appear that the New Zealander’s that protest loudly about the question of David Bain receiving compensation do not understand that if Bain spent 13 years in prison when, for whatever reason, he should not have, then about $1m has been spent on his incarceration when it should not have. Equally what of the cost of the flawed Police investigation, and the waste of the Courts time, and the massive expenses paid to Karam and his crew? Would that total sum amount to say $10m?. So broad park figure of $11m wasted? But has it been wasted?.
The justice system is not perfect but one thing it should deplore the most is that it would send a clearly innocent man down. We of course speak about the wrongful conviction and incarceration of Mr Peter Ellis.
The original statement is it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted.
Is David Bain just one in 10 not proven guilty men that should go free, and if so why should he not receive compensation, as is the law in New Zealand. The cabinets right to refuse compensation must have an equally high threshold otherwise it brings the allegedly independent process of the criminal court into disprepute.
Why should your cabinet of gravy trainers and professional politician’s replace what a jury decided. Are all men or women that are found innocent still probably guilty?. Once this was probably thought true, and that all that had occurred was that a good lawyer was involved. A relevant recent example of this is the case of Ewan McDonalds acquittal at the hands of barrister Greg King.
The origination of the 10 guilty go free rather than one innocent be convicted ratio was evident in Criminal Law well before English Jurist William Blackstone wrote and spoke of his formulation in the 1760’s.
Historical expressions of the [important] principle
We decided to research the earliest historical expression of this important principle. The principle is much older than Blackstone’s formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in the earliest criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32) , as:
“Abraham drew near, and said, “Will tou consume the righteous with the wicked?
What if there said “I will not destroy it for the tens sake”
The twelfth-century legal theorist, Maimonides, expounding on this passage as well as Exodus 23:7 (“the innocent and righteous slay thou not“) argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely “according to the judge’s caprice.
“Hence the Exalted One has shut this door” against the use of presumptive evidence, for “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death”
Sir John Fortescue, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales 1394- 1480; De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that;
“one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally.”
Similarly, on 3 October 1692, while decrying the Salem Witch Trials, Increase Mather adapted Fortescue’s statement and wrote;
“It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that the Innocent Person should be Condemned.”
Other learned commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin, founding father of the United States stated it as,
“It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.
John Adams also expanded upon the rationale behind Blackstone’s Formulation when he wrote;
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
More authoritarian personalities like Judith Collins have taken the opposite view, and it would appear that these commentators, or skeptics, have all proven disingenuous, or far, far, worse.
“it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape;” [Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898)]
““In the new Kampuchea, one million is all we need to continue the revolution. We don’t need the rest. We prefer to kill ten friends rather than keep one enemy alive.”
Alexander Volokh adopts a view that such an idealistic approach to the reality of letting ten guilty men go so that an innocent man shall not also be convicted is in the words of a Chinese professor who commented on Blackstone’s formulation;
“Better for whom”
Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism, warned against the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from such numerical exaggerations becoming a reality:
“We must be on guard against those sentimental exaggerations which tend to give crime impunity, under the pretext of insuring the safety of innocence. Public applause has been, so to speak, set up to auction. At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fix the number ten; a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused person to be condemned, unless evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished”
Some less theoretical minds went somewhat further in their skepticism toward the maxim. Feliks Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police, saw Bismarck’s motto and raised him an execution:
“Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive.”
Dzerzhinsky apparently did not elaborate on the rationale for this sort of treatment. Nor did Nikolai Yezhov, one of his like-minded successors, , except to quote the Russian proverb,
“When you cut down the forest, woodchips fly.”
Yezhov was known as the “poisonous dwarf” due to his short stature and his relentless capacity to commit crimes against his countrymen so that the man of steel, Joseph Stalin, could continue to murder millions of his own countrymen in pursuit of his ideologies;
Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem
The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do”
“We do not let them have ideas. Why give them guns”
“Education is a weapon whose effect depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed”
Major Nungo, a Colombian military prosecutor, said,
“For us military men, everybody is guilty until proved otherwise. . . . Better to condemn an innocent man than to acquit a guilty one, because among the innocent condemned there may be a guilty man.”
The military motif appears quite often among skeptics. Back in England, James Fitzjames Stephen suggested that Blackstone’s maxim;
“resembles a suggestion that soldiers should be armed with bad guns because it is better that they should miss ten enemies than that they should hit one friend. Everything depends on what the guilty men have been doing, and something depends on the way in which the innocent man came to be suspected”
On the same theme, William Paley suggested that;
“he who falls by a mistaken sentence may be considered as falling for his country.”
It is likely that circumstances dominate reasoning when electing whether the maxim has appreciable worth in application to a persons reality. Internal revolutions, or fights for “alleged freedoms”, such as the Irish Republican Army activity in the 70’s and early 80’s, and later the terror attacks of Al Qaeda turns people against the maxim. Hence the existence of the war on terror leading to the illegal waging of war based on lies by the British Prime Minister and the American President. One British writer asked what use the maxim was;
“if those [ten] guilty men use their freedom to plant a bomb that kills [a hundred] schoolchildren.”
Another observer considered, the blending of judicial theory with gastronomy appropriate when trying to explain;
“With memories of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six that, no doubt, is an admirable precept; but it does not tell us who precisely benefits from the liberty of the lucky thousand, with their Semtex and their icing sugar-ammonium nitrate confectionery of murder.”
New Zealander’s have to understand that the Bain acquittal should be celebrated because it does draw so much division, and at the same time brings all New Zealander’s together. All New Zealander’s, no matter which side of the argument that they individually support on the Bain fiasco, agree that something is manifestly wrong with the “justice system”.
Something so wrong that “it” pervades the Police, effortlessly travels through the Crown, parliament, and definitely, finally, through the Judiciary. Are they all corrupt? – well the evidence is moving that way.
So why involve a New Zealand Judge in the equation as to compensation of David Bain when the Privy Council said that they felt that there was doubt, a jury agreed, and an independent Canadian Judge found that David Bain was likely innocent on the balance of probabilities.
Who the fuck is Judith Collins, un-celebrated legal journey-women and neverwasandneverwillbe, to question the process that the Government relies upon to put 8000 New Zealander’s behind bars, of which we know a significant number are wholly innocent.
Again we remind all New Zealander’s that a clearly innocent man is still convicted in the case of Peter Ellis!. We have promised an expose over Christmas on that case and we believe that our revelations exposing corrupt Labour Party Pollies will require Labour leader David Shearer to ask leading Labour luminaries to resign inclusive of front benchers. So if Bain is out, and according to Fisher still likely guilty, why the fuck isn’t Fisher, as a top jurist, on the bandwagon for Ellis’s immediate pardon and compensation?
Careers will be ruined, but it will enable Mr Shearer to do the right thing; that being getting the fuck rid of the lying fucktards that are currently opposition spokesperson making allegations of wrongdoing against National Party pollies, that whilst true, are highly hypocritical, as they are guilty of exactly the same behaviour.
But those stories are for sometime during this summer break, other than we can say that our revelations will require that there is another investigation into whether Mr Peter Ellis should be pardoned as was Mr Arthur Allen Thomas.
If we get our way we hope that Peter will be pardoned when National is replaced as Government, and we can say goodbye to that complete twat, justice compromiser, and Obama teabagger, John Key.
The documentation in our possession prima facie proves that Justice Fisher wrote a judgment whilst serving as a Court of Appeal judge that contained known falsehoods as to what had been argued by the parties in order to deprive the appellant an order setting aside a judgment obtained and sustained on the perjury of then KPMG staffer, Iain McLennan, and which perjury was obtained and sustained by then Bell Gully barrister Christine Meechan in front of Fisher, Thomas and Gallen JJ.
It should be no surprise that birds of a feather stick together and corrupt Meechan and Fisher are now bedfellows in Bankside Chambers. Ms Meechan advertises on her website her alleged success against the businessman as one of her finest moments. It was absurdly reported in New Zealand’s legal Procedure Reports New Zealand. If only the fucktards at PRNZ knew what had really gone down and that the Judgment no longer exists due to the success of the businessmen proving corruption, and forcing the Court to “take care of it”.
The guts of Fishers corruption was that the appellant argued [with supporting affidavits that clearly made out his contention (inclusive of a related High Court Judgment by Chillwell J that stated that if the appellant had been successful the then counterclaim of the judgment creditor would have been defeated in its entirety) that KPMG accountant McLennan had lied in an affidavit as to what would have been the result if the appellant had been successful in his cross claim for (at that time)$6 to $7m.
The lie being that the appellant would have still owed the judgment creditor a minimum of $4m. The problem for Robert Fisher was that the appellant had a right of appeal to the Privy Council [as of right] as the judgment was for an amount over $5,000.00. Fisher conspired with Meechan, and his fellow Judges Thomas and Gallen to write a completely fraudulent judgment that still remains as a “leading legal light” to those that have suffered an injustice.
If readers missed the preceding posts in this series click links below:
- Judith Collins thinks? Somehow we doubt it! (laudafinem.com)
- Judge Judy: Collins slams Binnie’s Bain report (laudafinem.com)
- Secret Women’s Business and the SFO Forger Anita Killeen (laudafinem.com)
- National Party: Judith Collins Hires Porn Surfing Judge to Screw Bain (laudafinem.com)
- The New Zealand Herald, a Black and White perspective? (laudafinem.com)
- Bain Case: Renowned Australian Defense Lawyer outraged by Judith Collins behaviour. (laudafinem.com)
- Karam, Bain to be served Collins chilled favourite À la Carte special; “En Croute” (laudafinem.com)
- Bain’s first lawyer factor in review (nzherald.co.nz)
- The real face of NZ Justice: David Bain to Receive Compensation – Yeah right. (Part I) (laudafinem.com)
- TVNZ & Rogue Jurors Campaign Exposed (laudafinem.com)