Kahui Twins Father Arrested
October 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pm by David FarrarTV3 are reporting that the father of the Kahui Twins has been arrested. Details of the charges are unknown.
It has been obvious for some time he has been a primary suspect.
UPDATE: Not arrested in fact, just questioned
UPDATE2: Now he has been arrested and charged with murder.
October 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
TV1 is reporting that he has not been arrested, just taken in for further questioning. But his father has been asked to pack a bag for him!!!!
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
I reckon there’s more twists to this one yet.
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
131 days to make an arrest, a father on the front page of the SST claiming innocence, the forces of justice claiming frustration – sounds a bit like life imitating politics…except that Labour don’t kill babies, they just eat them…
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I’d like to object to that last comment… but I can’t think of a valid reason to do so.
Carry on.
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
There are numerous cases in NZ of a principal suspect never being arrested, even dying long after the original murder was forgotten.
Vote:Could B/S Detetective name even one ?
Not likely!! The B/S is his own creation
October 26th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Its an insult to good fathers everywhere to describe this animal as a ‘father’. More like a vile piece of human excrement who inseminated another of his own kind. And those words a compliment. Not his fault though… he’s a by-word of what society in this country is, and has become.
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Yeah real scum and good old gutless coward banjo give us all gran dads and fathers a bad name .They are to thick to understand the damage they cause , however I believe the real killers are not male but what would I know.
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Just seen on the nzherald.co.nz site that Chris Kahui has been arrested and charged with the twins’ murder – another big legal aid bill coming up methinks! Will the taxpayer also have to foot the bill for the legal expenses he and the other “tight 12″ have incurred up until now – I bluddy well hope not!
Vote:October 26th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Better we pay the bill and they get a fiar trial than for the gulity defending themselves and getting off for having an incompetent defence.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:21 am
I see on TVNZ one of the father’s friends/relatives was crapping on about the ongoing “breach of tapu” etc, etc. What an embarassment to humanity.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 7:19 am
I have a test that I apply in thse cases. If a potential suspect goes on TV and has a teary interview proclaiming innoncence, then odds on that they are as guilty as sin.
Assuming that he is found guilty, tell me again how he can be rehabilitated.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Yes, there’s nothing more foolish than someone else’s religious beliefs, is there?
Bullshit Detector wins the award for first dim bulb to bring fucked-up party-political partisan bullshit into the thread (misnamed, aren’t you?). What’s wrong, dumbass? You forgot to call them “Liar-bour.”
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 8:50 am
No matter what the Kahui clan and co may say, this sort of behaviour is not the maori way. I also hope the mother is charged with “failing to provide the necessities of life”. Her lack of childcare seems to be a pattern with her children and she should also be taken to task.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Razork, there will most likely be more twists to this behind the scenes.
The rest of the commentors – the man you are talking about has not been convicted in a court of this country and is innocent until proven guilty.
The Police have botched this case from the start by delaying their investigation during the ‘mourning’ time.
What about charging the rest of the family with obstruction of justice?
What about charging the mother with failing to provide the necessities of life?
Announcing the arrest and charging of ONE person out of a whole family who were involved in the life of this baby is an easy scapegoat to calm disquiet about a botched inquiry.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 9:53 am
I prefer to call it contemporary issues juxtaposition analysis, but keep taking the pink tablets with the big X on them Milt. And Liar-bour is just soooooooo passe now, isn’t it? Cheat-bour doesn’t have the same ring to it? Any prizes for a new name for the Government?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I think the police deserve a lot praise here. They made damn sure they got this right to ensure a conviction. Media pressure for an arrest could have ruined that.
Of course, innocent until proven otherwise.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Battler, I think the proof of whether the police have botched this investigation will be if they fail to get a conviction.
Vote:Agree the rest of the bunch should be called to account
October 27th, 2006 at 10:24 am
“They made damn sure they got this right to ensure a conviction.”
Have I missed something here?
I wasn’t even aware this case had been brought before a court let alone a conviction secured.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Battler, you are being picky about semantics. Yes, not convicted yet but you can bet that the Police have run their case past Crown Law to confirm they have got it right.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Hang on, he’s innocent. He told us all that on TV.
Enter Joe Karam.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:22 am
“Battler, you are being picky about semantics. Yes, not convicted yet but you can bet that the Police have run their case past Crown Law to confirm they have got it right.”
Just like they did with Arthur Allan Thomas case, and the Pacific Island Girls who just got compensation for being wrongly jailed?
See this from the NZ Herald:
“Up to 20 wrongly in jail says judge
21.01.06
By Phil Taylor
As many as 20 people may be wrongly in New Zealand’s jails, says the retired High Court judge who looked into the Peter Ellis Christchurch creche case for the Government.
Sir Thomas Thorp is calling for an independent authority to be set up to identify miscarriages of justice, the number of which he says is underestimated.
His recommendation follows a two-year study of the nature and incidence of miscarriages of justice, and the way New Zealand and comparable countries deal with such claims.
Sir Thomas, whose interest in the topic arose from reviews he did for the Government, including work on the Ellis case, said that, based on British experience, “up to a score” of New Zealand inmates may be wrongly jailed. …”
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am
While the truly vile and callous Kahui twins’ murder has held NZ in its thrall, let us not forget that there are other similar cases waiting for a break through.
In Putaruru there is the case of a small child who was mysteriously killed with both parents present in the house – both parents disavow all knowledge and plead innocence.
In Christchurch another child is killed in a house with both parents present and again it is all innocence coming from their mouths.
I am torn between ‘softly, softly, get’s the monkey approach’ and my raw desire as a loving parent to grab those so-called ‘parents’ and give them a good slapping (I am trying to be restrained
I would certainly like to see all that scummy Kahui clan, including so-called mother Maxine, charged as well.
I know Civil Lib/PC types will jump up and down at my suggestion that Maxine and Chris Kahui should be sterilised so no more innocent children will be tarred with those genes. Afterall it will just be the good old NZ taxpayer picking up the tab for decades to come for all those dysfunctional offspring.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I think anyone who has a sense of history would be appalled at Sally’s idea of forced sterilisation of those she considers to have inferior genes
Statements like that sound much better in the original German.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:36 am
No doubt, after all this time, the police have gathered enough evidence to ensure a conviction. They dare not get it wrong.
Vote:Now that the hard work has been done and we all sit back waiting for justice to be done, I say, don’t hold your breath.
The gutless judiciary will dig deep to find a number of reasons why this happened, preach in boring monotones, find society to blame and slap him on the wrist with a laughable sentence. I’ll put money on it.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am
“No doubt, after all this time, the police have gathered enough evidence to ensure a conviction. They dare not get it wrong.”
Just like they did with Arthur Allan Thomas eh candida.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am
AAT was a long time ago battler and it was pleasing to see the mistake corrected. 20 supposedly in jail out of the thousands (?)in jail is not bad but agree not ideal.It would have been helpful of the judge to mane the 20. Your point (which we all get so move on) is probably moot today. It is probably because of those cases that the police today are more careful.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Arrest does not equal conviction, and that is not semantics.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Battler – It is cold comfort to know that there are far more guilty people on the streets than innocent in jail.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
“It is probably because of those cases that the police today are more careful.”
Actually, they don’t seem to have learned much – hence the taxpayer recently having to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation to 3 girls who were wrongly convicted and sent to jail.
“Battler – It is cold comfort to know that there are far more guilty people on the streets than innocent in jail.”
Which further demonstrates police botch ups.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Matt, no one has said arrest equals conviction. What was said , which battler responded too was “they made damn sure they got this right to ensure a conviction”
Vote:He has his point about others being wrongly convicted.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Battler – absolute crap. Police do not find people guilty or innocent. The Judiciary do that and if in their opinion, they decide not to convict, the guilty can walk free. We all know the lameness of the judiciary and their unwillingness to do the right thing.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Candida seems to have missed the introduction of the jury system. That is who decides matters of guilt or innocence in a criminal case, not the judge.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
To my knowledge, the jury system is not used in all cases. Even where juries decide on guilt or otherwise, the judge has the sole authority to determine punishment.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I will stand by you Andrew Bannister’s statement.
The police investigate crimes for one reason: to obtain a conviction. That is their job, whether or not people agree with that.
The point made about false convictions is specious: there might some falsely convicted but the numbers are infinitesimal in comparison.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Sonic- heh heh! I knew you would take the bait. But seriously, can you tell me why you think the Kahui’s have the right to keep on breeding, when Maxine has already had all her other kids taken off her, and the the rest of this ‘loving whanau’ is filled with so such low-life scum that you think a child has a ‘right’ to be born in to it.
It seems the SPCA has more teeth, they can ask the Court to forbid animal abusers the right to own pets.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
“The police investigate crimes for one reason: to obtain a conviction. That is their job, whether or not people agree with that. ”
Their job is to thoroughly and properly investigate matters without prejudice or preconceived ideas as to the story line, and to uncover the TRUTH of the matter and to then prosecute through the court system.
Guilty verdicts should not arise unless the judge/jury are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the the verdict is correct.
I realise there are two separate issues involved – one the matter of Police inquiries and prosecutions, and the other of convictions and sentencing in the courts.
However, the former has an influence on the latter, and it is therefore imperitive that Police investigations are conducted promptly, thoroughly and without prejudice, and that they are open to scrutiny and critisism. A person is not guilty because the Police say they are. They are guilty or not guilty based on whether they actually committed an offence.
I am personally not satisfied that all inquiries are thoroughly and properly conducted and conducted without the prejudice of the investigating officers clouding them from uncovering the real truth. Of course, this is debateable, and the Police are entitled to step forward and defend their methods.
“The point made about false convictions is specious: there might some falsely convicted but the numbers are infinitesimal in comparison. ”
One false conviction is one too many.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Thanks for taking the time to expose your true views Sally.
The German word, Endlösung, seems appropriate.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Their job is to thoroughly and properly investigate matters without prejudice or preconceived ideas as to the story line, and to uncover the TRUTH of the matter and to then prosecute through the court system.
Which is why they took their time to do this properly.
Yes people are innocent until proven otherwise, but the idea is that you gather enough evidence (without prejudice) so there is no otherwise. What makes you think the police did not do this properly? I think the AAT case has made the police far MORE careful, and citing it as evidence for police incompetence is just hypocrisy (i.e. innocent till proven guilty).
By the way, what is your point battler? That there might be more to this and that things aren’t black and white? Well duhuh! I am sure more charges will follow.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
rather than sterilisation how about not paying them for having any kids in the first place – this is the reason why we have so many dysfunctional families on benefit. The state makes it easy for a young girl to leave home and have a truck load of babies and then keep on paying for them to breed, while as in this case the kids never benefit from the money – it’s used for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol etc, the kids are neglected and abused and we keep on paying for them to have more . It stinks
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Andrew
The point is that this investigation was not carried out promptly and has been botched.
There was a huge time lag while the Police allowed the family to “mourn”.
This was not a motor accident or some such for goodness sake – it is an alleged murder, and the Police lagged it before commencing their inquiries.
They have allowed the family to set the agenda, confuse matters and obstruct justice.
Now the public have been baying for blood, so they nick a 21 year old male and charge him with murder.
Nevermind the mother and her failure to provide the necessities of life, or the rest of the family’s obstruction of justice.
This guy will be lucky to get a fair trial, and the public will be lucky if they ever know the full truth of what went on in this case.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Battler, the system works so that the truth comes out in court, not in the interview room of the police station. Police recruits are taught to ‘throw them’ in front of the judge and let the court decide. It is not for the police to decide whether someone might *not* have committed the offence; it is for them to have reasonable grounds to believe he/she *did* commit it.
I can’t believe anyone would accept your claim that this investigation was ‘botched’. Quite frankly that is laughable as the recent arrest shows.
The only part of your recent post I tend to agree with is this:
“This guy will be lucky to get a fair trial…”
If you believe they nicked a 21 yr old to satisfy the public you need your head read.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“Rather than sterilisation how about not paying them for having any kids in the first place”. Why can’t anyone else see how much sense this truly makes!! I couldn’t agree more, what is stopping her/others alike from having more kids when the government is saying “here have more children we (tax payers) will pay”.
Vote:It really does seem that the harder you work in New Zealand the less you really get.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
“Rather than sterilisation how about not paying them for having any kids in the first place”. Why can’t anyone else see how much sense this truly makes!! I couldn’t agree more, what is stopping her/others alike from having more kids when the government is saying “here have more children we (tax payers) will pay”.
Vote:It really does seem that the harder you work in New Zealand the less you really get.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“Rather than sterilisation how about not paying them for having any kids in the first place”. Why can’t anyone else see how much sense this truly makes!! I couldn’t agree more, what is stopping her/others alike from having more kids when the government is saying “here have more children we (tax payers) will pay”.
Vote:It really does seem that the harder you work in New Zealand the less you really get.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Could someone please explain how the mother in the kidnapped 6yo case can be jailed for contempt of court, until she tells police of his whereabouts, and not the Kahui clan
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
The point is that this investigation was not carried out promptly and has been botched.
See, my view is that because it wasn’t carried out hastily, it wasn’t botched, although I’ll grant you that that is a moot point.
the Police lagged it before commencing their inquiries
Are you sure? I thought the enquiries were started right away, and that the family were unhelpful.
Now the public have been baying for blood, so they nick a 21 year old male and charge him with murder.
Oh, I see, you think this is a case of ‘blame-the-bloke’. I think this might be your PC-gone-mad backlash kicking in. That is the problem with PC and PC-gone-mad. It clouds people’s judgement.
This guy will be lucky to get a fair trial
I agree, which is why a very thorough investigation is even more important. It’s a symptom of our society and that is the price we pay for press-freedom.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
The police cut a deal with the Kahui family that they would be allowed to mourn for a few days and in exchange the family would help the police with their enquiries.
The Kahui family failed to uphold their end of the bargain and that will presumably be held against the Father if he’s found guilty and the judge hands down his sentence.
From the police’s point of view, if there’s a chance of getting a guilty plea and avoiding an expensive investigation and trial then they’re going to go for that every time.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
“Battler, the system works so that the truth comes out in court, not in the interview room of the police station. Police recruits are taught to ‘throw them’ in front of the judge and let the court decide. It is not for the police to decide whether someone might *not* have committed the offence; it is for them to have reasonable grounds to believe he/she *did* commit it.”
This exact attitude is why the wrong people get put away in too many cases.
Under your method outlined above, as soon as the police have ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe someone committed the offence, they should charge them and put them in front of the court and let the court finish the investigation.
In reality, what should be happening is that the Police should be looking at the case from ALL ANGLES and WITHOUT PREJUDICE to determine what really happened, and then take the case to court.
Too often the Police use their prejudice and desire to wind the case up asap to prosecute the easiest target. They should be digging below the surface and considering all the possibilities, and challenging their own case before bringing it to court, instead of deciding on their storyline and then only presenting evidence that fits their preferred storyline.
Too many people in this country have served too many years behind bars for crimes they were not guilty of.
It creates a triple injustice – the wrong person does time for something they didn’t do, the offender runs free, and the public doesn’t get justice from the ‘justice system’.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
“Rather than sterilisation how about not paying them for having any kids in the first place”. Why can’t anyone else see how much sense this truly makes!! I couldn’t agree more, what is stopping her/others alike from having more kids when the government is saying “here have more children we (tax payers) will pay”.
Vote:It really does seem that the harder you work in New Zealand the less you really get.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
What do you think that the pathetic tossier will get ,6 mths home detention , poor maori,, us pakis didnt give this trash, a fair trial, we gave this greasy headed scum 20 weeks benifits and a lot of lawyers( you lot are paying for these leeches) have a great weekend
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
HE should be put in a cell with all his leechy lawyers with a box of woodstock or lion red just out of his reach FOREVER, and having to tell the leeches that he cannot met the bill
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Andrew said “Oh, I see, you think this is a case of ‘blame-the-bloke’. I think this might be your PC-gone-mad backlash kicking in. That is the problem with PC and PC-gone-mad. It clouds people’s judgement”.
Indeed. I think more than a few here are highly pissed off that a male has been arrested. Several were crowing a couple of weeks ago that “Men usually don’t kill their children” and the blaming of Chris Kahui was some sort of feminist plot.
Surprised we haven’t had the whiners from the Men’s Rights Chorus posting.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I think it likely that the initial delay in this enquiry had little to do with the O/c Enquiry and everything to do with Headquarters directives on Maori Protocol. The Police now have official Kaumatua and Maori Liason Officers at every level…Unless the Police have a confession (unlikely) or direct forensic evidence , it would seem the case will rest on circumstancial evidence and in that case if he is convicted then the usual controversy that accompanies every such conviction will manifest itself no matter how incriminating the circumstances.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“What do you think that the pathetic tossier will get ,6 mths home detention , poor maori,, us pakis didnt give this trash, a fair trial, we gave this greasy headed scum 20 weeks benifits and a lot of lawyers( you lot are paying for these leeches) have a great weekend
kiwicockers:
HE should be put in a cell with all his leechy lawyers with a box of woodstock or lion red just out of his reach FOREVER, and having to tell the leeches that he cannot met the bill
Posted by kiwicockers | October 27, 2006 4:22 PM”
You are talking about someone who has not even been tried in a court for this crime.
The Police have lost their way with this inquiry and the court case will be very very interesting indeed.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Baxter’s comments nailed it.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
love to say this (battler) hes been tried and buried , wish i had a shovel, opps home detention with aunty helen and her friend h2
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
As I understand it he has made some admissions relating to some aspects of the injuries sustained to the children.
And I disagree with the idea of Police recruits being taught to throw people before the courts. That’s rediculous. Where have you heard that?
Further to that, why would the Police want the wrong person to be convicted? They’re human as well.
Patriot
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
can the rest of the “tight 12″ be done for accessory after the fact?
It was all very noble that they should make use of their right to silence but covering for this type of killer is taking that a little too far.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Patriot said:
“And I disagree with the idea of Police recruits being taught to throw people before the courts. That’s rediculous. Where have you heard that?”
I heard it from my instructing Sergeant when I was at Police College in Porirua.
Next question.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Gooner:
I think you had a poor instructor if they said that. A better college sgt would have taught you how to investigate offences to an appropriate conclusion. I’m guessing they didn’t have a CIB background.
Patriot
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
fact 1 he was in the house with babies
Vote:fact 2 he had access to the babies
fact 3 the mother was away with whom???
fact 4 everyone else who could be a witness was inebriated
fact 5 chris and mother of twins were estranged
fact 6 chris was angry (argued with the mother when she got home)
fact 7 historic injuries to the babies
fact 8 he blurted not me
fact 9 shall i go on (:beyond reasonable doubt?)
give the police a break fellahs
October 27th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Patriot, they rotated instructors. I did have one with a CIB background and she was very good.
Mostly you can only investigate an offence for a certain amount of time before you decide there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Then you let the courts decide. Sure, if you see some scrote kicking the living shit out of his girlfriend that needs little investigating. On the other hand the Kahui case needed 5 months and Ben Smart and Olivia Hope needed 12 months.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Baxter commented about the influence of Maori protocol being used by the Police.
Many NZers had to wonder if in this case Maori protocol eg an extended mourning period, was used as a front for the family to re-group and straighten the kinks in their story and maybe even a chance to remove evidence. I wonder how generous Police might be next time a similar case raises its ugly head and how tolerant the NZ public might be in hearing that yet again a murder and a murderer are left to go cold for a week or so out of cultural nicety. Justice and the rights of the victim/s, yet again, are not given precedent.
I wonder if other cultures would be given the same PC treatment in the same circumstances?
Could Asians, Pacific Islanders and Indians who are significant minorities, claim similar rights and demand cultural sensitivity from the Police, as a way to forestall a murder enquiry by quoting obscure cultural or religious rites, so the police aren’t tarred with the ‘racist’ tag to further throw a red herring into a murder investigation.
Having said all that, the Pakeha parents who seemingly cannot account for how their child was killed in its home in Putararu, with only the parents present, also seem to have the Police over a barrel. Both parents claim innocence and both are refusing to incriminate the other. That case has being going on I think for over a year.
Vote:Getting away with murder has never been easier.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
…. On the other hand the Kahui case needed 5 months and Ben Smart and Olivia Hope needed 12 months.
Posted by Gooner | October 27, 2006 9:42 PM
Gooner… You mean 12 months to fabricate and fit Watson up for a crime he did not commit. You must surely know, that with your investigatory skills, that Watson is a victim of a miscarriage of justice somewhere on the level, fitting that of AAT.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Paul, I’ve met hundreds of innocent people. Maybe thousands. Most of them are inside Mt Eden, D Block or Tongariro Prison Farm.
The cartridge case in AAT case was planted. I am happy to acknowledge that. But how do you plant a ketch?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
You cant. Watson’s vessel was a sloop.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Gooner…If you are in the sailing fraternity, you’ll know that vessels come and go from sheltered anchorages (particluarly during the festive season), all night long. You’ll also know that it is the police alone whom insist that this ‘ketch’, never existed (God knows how??)and, contrary to the testimony of many, key witnesses. Tell me on what basis the police maintain this line of absurd reasoning? Since I’m of an enquring mind, what disturbs me most, is the complete lack of any DNA linking Hope & Smart, to Watson’s vessel, if indeed their mutual slaughter had occured on Watson’s vessel in the manner in which police describe. It is impossible (even in those elementary days of DNA evidence), to perpetuate such a crime in the manner in which police describe, without leaving a trail of DNA evidence a mile wide(no matter how hard one may try to clean up evidence). Sunk or afloat, any such eveidence will still exist aboard this vessel today. Sure Watson was a bad boy, but he didnt commit this crime. It was the public baying for an arrest and conviction, that ifluenced not only the conduct of the police in the conviction of this innocent individual, but the judicary included.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 8:37 am
It’s to be hoped that some of you clowns never get near a jury room. Yu’ve decided the verdict before seeing or hearing the evidence. Interesting that none of you have discussed a motive.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 8:38 am
It’s to be hoped that some of you clowns never get near a jury room. Yu’ve decided the verdict before seeing or hearing the evidence. Interesting that none of you have discussed a motive.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 8:38 am
It’s to be hoped that some of you clowns never get near a jury room. You’ve decided the verdict before seeing or hearing the evidence. Interesting that none of you have discussed a motive.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Gooner:
Last I experienced they no longer rotate instructors of sections of wings. A section will have one Sgt from start to finish (for theory at least).
Patriot
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 9:45 am
As for motive:
Perhaps his relationship with his partner was breaking down and he took his anger out on the children?
Patriot
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 10:39 am
NZ Herald
September 20 2006
Police investigating a rape claim against a primary school teacher were “haphazard”, failed to take obvious lines of inquiry, made a premature arrest and were negligent, a judge has ruled.
The teacher, who has permanent name suppression, was charged with raping a 7-year-old when she was in his class in 1996. The name of the school is also suppressed.
He faced two charges of sexual violation by rape, one of indecent assault and two of assault when he appeared in Wellington District Court in June.
But in a rare move, Judge Bruce Davidson told the jury he was withdrawing the case because of the implausibility of the complaint.
And yesterday he awarded the teacher $30,000 costs.
The police did not gather all the relevant material, he said, and what they did have should have caused “significant alarm”.
“Put bluntly, the police may well have thought twice about continuing with the prosecution,” Judge Davidson said.
Police began investigating after the girl saw the teacher in 2003 and said it “rekindled” the memories and events of 1996. It took 14 months of investigation, while the man continued working as a teacher, before he was arrested and charged.
But the judge said that during that time there were “several shortcomings”, including a failure to get plans of the school layout, which would have thrown into doubt the girl’s account of events.
Police also failed to interview the teacher’s wife and daughter, did not get public records from the school and neglected to properly brief a doctor who examined the alleged victim.
“I am left with a strong sense that the police did not have any overall investigation plan,” Judge Davidson said.
“The investigation to my mind seemed haphazard.”
It was undoubtedly a reflection of the significant resourcing problems police investigating sexual abuse claims faced, he said.
While the judge agreed that there was enough evidence to arrest the man, “there must have been strong signals that any responsible police officer should proceed with considerable caution and prudence”.
The judge ordered the police and the Ministry of Justice each to pay $15,000 to the man.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 10:41 am
For all those who believe that police methods have improved since the infamous Arthur Thomas case, you might need to think again.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Yes ross, I’m pleased that on occasions where there is a poor quality investigation resulting in a weak prosecution there is no conviction and that such cases are highlighted.
Allows us to feel good about the prosecutions resulting in convictions.
Patriot
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Paul, my rather facetious point was that of course you can’t ‘plant’ a ketch. That is why it didn’t exist.
“Tell me on what basis the police maintain this line of absurd reasoning? ”
The jury heard the evidence on the ketch and the jury found Watson guilty. Their reasoning was put in front of the jury. As for the DNA point, they found her hair on a mattress I recall. The same mattress that had a piece cut out of it. It isn;t true that there will be DNA evidence present and that the cops only have to find it. Some rapists are now getting very adept at leaving no DNA (by using condoms and taking them away; by washing the victim; and by washing the bed sheets).
You’re not going to get perfect real evidence on every prosecution. It took 12 months because they had to be meticulous. I sleep well knowing Watson is the offender.
And the only relevance in Ross’s pasting of the Herald article is as Patriot pointed out. This only goes to show there are occasions where mistakes are made and good on the system for showing them up.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:01 am
“Yes ross, I’m pleased that on occasions where there is a poor quality investigation resulting in a weak prosecution there is no conviction and that such cases are highlighted”.
You make a remarkable assumption, as does Gooner, that all miscarriages of justice are highlighted and rectified. Have you got any evidence to support that view? In the Peter Ellis case the judge didn’t intervene (although he could have) and stop the trial, despite a lack of supporting evidence, misinformation from the prosecution’s expert witness and bizarre allegations from the children that must have affected their credibility – had the jury been permitted to hear them. Consequently, an apparently innocent man was convicted and served 7 years in prison. More than 13 years later, he is still trying to clear his name.
Rex Haig recently had his murder conviction quashed. It took him 12 years of fighting before this outcome was achieved. Indeed were it not for his tenaciousness, his convictions would never have been overturned. The main reason that AAT’s conviction was overturned was because of the tireless work of his supporters. How can you have faith in a system under these circumstances?
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:02 am
“Yes ross, I’m pleased that on occasions where there is a poor quality investigation resulting in a weak prosecution there is no conviction and that such cases are highlighted”.
You make a remarkable assumption, as does Gooner, that all miscarriages of justice are highlighted and rectified. Have you got any evidence to support that view? In the Peter Ellis case the judge didn’t intervene (although he could have) and stop the trial, despite a lack of supporting evidence, misinformation from the prosecution’s expert witness and bizarre allegations from the children that must have affected their credibility – had the jury been permitted to hear them. Consequently, an apparently innocent man was convicted and served 7 years in prison. More than 13 years later, he is still trying to clear his name.
Rex Haig recently had his murder conviction quashed. It took him 12 years of fighting before this outcome was achieved. Indeed were it not for his tenaciousness, his convictions would never have been overturned. The main reason that AAT’s conviction was overturned was because of the tireless work of his supporters. How can you have faith in a system under these circumstances?
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“How can you have faith in a system under these circumstances”?
Ross, I am perturbed by the Ellis convictions but you have named 4 cases out of maybe millions from the time of the AAT case to the Ellis case. The system ain’t broke because of the rate of 4/1,000,000.00.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
“Ross, I am perturbed by the Ellis convictions but you have named 4 cases out of maybe millions from the time of the AAT case to the Ellis case. The system ain’t broke because of the rate of 4/1,000,000.00. ”
Where do you get the figure of millions of cases from?
I doubt there have been that many serious Murder or Rape cases involving long prison sentances, and a recent comment from a Judge incdicated there could be up to 20 wrongly in prison. So your rate of 4/1,000,000 is way way off in terms of major miscarriages of justice.
I would also wager that there have been dozens of minor miscarriages in cases that haven’t resulted in long prison terms, where the wrong people have been booked for things they didn’t do and just haven’t bothered to fight it after the fact.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“Ross, I am perturbed by the Ellis convictions but you have named 4 cases out of maybe millions from the time of the AAT case to the Ellis case. The system ain’t broke because of the rate of 4/1,000,000.00.”
I agree with battler. The four cases that I mentioned are high profile cases that have generated a lot of publicity. It’s naive to think that these are the only miscarriages of justice in the last 25 years. There are no doubt cases that we never hear about. From a small sample, retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp found that at least 20 convictions were dodgy. As battler points out, these are convictions for serious crimes, not for stealing some chewing gum.
How many cases are there where someone is charged but the charges are later dropped? In the Ellis case, four female co-workers were charged with sex crimes against young children. The fact that the charges were later thrown out doesn’t change the fact that 4 women were wrongly charged and had to pay some of their own costs. Then there’s the stigma of being labelled child sex abusers, which no doubt some police and others believe the 4 women are.
One final point. I haven’t said the system is broke. What I’ve said is that the system is far from perfect. What is needed is a criminal cases review commission, or a specialist body that can investigate possible miscarriages of justice. The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is a joke. I don’t know the eaxct number of applications for the RPoM, but there’s about 12-15 each year. Not one has ever resulted in a pardon. Rex Haig applied twice but both were rejected. Both times he applied he was in prison. In other words, if the system had worked the way it should have, Haig would have been freed early. Instead he had to fight for several more years and serve his full prison term before his conviction was quashed.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I also agree with Ross the system per se isn’t broken, but rather there is too much trial by media, political pressure and short-cutting by police officers.
If everyone in ‘the system’ played their part PROPERLY, the system would work fine.
It’s like a computer -enter incorrect data and the result is incorrect, enter the correct data and the result is correct.
the computer is fine, it’s just the operators are entering in selective data which is skewing the results.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Here’s something for you to all ponder…Its hypothetical I know, but do you think that had the likes and ilk of the late Mr. Justice Mahon, presided over the Ellis case, that the outcome would have been so much different?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Gooner. The system aint good at all at showing up miscarriages of justice. It brings into disrepute their own kind. (The majority of whom are acquainted, friends or professional colleagues)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am
“had the likes and ilk of the late Mr. Justice Mahon, presided over the Ellis case, that the outcome would have been so much different?”
Maybe. Certainly the Ministerial Inquiry was never going to get to the bottom of the issues. Val Sim, from the Justice Ministry, rejected the world’s leading child sex abuse experts in favour of a little known child advocate named Louise Sas. Sas had carried out no research into the interviewing of child abuse victims, nor had she researched child suggestibility. Furthermore, the inquiry’s reporting date would be extended 6 months to accommodate Sas’s workload.
Sir Thomas Eichelbaum headed the Ministerial Inquiry. He was a close friend of Neil Williamson, the presiding judge at Ellis’s trial. When Williamson died suddenly in 1996, Eichelbaum was devastated. In a speech eulogising Williamson, Eichelbaum said that his former friend and colleague had been “a model judge” and “an exceptional human being.” Furthermore, he had conducted many of the “most difficult trials of his time” and had done so “impeccably”. Was it just a coincidence that an inquiry was to be headed by a close friend of the trial judge? For those already doubtful of Ellis’s guilt, the appointment of Eichelbaum was further evidence that something was amiss.
The rest is history. But one last point. Eight experts (seven from overseas) have been involved with the Ellis case since the trial. Only one believes the children’s evidence is reliable. Five have expressed serious doubts about the children’s evidence and a sixth has raised concerns about various aspects of it. One expert has made no comment on the children’s reliability. The expert who claims the evidence is reliable is none other than Louise Sas.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Typical weak kneed attitude of our justice system that it took this long to arrest some scumbag for this henious crime, should have kidnapped and tortured the whole family until the killer was bought to justice. Just goes to show how weak the kiwi population has become,we really are a pathetic nation.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Typical weak kneed attitude of our justice system that it took this long to arrest some scumbag for this henious crime, should have kidnapped and tortured the whole family until the killer was bought to justice. Just goes to show how weak the kiwi population has become,we really are a pathetic nation.
Vote: