HoS on Barlow’s release
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:56 am by David FarrarThe HoS editorial:
Another ‘innocent’ man is about to get out of prison.
Convicted double killer John Barlow will next week walk free from Wellington’s Rimutaka Prison after serving about 15 years for the execution-style killings of father and son Eugene and Gene Thomas in 1995.
Barlow was convicted at a third trial after the first two juries could not agree on a verdict. He has had a Privy Council appeal dismissed. The 64-year-old will walk out to the support of his wife, Angela, and daughter Keryn.
The family maintains Barlow is innocent. Keryn has even completed the first draft of a book on the case, which she says reveals some of the torment the family has had to suffer.
As the old joke goes, everyone in prison is innocent.
As for torment and suffering, well my thoughts remain with the Thomas family who lost a father and son. There is no parole for them.
Tags: editorials, Herald on Sunday, John Barlow
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:09 am
The man is a psychopath with narcissistic personality disorder, regardless of whether or not he committed any crime.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 7:19 am
So he happened upon the scene, found the bodies, and shot through without calling the police? Sounds like a Tui billboard in the making …
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 7:24 am
The whole thing is very unsatisfactory. If he has been incarcerated for that crime, then there has to have been a weight of evidence to conclude a successful prosecution. I do have a concern with some of the methods that the Police used at the time.
It is also heartening to see a family offer such unconditional support. It does occur to me that there may well be more to this than meets the eye.
Given the huge upgrades in technology, and with the existing evidence being looked at. Surely the Crown and the Families would welcome a FULL blown re-trial to establish the possibilities of either his involvement and guilt, or indeed his innocence.
I just wonder whether it might just lead to a Scottish type impasse like ‘Nor Proven’. Which actually is a ‘Guilty, but can’t just nail you for it yet!’
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 am
Guy – the police were extremely unlucky in that each key ‘lead’ fell slightly short of nailing him to the wall. While it is easy to discredit one or other line of evidence, it is the multiple stands of evidence together with a bullshit-resistant jury that nailed him. If he did not do it – who did? The Easter Bunny? He would have got away with it if he had not left the rubbish dump receipt in his car.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 am
I disagree, peterwn. It was the third jury that convicted him, and then only after the police introduced now discredited FBI expert evidence in support of their case. That does not tend so say that the first two trials can simply be put down to ‘stupid’ juries.
Whether or not he is guilty (and I don’t have a clue about that, of course), I think it is wrong to say that it was a ‘bullshit-resistant jury’ that ‘nailed’ him. It is, of course, entirely possible that somebody else did the crime. Only Barlow knows if he is innocent and I doubt we will be hearing other than the party line from him. But if two juries couldn’t agree and the only change for the third trial was the FBI evidence, then I would say that new evidence probably made a huge difference to the jury in the third trial. I think Guy Fawkes’ point is partially correct- this case is tailor made for a ‘Not Proven’ verdict. However, I disagree with the characterisation of the jury as being looking for a way to, again, ‘nail’ somebody for it. A jury is supposed to be completely impartial and decide only on the facts presented, not some sort of vigilante squad given over to convict at all costs unless it is unavoidable or some of their number are just plain dumb. Not proven doesn’t mean somebody is guilty but the evidence isn’t sufficient to convict, it just means there is ambiguity, so the person can be declared neither innocent nor guilty.
It is a disingenous bit of work by the Herald, though. Most people in prison are in fact guilty, and they know it and admit it. There are some high profile cases where some feel that the guilt of the person is either not so strongly supported by the evidence (Watson, for example) or that the person is actually innocent (such as Peter Ellis). Our criminal justice system has such a high bar of innocent until proven guilty and proof by the proseuction beyond reasonable doubt in order to prevent, as much as possible, innocent men and women being punished wrongly. That is why cases of possible innocence in a convicted person are taken so seriously. The Herald cheapens these concepts in its editorial.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
That does not tend so say that the first two trials can simply be put down to ‘stupid’ juries.
The nature of the FBI evidence was that they said that the bullets were from the missing pistol rather than being consistent with them.
And why was the pistol missing? Because John Barlow, out of all the guns in his home that were missing, somehow took it on himself to take only that pistol to the dump and lie to the police about being there. Moreover we only know the make of the pistol because Barlow himself described its make to a friend on tape.
So in order for Barlow to be not guilty, we would have to assume that not only did he stumble onto the scene of the crime, he recognized the make of the bullets that had been fired thought, “oh shit”, vamoosed and removed that pistol from his collection.
But hang on, Barlow says that he gave the pistol to the Thomases for protection. So the murderer just so happened to be using the same make of pistol that the Thomases had and Barlow on stumbling upon the scene of the crime, thinks “Oh shit”, the murderer used the same make of the pistol that I gave them. I better take their unfired pistol from the scene of the crime and dispose of it so it won’t get back to me.
The first two trials cannot be put down to stupid juries. All it took then was each of them drew one fucking idiot for a juror.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:28 am
It was obvious he did it, but for some reason juries are reluctant to convict middle class white men in suits.
It’s still obvious he did it. Would anybody give this man any credibility were he Maori?
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
F E Smith – “It is, of course, entirely possible that somebody else did the crime.”
It would seem the Privy Council disagree with you. Quite a respected body I believe.
As I understand, they agreed that the FBI evidence was discredited, however they held that the other evidence was overwhelming and declined to hear the case.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 am
The vast majority of people in prison are there following a guilty plea.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
“It would seem the Privy Council disagree with you. Quite a respected body I believe.”
Yeah, those are the same blokes who said that David Bain suffered a miscarriage of justice in his first trial, but lots of people put a lot of store in that verdict as well.
A bit of a difference here, and one that shows why so few criminal appeals to the Privy Council succeed. Having been in the Court of Appeal a little bit, I can say from first hand experience that the appellate Courts take a hell of a lot of persuading before even going near the idea of saying a verdict is not safe. The fact remains that it was entirely open for the first two juries to find Barlow guilty but they were hung. When it comes to verdicts on cases, judges are no different from every body else.
That is not to say Barlow is innocent. I haven’t a clue whether he is or is not and, like the Bain case, don’t really care. Just that this is one where it is possible he is innocent as much as it is possible he is guilty.
Graeme: Not only have they pleaded guilty, but, as you will know, often accept that they deserve to be in prison for what they did.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Metcalph, my understanding of the FBI evidence is different to yours:
“The evidence in question was given by FBI expert Charles Peters, who testified about bullets using a method known as comparative bullet lead analysis. Mr Peters told the third trial the make-up of the bullets found in the bodies of the victims matched a box of bullets owned by Barlow.”
Essentially it is like saying that the blood found on the alleged killer was the same blood type as the victim. Nowhere near as accurate as DNA, but puts you in the ballpark.
Do you have something more on that?
Oh, and it could have been 11-1 in favour of acquittal in one of the trials. We just don’t know.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 am
FE Smith, you could try looking at the PC judgment.
And 11-1 in favour of acquittal, don’t make me laugh. Why is it that you must abdicate common sense?
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
“It’s still obvious he did it. Would anybody give this man any credibility were he Maori?”
Vote:I doubt he would have gone to court three times were he a Maori, that might have been seen as….. racist.
August 22nd, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Graeme Edgeler points out:
The old joke shared by you and David Garrett, DPF? Aside from the point made by Graeme there’s also the small matter that if one extrapolates international figures for persons convicted and sentenced and later exonerated (through the work of “Innocence Projects” and similar bodies) in Western judicial systems with broadly similar characteristics – adversarial system, juries etc – then around 100 people in NZ prisons are innocent.
It follows that if one then removes the cohort who pleaded guilty and a further cohort whose guilt, though denied, is virtually unquestionable then you’re left with a relatively small number of cases over which there is some pre-existing doubt.
Barlow’s is one such case. Though as FE Snith says, neither he nor I nor anyone else who didn’t sit through the evidence can make a judgment as to his guilt or otherwise.
I’m merely pointing out that, statistically, the probability of Barlow’s innocence is much higher than the smirking tone of this post gives credit for. Barlow is either innocent in common with about 99 other “criminals” or he’s not, meaning anoher man (or woman) in our jails is.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Though as FE Snith says, neither he nor I nor anyone else who didn’t sit through the evidence can make a judgment as to his guilt or otherwise.
False. The guy was there at the scene and actively destroyed evidence and sought to mislead the police investigation. People have been rightly convicted on far less.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Aside from the point made by Graeme there’s also the small matter that if one extrapolates international figures for persons convicted and sentenced and later exonerated (through the work of “Innocence Projects” and similar bodies) in Western judicial systems with broadly similar characteristics – adversarial system, juries etc – then around 100 people in NZ prisons are innocent.
You might take note of the fact that the people exonerated by the innocence report happen to be people whose legal defence in the original trial was incompetent. This doesn’t apply to Barlow, Scott Watson, David Bain, Timothy Taylor or Mark Lundy. Furthermore the miscarriages of justice by the innocence report took place during a US crime wave in the 70s and 80s in which the police force and prosecutorial system was overwhelmed and cut corners. You have a hard time arguing these set of circumstances applied here in NZ during the 90s and ’00s.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
OK- Barlow was there at around the time,he had a gun like the one that killed the victims,he then went and dumped a gun like the one that was used in the murders.
Either he is the unluckiest man in NZ or he did it.
I agree with DPF-the two victims are not being granted parole. Why should this double murderer ever be set free? It doesn’t seem right to me.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
metcalph:
You seem intent on singlehandledly proving the guilt of Barlow and everyone else in the prison system. If you’re embarking on such a course it might pay to arm yourself with something beyond prejudice. The reasons “guilty” people have been exonerated (for cases in the 90s and 00s as well as earlier) include:
- Erroneous identification by the victim(s)/ witness(es)
- Fabrication of evidence by police or crime lab technicians
- Overzealous prosecutors who are concerned with winning instead of serving justice
- Court appointed defence lawyers are not always experienced in criminal law, or even capital crime cases.
- Lack of proper police investigation
- False confessions that were physically or psychologically coerced
- Perjury by prosecution witnesses
- “Snitches”/ Informants/ Co-defendants (Crown witnesses) being allowed to testify in court and making “deals” with the prosecutor
- Uncritical and untrained jurors. They are not aware of the “games” that are being played.
- Exclusion of other suspects
- Rulings of the judge who favors the prosecution
- Unethical news reporters who deliberately only tell half of the “story”. They put pressure on the state to arrest, prosecute and convict.
- Crucial evidence disappears, is destroyed or withheld from the defense
- Lack of resources prevents the defendant from hiring investigators and experts. However, thanks to the tax payers, the prosecutor has all the resources needed to win a conviction.
- Prejudice against a defendant’s ethnity, race, religion, nationality, political or personal ideas
- Coerced plea bargains by the prosecutor’s piling on of charges that would result in a much longer sentence (or even the death penalty in some jurisdictions)
- The prosecutor’s, law enforcement’s and witnesses’ immunity from suit allows them to get away with perjury and other crimes without being prosecuted and punished themselves
You really think all that stopped happening, magically, around 1989? If so, have a look through some prison studies. Then read of just some current cases.
And then ponder Martin Luther King’s dictum: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Gene and Eugene Thomas where personal friends of mine. Barlow was, is and forever will be guilty of their brutal murder.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
You seem intent on singlehandledly proving the guilt of Barlow and everyone else in the prison system.
Why don’t you be honest about your own biases instead of trying to malign others. You had a rough experience with the Australian legal system and since that time, you’ve been damning the Australian police without showing the slightest recognition that your own behavior was stupid enough to confirm the anybody’s suspicion that you were up to no good.
As for the exoneration of guilty people, you have failed to recognize two factors – most of those would have been uncovered by half-decent defense attorneys. Moreover the incidence of unsafe convictions was at a peak during the crime wave and has declined dramatically since then. Claims that a hundred people in our jails are innocent as the driven snow are complete fucking bullshit.
And you still haven’t managed to come up with a credible explanation of how John Barlow can be guilty. Simply sneering at other people doesn’t cut it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Scott Watson and Mark Lundy did it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Of course he did it, what – ephemera (332) Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:09 am.
Barlow is the total narcissist,. after the killings it became a game to him V NZ Police , he’s actually a very evil man, he believed he was wronged by others and decided to be Judge Jury and executioner.
As the song goes, ….I fought the law and the law won….. fuck him, he is so full of himself he’ll eventually admit it just to show how clever is thinks he is.
The scary part is he was declined parole last time because of his –unhealthy attitude towards firearms….. buggered if I know how his attitude will have changed, also parole is meant to include some acceptance of your crime… which he has never done,, the parole board is also fucked…..surprise again
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
What’s even scarier about Barlow’s last parole hearing (and concerned the parole board) was that when his wife was asked difficult questions, Barlow attempted to answer the question for her.
Given that she was meant to keep him on the straight and narrow, the apparent subservience was unnerving.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
His wife appears to be a very credible witness and swears she was with him at the time of the murders. Thats one hell of an alibi.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“metcalph (518) Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Aside from the point made by Graeme there’s also the small matter that if one extrapolates international figures for persons convicted and sentenced and later exonerated (through the work of “Innocence Projects” and similar bodies) in Western judicial systems with broadly similar characteristics – adversarial system, juries etc – then around 100 people in NZ prisons are innocent.
You might take note of the fact that the people exonerated by the innocence report happen to be people whose legal defence in the original trial was incompetent. This doesn’t apply to Barlow, Scott Watson, David Bain, Timothy Taylor or Mark Lundy. Furthermore the miscarriages of justice by the innocence report took place during a US crime wave in the 70s and 80s in which the police force and prosecutorial system was overwhelmed and cut corners. You have a hard time arguing these set of circumstances applied here in NZ during the 90s and ’00s.’
What absolute carbage. Watson’s defence was a display of the most incompetent defence ever seen in a New Zealand courtroom. Weak, pathetic, unprepared, uninformed and intimidated by an arrogant, incompetent, bias and sick old judge who like others, have no business being on the bench.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
metcalph:
You’ve clearly relied on the MSM (who can’t even Google “Australian electoral system” and get it right) for your information on my case which suggests your knowledge of that which you speak is confined pretty much to supposition and prejudice.
I haven’t cited specific cases but “half decent defence attorneys” are pretty thin on the ground I find. Many criminals are represented on Legal Aid, which pays so poorly that no half decent lawyer will take their briefs. Some do, and I can’t speak highly enough of them, but they’re in the minority. As for specific cases – What Paul Marsden said.
I’m not sure what you mean by “our” jails (since the use of “defense attorneys” and not “defence lawyers” suggests you might be American). If you mean American jails then yes I mean hundreds, plural. If you mean NZ jails then re-read my earlier comment. I’m suggesting that somewhere round 100, give or take maybe 20, are probably innocent. A miniscule portion of the entire prison population but a significant number if you’re the innocent person or they’re a member of your family.
You’re the one seemingly convinced he’s guilty. I’m merely saying he may be one of the innocents wrongfully convicted but I have absolutely no idea one way or the other in his specific case.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
I really can’t be arsed educating those who’re more comfortable substituting prejudice for fact, but here’s a list of those freed from US death row which shows the “it was all a result of a pre-90s crime wave” argument to be nonsense.
Since the average prisoner spends just under a decade incarcerated before being released then there has been a slight increase in the number of unsafe convictions of 1990 onwards compared to the decades before.
Interesting too is this graph of the reasons for the eventual innocence of people on death row. The mistakes of eyewitnesses is by far the major cause, not corruption and not sudden, dramatic new DNA evidence as the MSM like to portray (though both these do of course figure).
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Watson’s defence was a display of the most incompetent defence ever seen in a New Zealand courtroom. Weak, pathetic, unprepared, uninformed and intimidated by an arrogant, incompetent, bias and sick old judge who like others, have no business being on the bench.
In other words having no evidence of his innocence, you chose to defame all and sundry.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Rex, I am convinced of his guilt, because our justice system selected a jury of his (and my!) peers, and came to that conclusion of behalf of the people of NZ.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 pm
You may well be right, krazykiwi. Please note I’m arguing against DPF’s snide assertion that “As the old joke goes, everyone in prison is innocent” pointing out that in fact a portion are. Whether Barlow’s one or not, I have no idea and am thus trying my best to stay out of that specific argument, despite the efforts of some to assert that I’m defending him!
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
metcalph (519) Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Watson’s defence was a display of the most incompetent defence ever seen in a New Zealand courtroom. Weak, pathetic, unprepared, uninformed and intimidated by an arrogant, incompetent, bias and sick old judge who like others, have no business being on the bench.
In other words having no evidence of his innocence, you chose to defame all and sundry.
I care less whether Watson is guilty or not. Show me one skerrick of evidence that convicted Watson, that cannot be rebutted by anyone with a half-functioning neurone… and I’ll concede to your views. In the meantime, I’ll wager a wee bet, there’s not one Judge in New Zealand who knows full well, that Watson’s incarceration is a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, New Zealand has long been bereft of jurists such as the great Justice Mahon, who put justice before a career and a superannuation package.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
You’ve clearly relied on the MSM (who can’t even Google “Australian electoral system” and get it right) for your information on my case which suggests your knowledge of that which you speak is confined pretty much to supposition and prejudice.
Wow. Rex can’t maintain a convincing excuse for his actions and so has to claim I’m ignorant. That’s hardly a surprise. But speaking of misinformation, let’s get one thing straight. Did you or did you not take a plane trip to Oz to see an underage girl who, you had previously corresponded with over the internet? More importantly, do you still consider this a wise thing to have done?
I haven’t cited specific cases but “half decent defence attorneys” are pretty thin on the ground I find.
At the level at which most defence attorneys operate, their clients are criminals seeking to cop a plea. The type of crimes covered by the Project Innocence are major criminal cases in which the Defence Lawyers here are experienced and on their toes. The opportunity for unsafe convictions of the type that are investigated by the project innocence project (as opposed to ordinary criminal appeals) are markedly reduced.
As for specific cases – What Paul Marsden said.
So lies, defamation and general smears are legitimate debating tactics in your opinion then? Glad that’s cleared up.
I’m not sure what you mean by “our” jails
NZ jails obviously, your pathetic attempts at yank-bashing notwithstanding.
If you mean NZ jails then re-read my earlier comment. I’m suggesting that somewhere round 100, give or take maybe 20, are probably innocent.
And that number is bullshit simply because it makes a simple size calculation for the experience of the Project Innocence team and extrapolates that to the NZ experience without taking into context the problems that were afflicting the US legal systems in the 70s and 80s (which is when most of the project innocence cases occurred) whereas those problems did not exist in NZ.
Of the people convicted of serious crimes in NZ, the SST database lists only 39 people serving sentences of 18 or more years, 21 people serving 11 or more years preventive detention, 41 violent offenders serving sentences of 7 years or more, 67 rapists and 33 violent offenders on preventive detention. That’s a total of 201 people serving the type of crimes investigated by the project innocence (The guilt of white collar crimes and drug trafficking offenses is a lot more clearcut). For the 100 innocent people in new zealand, you are seriously suggesting that 50% of these people are innocent.
Of the actual people who were convicted yet are innocent I can think of five at the most (Peter Ellis, Rex Haig, Jason Cummings, AAT and another one whose name escapes me). Of those, two (Haig, Cummings) harmed their own defense through their own actions and actual innocence of one can’t be presumed on the balance of probabilities.
That is why I think your claim of 100 innocent people in NZ is complete and utter fucking bullshit.
You’re the one seemingly convinced he’s guilty.
He is guilty because he has been convicted in a trial, the verdict of which has been upheld by numerous courts up to and including the Court of Appeal.
I’m merely saying he may be one of the innocents wrongfully convicted but I have absolutely no idea one way or the other in his specific case.
Well perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the known facts of the case before shooting your mouth of by casting aspersions on people who know that he’s guilty.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I care less whether Watson is guilty or not.
Then why are you wasting your time arguing otherwise.
Show me one skerrick of evidence that convicted Watson, that cannot be rebutted by anyone with a half-functioning neurone… and I’ll concede to your views.
Unexplained scratches on the hatch of his yacht, Olivia’s hair found in his yacht, the fact that he lied about his movements on the day after (numerous witnesses contradicted him) and the fact that he has consistently refused to explain what happened.
You only have half a neuron. Rebut.
In the meantime, I’ll wager a wee bet, there’s not one Judge in New Zealand who knows full well, that Watson’s incarceration is a miscarriage of justice.
I’ll bet you $100 that the judiciary believes that Scott Watson’s imprisonment is totally warranted. Put up or fuck up.
Unfortunately, New Zealand has long been bereft of jurists such as the great Justice Mahon, who put justice before a career and a superannuation package.
The very same Mahon who somehow was lacking when it came to applying the principles of natural justice? The same Mahon who became fixated on what he saw was the cause of the accident as exonerating the pilots but simply failed to consider that it meant that the pilots failed in their duty of care to their passengers? There’s a reason Mahon never got a knighthood.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
but here’s a list of those freed from US death row which shows the “it was all a result of a pre-90s crime wave” argument to be nonsense.
Since the average prisoner spends just under a decade incarcerated before being released then there has been a slight increase in the number of unsafe convictions of 1990 onwards compared to the decades before.
Death row prisoners spend far longer than just a decade before execution or exoneration. Given that sentences in the states are at least twice as long as sentences here, the people exonerated by project innocence happened to be found guilty in, as I said, the 70s and 80s. By comparing them with the average prisoner, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Oh, this one got interesting…
Metcalph said “You might take note of the fact that the people exonerated by the innocence report happen to be people whose legal defence in the original trial was incompetent.”
That isn’t true. If you read the book “Actual Innocence”, written by the founders of the Innocence Project, you will see that some were convicted because of at least one police forensic officers concocted results and perjury. Others because of the Police use of psuedo-science that, similar to the Barlow case, was later discredited. Still others were convicted because of very damning eye-witness evidence that turned out to be wrong, like it was in David Dougherty’s case and Aaron Farmer’s case.
Also, nobody can say that Arthur Allan Thomas’ lawyers were incompetent.
Hey, Rex, there are a lot of us half decent defence lawyers who do legal aid! There are some defence lawyers who could make a fortune from civil but continue to do criminal legal aid out of a sense of duty to the profession. We all know we could make more, but I assure you that the actual standard at the New Zealand defence bar, with the possible exception of Manakau and Palmerston North, is actually very high. And I take that information from the judges who have to deal with us as well as having seen defence lawyers in action overseas.
krazykiwi, by your argument David Dougherty and Aaron Farmer are guilty, as is A A Thomas as he was found guilty twice! Do you still keep that opinion after considering those cases?
Oh, and Metcalph, I have seen clients of my own go to prison despite the fact that I am convinced of their innocence. I have seen others punished (not with imprisonment). I am by no means incompetent, but sometimes you just cannot win because to have people acquitted yo sometimes do need actual proof of their innocence. I know what the criminal justice theory is, but I am talking about practice here. I have no doubt that Rex is correct when he says that there may be 100 or so innocent people in our prisons at any one time. Moreover, the Police didn’t magically clean up their act in the 90s and 00s. I have seen them commit perjury, withhold evidence and generally try to screw the system in their favour. Look at those two cops convicted just a couple of days ago of perjury and misleading the court. It happens because the police, although doing a tough job, are still human. They are not perfect. So corruption does happen, get over it.
I won’t read the Barlow decision because I have no interest in it. However, I suggest you email Don Mathias and tell him that his reasoning is false; he is the one who said that if you didn’t sit through the whole trial then you really cannot have a valid opinion on whether a defendant is guilty or not. I agree with it, knowing as I do that the press report only a fraction of what is said at trial and almost always have a pro-Crown bias. I have seen in reports of trials that I have done.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Interesting too is this graph of the reasons for the eventual innocence of people on death row.
The graph dates from 2001.
Looking at the report, of the 46 people wrongly convicted on the basis of false eye-witness testimony, 43 were convicted during the years 1970-89.
My point still stands.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“I’ll bet you $100 that the judiciary believes that Scott Watson’s imprisonment is totally warranted. Put up or fuck up.”
That is just stupid. Where are you going to get a judge who will openly say what they think of the Watson conviction? I know some judges, and I know what they personally think, but I have to tell you that all of those judges were once lawyers, so I don’t see how their opinion is any more valid or informed than mine.
By the way, I could point you to at least one judge who does think Watson is probably innocent, but I won’t name the judge!
And Justice Mahon was a fantastic judge. He didn’t get a knighthood because Muldoon didn’t want to give him one as the report blamed the state owned airline. Plus Mahon didn’t live that long after retiring, dying at a comparitively young age of about 63. The decision not to knight him was purely political.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
That’s not the way our system works. We are all innocent until proven guilty.
I don’t know if Barlow took the stand, but Watson didn’t and we should all think carefully in that position before exposing ourselves to professional interrogators.
I grew up with Perry Mason extracting confessions out of innocent people every week, so my advice is to steer clear of those guys!
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
“Looking at the report, of the 46 people wrongly convicted on the basis of false eye-witness testimony, 43 were convicted during the years 1970-89.
My point still stands.”
David Dougherty was convicted on incorrect eyewitness evidence in 1993.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“Watson didn’t and we should all think carefully in that position before exposing ourselves to professional interrogators. ”
Bain did in his first trial and paid the price you mention. Even innocent people (and I am not saying that Bain is innocent) can look guilty under cross-examination. Hell, I have seen clearly innocent by-standers look bad under cross-examination!
My advice to a client is generally to stay out of the witness box if at all possible.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 pm
If you read the book “Actual Innocence”, written by the founders of the Innocence Project, you will see that some were convicted because of at least one police forensic officers concocted results and perjury.
Fitted evidence tends to be off quite poor quality and if a trial lawyer can’t spot it from a hundred paces, then he’s incompetent by definition.
Others because of the Police use of psuedo-science that, similar to the Barlow case, was later discredited.
The firearm evidence in the Barlow case was no pseudo-science. It was scientific but ultimately found to be less than persuasive. As for attacking scientific evidence, Judith Ablett-Kerr got Vicki Calder off.
Still others were convicted because of very damning eye-witness evidence that turned out to be wrong, like it was in David Dougherty’s case and Aaron Farmer’s case.
David was not convicted solely on eye-witness evidence as you full well know.
I have seen clients of my own go to prison despite the fact that I am convinced of their innocence.
That means little without telling us the grounds in which you think they are innocent. I am aware of a recent case in which a guy remanded in prison pending a trial swore that he was innocent and had an explanation for the evidence against him. But when it came to trial, the evidence turned out to be not what he said it was and he pled guilty halfway through the prosecution case. Likewise I am aware of a guy who could turn out a distressing sob story about how he was in for murder, was about to be released but is frightened of the big bad world out there and has numerous complications from his past life that he doesn’t know how he’s going to resolve – he was actually in for fraud.
I am by no means incompetent, but sometimes you just cannot win because to have people acquitted yo sometimes do need actual proof of their innocence.
Tell your clients not to lie when they’re talking to the police does wonders, methinks.
Moreover, the Police didn’t magically clean up their act in the 90s and 00s.
The police here cleaned up their act long before. In the 80s, they stopped trying to fit people without a criminal record on the basis of the AAT case. As a result of the Huka falls case, they’ve become far more careful about using prison informants. The only major change in procedure since then is a prosecutorial one, admitting all the evidence and that was done in the aftermath of the Peter Ellis case. A good example of that would be the Lisa Blakie case where the problems with the Forensic evidence was openly discussed in the courtroom (as if accepted, would mean that the accused had an ironcast alibi) or the Scott Watson case in which the police made a determined evidence to seek and destroy all sloops in the vicinity.
I have seen them commit perjury, withhold evidence and generally try to screw the system in their favour.
You are talking about chalk and cheese here reasoning from your personal experience with a few cops and generalizing to important cases like the Barlow Case which has the police and the Crown going through all the evidence with a fine tooth comb to make sure nobody’s fucked up somewhere along the way.
I won’t read the Barlow decision because I have no interest in it.
In which case, kindly refrain from patronizing those of us who have followed the case and read the judgment.
However, I suggest you email Don Mathias and tell him that his reasoning is false; he is the one who said that if you didn’t sit through the whole trial then you really cannot have a valid opinion on whether a defendant is guilty or not.
I dunno who Don Mathias is and so your appeal to authority fails.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
That is just stupid. Where are you going to get a judge who will openly say what they think of the Watson conviction?
I wasn’t the one who made the bet. Take it up with the shithead who proposed it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
David Dougherty was convicted on incorrect eyewitness evidence in 1993.
Really? I seem to recall something about the ESR fucking up on the DNA evidence.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 pm
That’s not the way our system works. We are all innocent until proven guilty.
Scott Watson has been proven guilty. When asked for evidence that he was wrongly convicted the shithead I was responding to resorted to lies and defamation. If you had followed the argument you would have seen this.
I don’t know if Barlow took the stand, but Watson didn’t and we should all think carefully in that position before exposing ourselves to professional interrogators.
Barlow was guilty as sin and so too was Watson. People delude themselves that Watson was innocent because the Police didn’t do what FE Smith thinks they normally do and lean on their prime witness to get the number of masts on the yacht correct!
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
“The firearm evidence in the Barlow case was no pseudo-science. It was scientific but ultimately found to be less than persuasive. As for attacking scientific evidence, Judith Ablett-Kerr got Vicki Calder off.”
No, it has been completely discredited in the USA. It was based, I understand, on an incorrect hypothesis. I don’t know what the Vicky Calder reference is in aid of.
“I wasn’t the one who made the bet.”
Ah, I see. My apologies re the bet, Metcalph. Paul Marsden, that point is now aimed at you!!!
“Tell your clients not to lie when they’re talking to the police does wonders, methinks.”
I tell them not to talk to the police at all, unless it is an allegation of a sex crime. But I wasn’t talking about falsehoods in interviews being the issue.
“The police here cleaned up their act long before. ”
Then why do I and my colleagues still see it today? Obviously nowhere near as much as in years past, but it still goes on. I know this and the police know it. We just have to work with it, that is all.
“A good example of that would be the Lisa Blakie case where the problems with the Forensic evidence was openly discussed in the courtroom (as if accepted, would mean that the accused had an ironcast alibi)”
Ah, the Lisa Blakie case. Yes, this is the one where the Crown pathologist said that a body anchored in relatively shallow water for 3 days would be subject to ‘water chill’ and that would explain why the body was still in rigor mortis 3 days after the alleged murder? Where both of the pathologists called by the defence AND the second one called by the Crown said that was just dumb? Oh, and where the Crown had a suicide note from a gang member in which said gang member confessed to killing Lisa Blakie, but failed to disclose it until half way through the trial?
“the Scott Watson case in which the police made a determined evidence to seek and destroy all sloops in the vicinity.”
Hmm, which is why they say the two masted boat doesn’t exist? Funny that, as I have a mate who saw it the next day (a fellow lawyer, ex detective) and, when he rang the police to report it, was told that they didn’t want to know about it as they had discounted it?
“I dunno who Don Mathias is and so your appeal to authority fails.”
Don Mathias is one of NZ’s foremost academic criminal lawyers:
I am a lawyer specialising in criminal law in Auckland, New Zealand. Part of my 1980 Ph.D. thesis has become our textbook on drug offences, Misuse of Drugs (Butterworths, Wellington, 1988, and available fully updated on CD-Rom, or by online subscription, as part of Brooker’s Criminal Library) and I am a contributing author of our leading text on criminal law, Adams on Criminal Law.
Trust me, this man is a heavyweight authority in NZ criminal law.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:26 pm
metcalph:
No.
No, they don’t. That’s a list of people freed from death row and in which the release occurred 1973 or later. Scroll to the bootm and you’ll see:
Where did I say that the percentage of innocent people I suggest are in NZ cells have been convicted only of major offences? My figure of 100 is out of the 8,706 people in prison (as at 31/5/2010) which is 1.15%. Just because someone’s case isn’t “big” enough to interest an innocence project doesn’t mean the person may not be innocent.
Says the person casting aspersions on my behaviour. Where, please, have I cast aspersions on anyone whose opinion is that Barlow is guilty? My “aspersions” are reserved for those who deny the possibility that a small percentage of people convicted and imprisoned are in fact innocent, such as, apparently, DPF and yourself.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
“Really? I seem to recall something about the ESR fucking up on the DNA evidence.”
No, the DNA testing supposedly came back inconclusive. He was convicted (so I understand) on eye-witness identification.
EDIT:
“Scott Watson has been proven guilty.”
So was A A Thomas, twice. So was Aaron Farmer.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“metcalph:
let’s get one thing straight. Did you or did you not take a plane trip to Oz to see an underage girl who, you had previously corresponded with over the internet”
Metcalph, that is inappropriate.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
FE Smith:
Yes sorry, I was aware I could be seen as critical of all legal aid lawyers, but I did try to moderate that by saying I have nothing but admiration for the good ones. I haven’t had enough experience of them in NZ to form an overarching impression… I’ve seen a couple of mediocre ones and a couple of good ones.
Because the pay is so shocking, the ones who are both good and dedicated ought to be valued beyond price IMHO!
In WA I’ve seen mostly pretty awful ones. The one I was first lumbered with was so hostile I genuinely thought for the first few minutes I was speaking to the prosecutor! He was later publicly criticised by a judge for “clearly having formed the impression that your client was guilty and having done everything in [his] power to assist the prosecution”.
I was speaking above of the trend worldwide, and especially in the US.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Where, please, have I cast aspersions on anyone whose opinion is that Barlow is guilty?
Certainly. Here at 4.54pm is you:
The prosecution rests.
My “aspersions” are reserved for those who deny the possibility that a small percentage of people convicted and imprisoned are in fact innocent, such as, apparently, DPF and yourself.
You seem all too convinced of the possibility that Barlow might actually be innocent before to the extent that you were saying that people who believed he was guilty were prejudiced. But I expected little better of someone from someone who thought that visiting an underaged girl in Oz after corresponding with her on the internet was a good idea.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Me:Did you or did you not take a plane trip to Oz to see an underage girl who, you had previously corresponded with over the internet
You:Metcalph, that is inappropriate.
Given that Rex Widerstrom feels free to call other people prejudiced merely because they believe having looked at the evidence that Barlow is guilty, the beam in his own eye deserves scrutiny methinks.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
metcalph
I didn’t say I thought Barlow and Watson are innocent. In fact, I think there was good evidence to convict them both, but that is only going on what I read in the news reports.
My point is that we must not start down the slippery slope of insisting people prove their innocence. That should be a given, until guilt is proven.
So calm down.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 pm
“Because the pay is so shocking, the ones who are both good and dedicated ought to be valued beyond price ”
Ha ha ha! Can you please tell that to Simon Power? There are actually quite a few of us, although the number remains at about 4-6% of the total legal profession in NZ. I know that there are some shockers in the system, but the Legal Services Agency has not seen its role as being quality control, while the NZ Law Society has always said that it has nothing but an advisory role in the Legal Services Agency’s appointments to the legal aid scheme. The fact that the numbe of criminal legal aid lawyers in NZ has barely changed in the last 10 years, despite the huge increase in lawyers, is instructive.
Most of the truly dedicated ones who are competent are of the old school. Unfortunately we see fewer and fewer new, young criminal lawyers each year. For some reason they all want to do commercial law. But you can make money on legal aid by working your rear off. However, the same amount of work in civil litigation would earn you a king’s ransom. We know that, but are just pig-headed. Anyway, it is far more interesting than civil.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
So was Aaron Farmer.
Aaron Farmer had an alibi for the time of the rape. The prosecution was going to call the witness because he was relevant to other matters but then decided not to. The defence lawyer then did not call the witness and so failed to put the alibi before the court.
Hence his conviction was the result of defense lawyer incompetence.
The eyewitness (the victim of the attack) was not mistaken in her identification – she really did see him that night (in a superette I recall). Where she erred was that she believed the person who attacked her was the strange person she saw in the superette.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Metcalph, calling someone prejudiced is fine. Insulting them is ok, too, as far as I am concerned. What you did went beyond that with your insinuations of paedophilia against Rex. That is what is inappropriate.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Yes metcalf, as a general principle if you are going to examine Barlow’s or any case and you go in thinking that the possibility that a person convicted of an offence could still be innocent is, to quote you, “bullshit” then you are clearly so prejudiced about convicted criminals in general that your ability to form a balanced opinion on the potential innocence of one of them would be clearly clouded.
I very rarely express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of a specific person (the only exception I can think of would be Peter Ellis) because my own experience of the justice system – both through the multiple unsuccessful cases brught against me by the NZ and Australian police and through my work on behalf of others – skews my viewpoint so much.
Before I take up someone’s case I must be convinced that they have been in some way unfairly treated by someone within the crminal justice system… otherwise I’d be wasting my time. Thus all I ever deal with is people who have been screwed over in some way (not necessarily wrongfully convicted, but some times) and it’s easy for me to forget that what I’m dealing with is perhaps 1%, maybe (if you count unfair parole refusals, proceeds of crime seizures etc) 5%… but that 95% of the time the result is probably the correct one.
What I do endeavour to do, however, is point out to people that the justice system does have a myriad of failings and that some so-called criminals are in fact victims, as was I – and backed by statistics and examples where possible, as I have tried to do today.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
“The eyewitness (the victim of the attack) was not mistaken in her identification – she really did see him that night (in a superette I recall). Where she erred was that she believed the person who attacked her was the strange person she saw in the superette.”
That is what we call ‘mistaken eye-witness identification’, just so you know.
And the Crown lawyer also knew of the alibi witness and made comments to the jury that were clearly false when her knowledge is taken into account. Plus, Police were criticised over failing to have exhibits in court, inadequate briefing of witnesses, and late disclosure of evidence.
But, at court, it was all about the eye-witness evidence.
EDIT:
“It’s easy for me to forget that what I’m dealing with is perhaps 1%, maybe (if you count unfair parole refusals, proceeds of crime seizures etc) 5%… but that 95% of the time the result is probably the correct one.”
True. It always important to remember that most of our clients are in fact guilty!
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
FE Smith:
Ugghh. I dread running into them when I visit law schools. Typical young lawyer arrogance PLUS a single minded focus on money (though they never admit it, they’ll phrase it as wanting to be hired by a “big end of town” firm).
Law isn’t an easy subject to learn, so why you’d do it just to make money I don’t know. Do an MBA like all the other obnoxious greedy bastards
Any time I come near tort law I start to twitch. Except defamation… that can be fun and I’m getting quite good at that 
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Yes metcalf, as a general principle if you are going to examine Barlow’s or any case and you go in thinking that the possibility that a person convicted of an offence could still be innocent is, to quote you, “bullshit” then you are clearly so prejudiced about convicted criminals in general that your ability to form a balanced opinion on the potential innocence of one of them would be clearly clouded.
You are seriously epistemologically fucked up. Given the fact that you won’t front up to your past conduct (even when I haven’t accused you of committing a crime but rather simply acting unwisely) but instead cast yourself as a victim and avoid discussing the details of the case, I take FE Smith’s point that anybody can be made to look bad on the witness stand but then I already believed it. Given these circumstances, I think it pointless to ask why you felt it fit to lie about calling prejudiced those who think Barlow was guilty and instead offer you a few words to wish you sweet dreams.
The first is “If there’s grass on the pitch, play ball”
The second is “Roses are red, violets are plucked. A girl over twelve is old enough to be….”
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
metcalph:
I’m not about to “front up” to something I didn’t do. I flew to Australia to conduct a round of meetings with MPs and political party figures and had an address book, diary, letters and a host of witnesses to prove it. I was accused of other motives, duly reported by the MSM. When the truth came out only one outlet (the Holmes Show) was interested. The rest simply reported the collapse of the case and not the underlying truth of the matter.
But even if I were in the habit of running about copulating with road kill, I fail to see how that in any way affects the validity of my argument that, given the fact about 1% of imprisoned people are innocent, then it is a mathematical possibility Barlow was one of them. A possibility of one in 8,706 to be exact.
You seem awfully vexed when anyone (me, Luc Hansen, FE Smith) does something other than unthinkingly accepts that the police and the courts get it right 100% of the time, even when none of us has said “I think Barlow is innocent”.
Sweet dreams too… of gambolling hand and hand through a prison yard with Garth McVicar, no doubt.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Metcalph, calling someone prejudiced is fine. Insulting them is ok, too, as far as I am concerned.
You shouldn’t advocate for Rex considering that you won’t get paid.
What you did went beyond that with your insinuations of paedophilia against Rex. That is what is inappropriate.
I made a factual statement and Rex refused to address it directly (despite earlier accusing me of getting my facts wrong). Instead he’s adopting simple word games to avoid admitting that he has done anything wrong and described himself as a victim. The statement was relevant to the debate because Rex had a rough time with the police and, if innocent, this would reasonably affect his perception of the judicial system. But given that he still persists in calling me prejudiced, I am going to return the favour and think poorly of his visit to see an underaged girl whom he had conversations with on the internet.
And if you still think what I said was inappropriate then it’s little wonder that your legal skills are such that you have innocent clients sent to prison.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Did you even read my 10.49 where I admitted exactly that bias? Of course it colours my view. Just like your belief that there aren’t around 100 (of 8000 plus) innocent people sitting in our prisons convicted of a crime colours yours.
Vote:August 22nd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
“And if you still think what I said was inappropriate then it’s little wonder that your legal skills are such that you have innocent clients sent to prison.
rubbish. my legal skills and my opinions don’t have to have anything to do with each other. I have no problem defending anyone, regardless of what they have done. I just think what you said (and continue to say) is inappropriate given the nature of this forum.
“You shouldn’t advocate for Rex considering that you won’t get paid.”
Fair point, but sadly I would estimate that about 30% of my work goes unpaid, either because I do it pro bono or because Legal Aid doesn’t pay for the extra work we all have to do in order to conduct our cases properly. So I am used to advocating for a person for free. Try getting that out of a commercial lawyer!
EDIT:”Law isn’t an easy subject to learn, so why you’d do it just to make money I don’t know.”
HA! For some reason everybody believes American TV and thinks we are all rich!!!!
Vote:August 23rd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You know, I almost wanted him released, simply because I was so fucked off with the parole board’s judgement on his attitude to firearms. That’s an attitude considered normal in North America. An armed society is a safe one.
But he is an evil, narcissistic murderer. It angers me that he has got away with so much, and I believe that it is entirely because he is white and middle class. You would have to believe a lot of strange coincidences to believe that John Barlow did not kill those men. It is too much coincidence for me.
Vote:August 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
BlairM:
That’s interesting. I missed that at the time. So the NZ Parole Board are now discriminating against people whose beliefs are at variance with their own, even if those beliefs are within the law?
I’d started to notice that trend creeping in to a few judgments in Australia… for instance criticising a person imprisoned for a racially motivated attack for not embracing multi-culturalism rather than simply admitting violence is wrong whatever the reason and undertaking not to resort to it, which would have been enough had the motivation for the attack been, say, monetary.
If we’re going to start using the prison system for thought control purposes, I’d expect we had at least some debate round the issue first, Mr Power / Ms Collins.
Vote: