Pora gets parole

March 31st, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Convicted killer has been granted this morning.

He has spent 21 years in prison for the 1994 rape and murder of Susan Burdett in her South Auckland home, which he says he did not commit.

Pora’s lawyer, Jonathan Krebs, said he was pleased and relieved by the Parole Board’s decision.

“It’s the outcome we’ve been trying for for the last 13 times we’ve come to the Parole Board, so one never expects a result, one always hopes,” he said.

“And we were hopeful today.

“We’re now obviously going to let the dust settle a bit and then we’ll continue to focus on the Privy Council hearing later in the year,” he said.

The parole decision is a pragmatic one, bearing in mind the uncertainty over his conviction and the length of time he has spent in jail. I hope he is given good support now he is released.

Tags: ,

57 Responses to “Pora gets parole”

  1. dirty harry (514 comments) says:

    I am overjoyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Correct your spelling please DPF, your thread is titled Poira gets parole

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    I can barely contain my elation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dubya (243 comments) says:

    How can he have spent 21 years in jail, for a crime that happened in 1994?

    (Edit: Oh, I see with some research, it actually happened in 1992. Sloppy journalism!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The parole decision is a pragmatic one, bearing in mind the uncertainty over his conviction and the length of time he has spent in jail. I hope he is given good support now he is released.

    The parole board should not be making decisions based on the uncertainty of his conviction because it is not their job. In any event when the new evidence for Pora turns out to be little more than “Rewa has an erectile dysfunction”, I am struggling to see how his second trial conviction was so unsafe considering the second jury heard the far stronger evidence that Rewa and Pora belonged to different gangs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (11,709 comments) says:

    I should think that if uncertainty over his conviction was a factor he would have been granted parole long before now. But I’m pretty sure it’s not a factor which the Parole Board can consider.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    FWIW during the parole hearing of John Barlow, doubts about his conviction were explicitly raised as grounds for parole (his Privy Council hearing was pending). The Parole Board refused to consider those grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. backster (2,184 comments) says:

    ” I hope he is given good support now he is released.”

    Don’t worry the bro’s will welcome him into the fold and give him his patch, maybe some financial advice as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dubya (243 comments) says:

    Perhaps he’ll get a contract distributing Whanau Ora money?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (4,199 comments) says:

    Uncertainty over his conviction is NOT a factor considered by the Parole Board, at any time.
    The Parole Board deals with convicted inmates…not remand – those awaiting trial or sentence.

    The decision was based on the “risk to the community” test. But it is pragmatic since the PC will inevitably strike out his conviction, lock, stock and barrel.

    I suppose the major benefit will be for the taxpayer in that he no longer costs us about 100,000 a year to house in Paremoremo…. and it will reduce the amount of compensation paid for Police/Crown malfeasance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The decision was based on the “risk to the community” test. But it is pragmatic since the PC will inevitably strike out his conviction, lock, stock and barrel.

    I’m not certain they will do so. John Barlow had a reasonable argument for a new trial (namely that a piece of evidence on which he was convicted on was overstated) yet the PC turned him down. The declared new evidence to me sounds like Clayton’s new evidence – the new evidence for a trial when you don’t really have any new evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    F
    Given the 21 years served to date, what do you think he should be paid ou in compensation? I’d say $5m+ but think most of that should come from the police rather than the taxpayers.
    But whats the bet the Auckland tax lawyer will hire the “porno judge” to write a written to prescription academic essay disagreeing with any recommendations to compensate him? sound familiar?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Metcalph

    “declared new evidence…..”
    Given what was not disclosed to either of the juries about Malcolm Rewa and the lack of any crown evidence at all besides the so called “confession” I’d say it would stand a good chance of an acquiittal by the law lords without the need for a retrial at all. That is what I believe is what the defence are seeking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Tautaioleua (313 comments) says:

    Rowan, you make no sense. If it’s coming from the police, it’s also coming from the taxpayer. Who do you think funds the police force? Pope Francis?

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,709 comments) says:

    Rowan
    So you think it will provide a clearer case for the PC than Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Given what was not disclosed to either of the juries about Malcolm Rewa and the lack of any crown evidence at all besides the so called “confession” I’d say it would stand a good chance of an acquiittal by the law lords without the need for a retrial at all. That is what I believe is what the defence are seeking.

    You would be more convincing if you actually bothered to state exactly what was not disclosed. The first jury didn’t hear evidence about Malcolm Rewa because had had not been caught yet (his DNA profile wasn’t obtained until later). However the second jury did hear evidence about Malcolm Rewa, including his membership in a different gang. Yet they still convicted. So what did they not hear that would have changed their opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. flipper (4,199 comments) says:

    Rowan….
    I agree with you on
    a. $5 million plus – all tax free
    b. Only saving grace for the Police is the 2013/14 stance of the Police Association (Metcalph please note)
    c. The vulture might be tempted, but one hears that she is a little more cautious following the Shanghai mess
    d. Anyone who lets Fisher near it might be seen to be acting with malicious intent – same with K MacDonald
    e. This case is different from all others, I think, but the Crown’s problems arise for almost identical reasons.

    What is it with you Metcalph?
    Can you not read, evaluate, and recognise the inevitable?
    The case against my one time friend, John Barlow for his murder convictions is so different to that of Pora that any attempt to take comfort from the PC on Barlow is just plain silly.
    Still you may be right………and that is Kim Dottiecom flying by my windows.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. peterwn (3,305 comments) says:

    If sentenced nowadays he would have copped a 17 year minimum (because of the burglary, rape and beating – any one would have probably sufficed), but at the time the applicable minimum seemed to have been 5 – 8 times judging from 13 previous parole appearances. The release would not have come out of the blue, the Board would have signaled the possibility of release at the last few previous meetings and told him what he needed to do.

    Accepting accountability of offending and remorse are factors the Board look for – which puts a truly innocent person in a cleft stick. It is possible the Board gives these factors significant weight initially, but reducing weight the longer the time served.

    In this case, noting he had leave to appeal, the Board may have given these factors less weight than normal and this may have tipped the balance in favour of release.

    Even if he had copped a 17 year minimum, he would probably have been released in similar circumstances anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Metcalph
    Have a look at Paula Penfold on 3rd degree last year about Pora and Rewa if you want all the details, specifically Paulas interview of Burgess where she makes a meal of him and he makes a dick of himself.

    Tautaioleua
    Unfortunately yes at the end of the day everything is taxpayer funded, but the cops involved in the original f…up should have to contribute towards it, but somehow I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Have a look at Paula Penfold on 3rd degree last year about Pora and Rewa if you want all the details, specifically Paulas interview of Burgess where she makes a meal of him and he makes a dick of himself.

    So you can’t give any details when pressed but refer to some TV program without even a link to the transcript. At least I can tell the difference between material facts and a TV interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The release would not have come out of the blue, the Board would have signaled the possibility of release at the last few previous meetings and told him what he needed to do.

    He was turned down at the last parole hearing for some malfeasance on weekend leave IIRC so the possibility of his getting parole at some stage was always going to be high (in that his criminality was little more than a Dewey Crowe acting under another’s influence).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. flipper (4,199 comments) says:

    I said… “…. The case against my one time friend, John Barlow for his murder convictions is so different to that of Pora that any attempt to take comfort from the PC on Barlow is just plain silly. ….”
    Clarification…

    Our sons both played for the Scots College Cricket First XI at the same time.

    John was always a strange coot. One morning while watching play, and by way of greeting, I asked him: “How are you John?”.

    He looked at me quizzically and replied: “In relation to what.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    metcalph: What’s a “Dewey Crowe”??

    I don’t know the detail of the evidence – or lack of it – in this case, but I do know the Police Association says there has been a miscarriage of justice resulting in this dim witted fellow being convicted of murder…I have never heard the Police Association ever saying that in relation to any other case, and that must surely suggest the evidence against Pora is lacking?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Metcalph

    http://www.3news.co.nz/3rd-Degree-interview-Malcolm-Burgess/tabid/1771/articleID/307124/Default.aspx

    Just for you here is the full extended interview of Burgess, keep an eye out for lines such as “The witnesses were not paid to give evidence, they were paid for the information they gave” and “two juries have convicted him so legally its not possible that there is any possibility that he is innocent”

    Malcolm Burgess should present the crown case to the law lords, there he can argue this, the amount of own goals he gave on the interviews with Paula Penfold and also John Campbell after the Bain fingerprints piece is laughable!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    The Jury didn’t hear that a British expert on confessions believes that the confession was false. The PC will also investigate how much of the details of the ‘confession’ were supplied by Rutherford, in doing so they’ll also look at the credibility of the ‘witnesses’ who put Pora and Rewa together, at a price. I wouldn’t be surprised in they took a detached view of how many times The Crown bit at the cherry, one case where they said Pora acted with the Mob in the commission of the crime, then another where he ‘acted’ with a lone wolf rapist whose company he was placed in by ‘reliable’ stoolies paid for their singing. I’m unsure but they may be asked if the ‘parking up’ of the search for Rewa while the first Pora trial was on may have made a difference to the Jury in knowing that there was in fact a belief by the police that a serial rapist was active in South and East Auckland at the time. One of the police involved in that inquiry, and a profiler since retired from serving in the police but still working for them, have both made affidavits about that initial inquiry and at least one of them forming the opinion that Rewa was the man who, acted alone in all his other rapes, was guilty of raping and killing Burdett – an opinion supported by his (Rewa’s) DNA. It could go further than that with comment how a youth could be held incommunicado and have a ‘confession’ extracted from him that was later judged to be admissible.

    ‘flipper (3,239 comments) says:
    March 31st, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    Uncertainty over his conviction is NOT a factor considered by the Parole Board, at any time.’

    It’s happened flipper. And I think it’s fairly certain that Pora made no concessions about ‘his’ crime today other than insisting he was not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Does anyone here actually believe he is guilty? even high profile members of the police force have publicly stated that they believe that Rewa was the lone offender and that they support an independent inquiry! I have never seen this sort of reaction to a case! Apart from the clown Burgess I haven’t come across anyone who actually believes the case against him.

    Nosty
    The ‘confession’ is a joke and Teina is literally spoon fed what to say! I don’t think the law lords will have to much trouble in dismissing the crown case in this one!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Teina case illustrates another reason why NZ needs a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) like in the UK, if it existed Teina would have been free years ago, yet the taxpayers have been paying to keep him inside while the tax lawyer spins of pathetic excuses about how justice in NZ is ‘working’, Tell that to AA Thomas, Bain, Watson, Pora etc

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Rowan, if you want help get Pora off and get compensation for him you would be best to deal with the facts on his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    The cops who fitted him up should do some time and be entirely responsible for any compensation. Unless we hold individuals accountable for their actions this sort of injustice will continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    flash: I am not sure he was “fitted up”…he was just too dumb to realise that in trying to give “information” for the reward money, or part of it, he was totally out of his depth, and liable to find himself in the frame…That’s from the little I know about it…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Fuck off back into your hole Killer…at the very least you ought to be where Pora’s just come from…

    but staying on topic, my understanding is this guy is REALLY dumb…I hope for his sake there are some conditions which prevent him from associating with the Bros…parole gets revoked pretty readily these days…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Nostaglia

    An interview with the Police Commissioner is not material evidence of Pora’s guilt or innocence.

    The opinion of a British “expert on Confessions” is not material evidence as there is no such thing as an expert witness on false confessions. One could point to relevant details in the confession and point out why they are unfeasible but that is the job of the barrister, not an expert on confessions.

    The PC will also investigate how much of the details of the ‘confession’ were supplied by Rutherford,

    The PC is an appellant body and cannot examine such matters.

    so they’ll also look at the credibility of the ‘witnesses’ who put Pora and Rewa together, at a price.

    Allegations that the witnesses were paid can’t simply be made, there must be evidence for them. Ever since the Huka Falls murders, considerations to the witnesses have been discoverable and presentable to the jury. They would have been introduced in Pora’s second trial.

    one case where they said Pora acted with the Mob in the commission of the crime, then another where he ‘acted’ with a lone wolf rapist whose company he was placed in by ‘reliable’ stoolies paid for their singing.

    What the Crown said in the first trial is not relevant to the appeal. That conviction was set aside. What only matters is the evidence given in the second trial as it is the evidence in that trial which convicted him. Greg King tried a similar approach in the John Barlow appeal and lost.

    One of the police involved in that inquiry, and a profiler since retired from serving in the police but still working for them, have both made affidavits about that initial inquiry and at least one of them forming the opinion that Rewa was the man who, acted alone in all his other rapes, was guilty of raping and killing Burdett – an opinion supported by his (Rewa’s) DNA.

    A policeman’s opinion and a profiler’s opinion is not relevant evidence. The jury alone is meant to form the opinion as to whether Pora was innocent or guilty. Their affadavits mean shit unless they were to act as an expert witness which is not done for a police officer and hardly ever done for a profiler.

    It could go further than that with comment how a youth could be held incommunicado and have a ‘confession’ extracted from him that was later judged to be admissible.

    Pora actually came up to the police asking them for a reward if he told them who was responsible for the rape and murder. That’s markedly different from your summary.

    And I think it’s fairly certain that Pora made no concessions about ‘his’ crime today other than insisting he was not guilty.

    Apart from the original one which he made of his own volition.

    Considering the “evidence” you have been marshalling for Pora’s innocence, I’m doubtful you actually know anything about how to prove guilt or innocence. What I am interested in is details of Pora’s confession, how the Crown explained how Pora and Rewa worked came to be working together (as this would have been a major hurdle for them to persuade the second jury to convict) and so forth. It is not sufficient to point out that Pora’s details were vague and he had to be shown the location as Rewa could have taken him there. These are the facts you have to attack, not muster up interested people’s opinions that couldn’t be called up in a court of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    A greedy money grubbing idiot is stupid enough to confess freely to a crime they now say they didn’t commit.

    Instead of having a bunch of handwringers worrying about compensation he should be billed for the cost of his imprisonment & face a charge of perverting the course of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    Pora may be stupid nasska but it’s not like the police don’t have form in fitting up stupid brown teenagers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    Nasska: Much as I usually respect your opinion old chap, I am going to have to diverge from you here…To use perhaps an insensitive simile, Pora played with a tar baby (by telling Police he had useful evidence about who did it, and then being stupid enough to confess to what he thought were lesser crimes they would overlook) and got well and truly stuck to said tar baby…Well motivated people have been attempting to free him from its grasp ever since…You have to admit it’s pretty much unknown for the Police to come out and say that X was wrongly convicted and ought to be released… Arthur A is still waiting for that to happen…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    cha & David G

    Points taken. Maybe I’ll have to revise my opinions on human greed & stupidity downwards.

    Again!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. secondcumming (93 comments) says:

    Just imagine how much better off this country would be, both socially and financialy, if the death penalty had never been abolished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Points taken. Maybe I’ll have to revise my opinions on human greed & stupidity downwards.”

    Yeah, so do I starting with you!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. coge (190 comments) says:

    People with foetal alcohol syndrome need a lot of support at the best of times. Or it can quickly go off the rails.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    seriously…I hope this sap has support…he’s just dumb enough to follow the Bros into something stupid, and then get locked up for something he definitely has done…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Metcalph I didn’t make any reference to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

    There is an expert of confessions and his evidence will be looked at as offered new evidence likely to influence a Jury in a retrial, the PC will not look at that in isolation they will look at the surrounding details of the ‘confession.’ They will look at it additionally as to go to the ‘safety of the conviction. They will also look at the evidence of the ‘stoolies’ because their evidence is support of the confession which is under challenge to see if that evidence might negate what the expert has to say and any surrounding concerns of how the ‘confession’ came to be made.

    In terms of the profiler, although I may have to read it again, he will say that he wasn’t asked about the inquiry into the serial rapist. Also from memory the information on that wasn’t discovered to the defence until years after the trial, something else the PC will consider.

    Thanks for your helpful advice but you seem unaware that the PC will want to know what holds the conviction together once they have weighed up the new evidence, that in part will be tested by the ‘safety’ of the conviction and takes into account they have already granted leave to appeal for only the 13th time in the history of NZ being able to take appeals to the Judicial Committee of the PC.

    When Pora went to police with his false allegations of who was responsible, false because those he excused were found not guilty, he was questioned as a suspect, either refused or not offered a Lawyer, and virtually held in custody at the Otahuhu Police Station, that is also material to the reliability of the confession and the police ‘pointing’ out to him the house where Susan Burdett had lived because he couldn’t show the police the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Chuck

    Facts in this case

    Lets just look at the crowns case against him,
    We have a spoon fed ‘confession’ where the cops literally showed him the scene and told him which house and a dumb naive teenage Pora literally told them what they wanted to hear. The ‘confession’ from Teinas point of view was somehow with the goal of obtaining a reward for providing the cops with information on the crime.

    (Conjecture) On the police case Rewa and Pora two rival gang members break into Ms Burdetts house where Rewa rapes her while Teina watches, presumably this includes Rewa having to jack of in order to be able to rape her to overcome his erectile dysfunction, jointly they then bash her to death with the baseball bat that Susan kept under her bed for protection.

    The above scenario would be laughable if it didn’t involve the rape and murder of an innocent women, Burgess should present this fantasy scenario to the law lords to see what they make of it.

    Facts
    1. Rewa was described as a ‘lone wolf’ serial rapist having committed a number of rapes on south Auckland women, none of these attacks involving other parties.
    2. Rewa’s DNA was found on the victim showing that at least he was responsible for her rape.
    3. Rewa has an erectile dysfunction disorder meaning it was unlikely that he would take an accomplice along with him.
    4. None of Poras DNA or any other forensic evidence links Pora to the scene in any way whatsoever.
    5. The ‘confession’ is regarded by experts as totally unsound and completely unsafe.

    Anything left out Chuck? who to you is the more likely offender?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Naaska
    Yes he was dumb, naive and greedy, the police could have charged him with wasting there time, but there was a dumb moari kid who has implicated himself to some degree, he looked like a good fit for the unsolved crime, or at least in the eyes of the police.
    That good enough for you, or responsible police work?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    There is an expert of confessions and his evidence will be looked at as offered new evidence likely to influence a Jury in a retrial

    Expert witnesses are a dime a dozen and their testimoney does not fall under the rubric of fresh and compelling evidence. What the PC wants to hear is new evidence that wasn’t heard at the second trial, not somebody’s opinion of a particular piece of evidence.

    the PC will not look at that in isolation they will look at the surrounding details of the ‘confession.’

    The Confession was hashed out at the second trial. The jury decided upon it. Without fresh evidence, the PC is going to do nothing.

    They will also look at the evidence of the ‘stoolies’ because their evidence is support of the confession which is under challenge to see if that evidence might negate what the expert has to say and any surrounding concerns of how the ‘confession’ came to be made.

    Again this is just wishful thinking. The credibility of the witnesses can only be impeached by evidence they were brought off. An expert on confessions is simply not strong enough to do that. Mark Lundy got a retrial on the basis of doubts about the DNA evidence that was not properly disclosed to the defense (and if it had might have enocuraged them to challenge it head on). With Pora, you have what? People think he might not be guilty?

    In terms of the profiler, although I may have to read it again, he will say that he wasn’t asked about the inquiry into the serial rapist.

    Lots of people weren’t asked anything about the inquiry. But their opinion isn’t fresh evidence let alone material evidence to begin with. Absent a compelling reason that the profiler was improperly excluded from the inquiry, his opinion is simply irrelevant to the merits of Pora’s appeal.

    Thanks for your helpful advice but you seem unaware that the PC will want to know what holds the conviction together once they have weighed up the new evidence, that in part will be tested by the ‘safety’ of the conviction and takes into account they have already granted leave to appeal for only the 13th time in the history of NZ being able to take appeals to the Judicial Committee of the PC.

    What you have suggested is grounds for Pora’s innocence does even begin to qualify as evidence for which Pora might obtain a retrial. As merely because the PC has granted leave for an appeal does not mean that the appeal will be successful – ask John Barlow.

    When Pora went to police with his false allegations of who was responsible, false because those he excused were found not guilty, he was questioned as a suspect,

    Which is at it should be because he had confessed to a serious crime. What did you think the Police was going to do? Allow him to go free?

    either refused or not offered a Lawyer,

    If he refused a lawyer despite being offered one, then he only has himself to blame. If he requested one and was refused that would be grounds to strike out the admissability of the confession. But that was not done in this case. Why do you think that was?

    and virtually held in custody at the Otahuhu Police Station

    I have to marvel at your fantasy world in which self-confessed murderers aren’t held in custody at a police station!

    , that is also material to the reliability of the confession

    Mate. You have Jack and Shit about impeaching the credibility of the confession. You would be better off describing the people that Pora falsely accused, described how they were all cleared off the crime and then mention why the Prosecution felt the confession was strong enough to tie Pora to the crime and how they explained that to the jury. This is basic detail that you need to address. It was strong enough to convict Pora in his second trial despite the problems with Rewa being his acomplice.

    and the police ‘pointing’ out to him the house where Susan Burdett had lived because he couldn’t show the police the house.

    That would be new material to me except that I had already addressed it in the post you were responding to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Experts witnesses are a dime a dozen. Sure. Police ‘helping’ someone with their confession which they believe is going to bring a reward, also happens all the time. Not advising a person that they are a suspect or citing their rights is also nothing to worry about because the ends justify the means – even if is only a youth of 15 years of age with limited intelligence and unable to write. Not much point going on, catch up with you about it maybe after the hearing. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    Rewa was a lone stalker serial rapist. He was convicted of raping 24 women over a 9 year period. 23 of those survived to say that Rewa was alone when he attacked. Regardless of ones view on this case, it does seem absolutely bizarre (and many have argued, quite absurd) that at rape #10 (Susan Burdett- which ended up with her being murdered as well) that Rewa would suddenly, out of the blue, decide to take on a 16 year old Mongrel Mobster to help him in a rape. There is also some evidence that witnesses who said that Pora and Rewa ‘knew each other’ appeared to have been paid as well. See the second link below.

    Some interesting links as well, from one of the criminal profilers, Dave Henwood, who helped catch Malcolm Rewa:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806944

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867167

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    As a side note, there is some shockingly inaccurate media reports about this case. In one of them, the report said that Pora ‘said he went with Rewa’ to commit the crime Which is completely wrong, Pora never ever once mentioned Rewa’s name, even when the Police came to see him in Prison in early 1996 (after realizing that the semen inside Susan Burdett belonged to a serial rapist). The Police came to Pora at that stage to ask him if he would identify the rapist who deposited the semen, even offering him $50,000. Pora, under advise from his relatives, this time gave Police another name of a different Mongrel Mob member (who willingly gave DNA and again this person was excluded).

    This either means two things: A) Pora did know it was Rewa and went along with him for Burdett crime, yet for some reason, was ‘too scared’ of telling Police about Rewa (As the Crown argued).

    Or B) He didn’t name Rewa because he wasn’t involved, didn’t know who Rewa was, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.

    Never mind the fact that Pora had implicated several Mongrel Mob members in the crime (who were excluded as being responsible via DNA, yet we are excepted to believe that Pora was ‘scared’ of Rewa, and was covering up for a senior member of a rival gang even when offered $50,000?

    I know which scenario seems most likely in my head. Link to this information below as well (from Teina’s retrial in 2000), and a documentary that screened on Maori TV about the Pora case:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=128747

    http://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/new-zealand-documentary/S04E001/confessions-prisoner-t

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    It’s almost bleakly funny, because Pora couldn’t name the killer – that was evidence against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Of course if had known the killer and details of the crime that would of meant he was innocent. I get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    $50,000 to name the offender in a case Pora didn’t know the details of, apart from what the police had told him, or 20 years in prison. What a deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    If Pora’s conviction is quashed and if no retrial is ordered, then Susan’s Burdett’s family is left without anyone convicted for her murder. It will be very interesting to see if Rewa is retried for the killing as there were two hung juries in 1998 on the murder charge. Rewa is unlikely to ever get out of prison as it currently stands anyway, as he will be 68 before his first parole hearing even occurs, so the Crown may not bother with a re-trial, but it will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Rewa is unlikely to ever get out of prison as it currently stands anyway”

    I would not count on that. Some as bad have been let out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    If Rewa is ever allowed out hopefully he will be old enough and infirm so that he cannot wreck havoc like he was doing during the late 80s to mid 1990s. At least with Joseph Thompson, NZ’s first known serial rapist, he admitted to all his attacks and even informed the Police of attacks on young girls that Police didn’t know about because they were never reported to them. Rewa on the other hand, conceded virtually nothing, no shame, remorse nor empathy for his victims, and denied the majority of attacks that he was convicted of ( I believe he pleaded guilty to about 6 rapes where there was incontrovertible DNA evidence) and denied further attacks on at least another 20 women.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Brad
    IMO Rewa should be retried for this once the PC have dealt with Pora, yes he is in jail and unlikely to ever get out, but for the sake of closure for Jim Burdett and Teina he should be retried and hopefully convicted of this one.
    You’d have to wonder with some of these ridiculous scenarios put forward to the juries if they (the cops) actually believe them, i.e. the Pora and Rewa joint rapist theory. Its just ridiculous seems similiar to the police line about two rapists in the Dougherty case despite the living victim never having claimed to have been raped by two men.
    I guess the crown can just never admit to getting it wrong and if you believe something strongly enough, then you can find the evidence to fit. How it was ever brought by the jury I cannot begin to imagine.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Metcalph
    Yes or no
    Do you actually believe he is guilty?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dave Mann (1,250 comments) says:

    I think its a tewwible pity that this nice young man has been prevented from living a life of crime for all these years. I do hope that now he is fwee those nasty police won’t keep chasing him and that they leave him alone to develop to his fullest potential. Fwankly chaps I feel weally sowwy for the poor boy and I hope our government gives him lots of money and nice things….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    I guess it goes to show that if someone believes in something strongly enough then you don’t need any evidence for it as demonstrated by Metcalph and the JFRB nutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote