Mark Lundy - miscarriage of justice?

[Katman]

I said go back a couple of pages try 612 and work your way forward, but only after you have had a biscuit.

Your post at #612 was addressed at #618.

Since then you've just prattled on about Malcolm Rewa not identifying the crime scene either.

As I've said, that's completely irrelevant to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

[husaberg]

Your post at #612 was addressed at #618.

Since then you've just prattled on about Malcolm Rewa not identifying the crime scene either.

As I've said, that's completely irrelevant to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

The reason you can't see it, is you consider it to be irrelevant.
Its because you have already decided that you know the outcome, that you want to reach.

Thus anything that is said, is to you irrelevant, (your words prattle)this is exactly what I believe happened in this case. Hence the QED.
The police followed a course of action that was in front of them.

FYI people who confess usually don't confess to all details regardless there is always a very real element of minimisation or not recalling.
Highly detailed accounts are very rare. They rarely lead people to where the bodies are, or fully confess to all their crimes.
The Pora case is a rare example of a set of exceptional circumstances imo.

[Katman]

Thus anything that is said, is to you irrelevant, (your words prattle)this is exactly what I believe happened in this case. Hence the QED.
The police followed a course of action that was in front of them.

The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).

[husaberg]

The fact that he couldn't identify the crime scene should have been sufficient for the police to question the validity of his confession.

The other holes in his story and the changing of that story should have had alarm bells ringing.

But instead, due to the accusatorial system our court operates under, the police see any conviction as a win for them - regardless of whether they've got the right person.

(And if they don't have to do too much work to gain that conviction - all the better for them).

Yes but look at your posts I clearly suggested why it is they followed the path, Yet because you were too tied up in your thoughts of what they should have done you missed that bit.
For reasons that it did not suit, what it was you were trying to achieve.
See now what I am trying to show you.
You have suggested the police should have known better. Are you willing to cast that same spotlight on yourself, neither would they. Human nature.
The legal system we operate under is adversarial.
Its not perfect, but like I said I believe he was let down more by his defence, Police don't convict people they present what evidence they have, they are not infallible which is why we have a legal system and courts.

[Swoop]

How come the sit did not get another full life sentence? Given the first case was dismissed surely he starts the term a fresh and has to serve another life?

He did.

Remember that the first time around was quashed by the Privy Council. (He gets a credit note for time served though).

This time he gets the sentence and hands over the credit note, that time is now deducted from this (new) lag.
If found innocent, he would then take the credit note to the gubbinment and make a $$'s claim.



There will be something about penalties applicable at the time of the crime as well, but perhaps we had better not go into that...

[scumdog]

.... to my point that someone confessing to a crime should probably be expected to be able to identify the crime scene.

Hmm...you're expecting a lot from the criminal numpties out there - some I've met couldn't even say what street they had been on let alone what house - or what they had taken. As for what sort of car they had been in? - "Aw, it was Joeys car, it's sort of red and the handbrake doesn't work much good".

[Katman]

You have suggested the police should have known better. Are you willing to cast that same spotlight on yourself, neither would they. Human nature.

Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough and, if need be, taken back to step one rather than blindly stumbling on with the best they've got.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.

[husaberg]

Read this slowly....

It is not good enough that the police simply take the course of least resistance when they investigate and prosecute a case. If a confession is made the police should still be expected to investigate the veracity of that confession.

When holes appear in the confession the investigation needs to become considerably more thorough.

If that procedure is not followed than we have the risk of precisely what we got - a rapist/murderer being allowed to carry on raping for a few more years.

Read this slower
Are you seriously suggesting that you know that you are smarter than the police are.
because you just did exactly the same thing you said that they shouldn't have.
Hindsight is 20/20.
They would still have not caught Rewa they were not zeroing in on him till three years later they had about over 140000 odd suspects they were also at the time dealing with Joe Thompson (SASR) remember.
Police work and processes have got better since, that's what happens.

[Katman]

Read this slower
Are you seriously suggesting that you know that you are smarter than the police are.
because you just did exactly the same thing you said that they shouldn't have.
Hindsight is 20/20.
They would still have not caught Rewa they were not zeroing in on him till three years later they had about over 140000 odd suspects they were also at the time dealing with Joe Thompson (SASR) remember.
Police work and processes have got better since, that's what happens.

And that's why I have no faith (or hope) in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.

[husaberg]

And that's why I have no faith in our justice system.

There are too many people out there like yourself with a 'close enough is good enough' attitude that the justice system doesn't feel any need to improve.

Police are human they I hope they all try to do that best they can, with the resources they have.
I would say if anything more 10000 times more guilty people are found not guilty than anyone that is innocent is ever found guilty in NZ's court system.
Maybe your expectations are a little to high.

The Police Association officially called for a review of Pora's conviction, citing "sufficient concern among some senior detectives to warrant an inquiry.

Malcolm Rewa was found guilty of the majority of charges that he was up against but the jury could not agree to the murder and rape of Papatoetoe accounts clerk Susan Burdett in her home in March 1992.
Rewa had alleged that he had been having any affair with the woman and the reason Rewa’s semen was found on her body, was that they had slept together at his house the evening of her death before she left to go bowling.
(Rewa was finally convicted of the rape of Susan Burdett in Dec 1998.)

The Monday following the trail, Rewa’s lawyers read an apology live on the Holmes show indicating that Rewa was remorseful but only for the rapes he had confessed to, not those that he had been found guilty of that he didn’t confess to.

Malcolm Rewa, Auckland Serial rapist is serving a sentence of preventive detention with a 22-year minimum non-parole period for 24 rapes committed between 1987-1996 plus 14 years to be served concurrently for the rape of Susan Burdett.

I guess you never did have that biscuit.

[Katman]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Pora's second conviction was after Rewa had been identified in the case.

Yet the police still went on to pursue a conviction based on a highly questionable confession.

Do you think that's good enough?

[husaberg]

Pora's second conviction was after Rewa had been identified in the case.

They still went on to pursue a conviction based on a highly questionable confession.

Do you think that's good enough?

Pora was not convicted by police, yet the same system that you are so appalled for finding Pora guilty also found Rewa innocent when very compelling evidence was presented by Police (DNA)
Pora was only ever in the spotlight because a member of his family actually put him their. Of her own volition.
Then he after being questioned on his own volition he then confessed to it.
He was as I have said was then incredibly poorly represented at both trials, that both times found him guilty.
The police themselves later suggested they were unhappy with his conviction.

the Police Association officially called for a review of Pora's conviction, citing "sufficient concern among some senior detectives to warrant an inquiry

We could go around in circles but I have shown you why it likely happened.

You yourself over the last few pages even helped to demonstrate how observer expectancy effect works.

Its like target fixation and yet even with extensive training professional pilots still crash into each over with huge areas of sky available.

So considering the planes are flown by humans maybe you should not fly either.

[Katman]

The police themselves later suggested they were unhappy with his conviction.

Yet they pursued his conviction.

Do you understand?

[husaberg]

Yet they pursued his conviction.

Do you understand?

LATER said 20/20.
Consider my plane analogy.
See how they improve safety. Is it from stuff that goes well?

Some of the best lessons we ever learn are learned from past mistakes. The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future.

[Katman]

It's been proven time and again that police will not investigate anything that jeopardises their case.

How can we have faith in something that seeks a conviction before truth?