- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, October 27, 2006

Congratulations to the Police

Chris Kahui was charged last night with murdering his twin sons. Congratulations must be offered to the Police for standing so tall in the middle of such public outcry and criticism during an active investigation. The Police always handled this case the way they needed to handle it and the bullshit that was generated from the heat of this makes me wonder how easily and willingly New Zealanders would hand over their human rights. Look at how much talk this case has prompted that we should dump the essential right to silence – a right that is the cornerstone of understanding the power relationship of the individual against the state. That New Zealanders would call for their own rights to be destroyed (mindless of the Big Brother consequences) in the venomous heat of this tragic case says more about the deep anger some feel towards what Chris Kahui represents than any desire for justice. Chris Kahui is the face of brown beneficiaries, the drinking bludger in a state house living off our taxes and the killer of his own twin babies – the venom this has stirred in other New Zealanders has reached fever pitch as New Zealanders now call to have their right to silence removed. In our collective rage, we are prepared to slash our own throat in terms of our legal rights. Such a frenzied attack on our own rights is not the rational thinking of citizens angry at a shocking crime, it is the howling of the mob screaming for those pent up stereotypes to be crucified for public execution.

I think this stopped being about the Kahui twins a long time ago.


At 27/10/06 10:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the delay in charging Chris Kahui was a deliberate tactic.
Maybe mr plod was going to charge him from day one (the mother had an alibi) but didn't have enough hard evidence to prove the case. So a suitable period of demonisation was deemed to be in order and the inhabitants of rednecksberg did the rest. Who needs hard evidence when you've tampered with the jury?

At 27/10/06 12:26 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, ever heard of ensuring a water tight case?? imagine if the cops had rushed in, locked him up, gone to trial and because of the rush an oversight was made and he gets off....imagine what you would whinge about then

At 27/10/06 1:01 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you think these layabouts are an exception.

For everyone murdered there are thousands abused and neglected.

Go see I dare you.

Never though I would live to see a money grabbing defense lawyer say anything decent but Ryan on his retirement did - maybe getting killers off with lies and deceit got to even him.

At 27/10/06 8:42 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw Gerald Ryan get an accused killer off and he didn't lie or deceive anyone. He did expose the many lies in the Crown case though.
Enjoy your retirement Mr Ryan you've earned it.

At 28/10/06 1:43 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was talking about Kevin Ryan


Anyone remember Richard Bluett, wonder who murdered him.

Ryan was on Kim Hill the day after someone was acquitted on re-trial and he seemed to know, didn’t stop him getting him off though.

Hope Ryan’s conscience bothers him as much as the grief of those who have had relatives murdered troubles them, what a life sentence they must have.

At 28/10/06 9:46 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it wasn't Dean Wickliffe if that's what you're intimating Anonymous. The Crown's star witness in that trial one Lance Williams bragged to more that one person that he killed Richard Bluett but as the police had given him immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against Wickliffe he got away with his crime.

At 28/10/06 1:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ask Ryan who he reckons did it.

At 28/10/06 2:48 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I asked Mr Ryan who he thought did the deed he would say, I wouldn't want Dean Wickliffe living in my street but I'm 100% sure he didn't murder Richard Bluett. Ask me anything about both trials Anonymous, I was there and saw and heard it all.

At 28/10/06 8:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you seriously think you hear it all in court - how sweet.

Anyone who thinks any court has anything to do with truth or justice has never been involved in one, ask any lawyer, they sneer at the very idea that the truth should ever come out in court, and you have a country run by them.

Maybe Dean should sue Ryan for telling Kim Hill the next day he might have been acquitted but he wasn't innocent.

If only criminals did go and live near to defense lawyers, MP’s and members of the parole boards and Bomber for that matter – they might change their tune.

At 29/10/06 2:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dean has nothing to sue Ryan about, he knows what Ryan meant when he said he wasn't innocent.
He meant he didn't murder Richard Bluett but he did cause the death of Paul Meit 30 odd years ago.
And you're right about not hearing it all in court, one of the Crown witnesses told me during a short ajournment that the cop in charge of the case had asked him to say things (perjure himself) they both knew hadn't happened.

At 29/10/06 3:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

.... and the accused tell stories made up for them by their lawyers ....

Its a vicious circle of lies and everyday people like me are the ones who pay - in every way.

At 29/10/06 3:50 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That maybe true in some trials Anonymous but Dean Wickliffe chose not to take the stand in his own defence.

At 30/10/06 1:03 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is the criminals other option of course - his lawyer probably advised that for good reasons. So he could keep quite and let the lawyer tell the lies for him.

A little difficult for victims (when they are still alive that is) to take that course if they want to have any hope of seeing their abuser convicted.

They have to be subjected to the most appalling re-victimisation at the hands of inhumane disgusting lawyers, god knows why judges allow victims to be destroyed like that.

The whole damn court system is a sham. Having been in a witness box (civil) and subjected to 2 days of cross examination, without anyone to support me, I would never go through that again no matter what was done to me, so unless an offender pleaded guilty they would almost certainly get off.

It was some years ago now but I still think about it everyday, it ruined my life but people like me are nobodies cause célèbre – such if life.

Back then I thought if I told the truth all would be well, that would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I ran out of money so I had no lawyer coach me in lies or to warn me what they would do to me.

Not only could I not be 'a good witness' I could not be a witness at all. The innocent have everything to lose and nothing to gain, don’t do it its not worth it.

At 30/10/06 7:27 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is the criminals other option of course - his lawyer probably advised that for good reasons. So he could keep quite and let the lawyer tell the lies for him."

It's the ACCUSED'S option not to give evidence and some of them don't take the stand because they have "bad head." AA Thomas had bad head; he took the stand and was manipulated to prison for something he didn’t do by a bent prosecutor.

At 30/10/06 2:18 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens if surviving victim(s) don't feel up to being tortured, abused and manipulated for days - sure they may have a choice not to give evidence but what does that do to a trial.

A friend of mine gave evidence in a child assault case - he thought he had done the right and decent thing by intervening to help the child and get the police called. He was shattered by the treatment he received in court and doesn't know if he could ever go through it again.

In this case the person was convicted and the police told him after the verdict that the criminal involved had a long history on child abuse so he was glad he did it but the toll on him was immense. As well as the emotional cost he had to take sick leave and lost a lot in wages, he still had his bills to pay but he didn’t matter. I don’t think he received one word (maybe from the police) of thanks or appreciation for his prompt action in helping this child, who he did not even know.

I guess destroying victims and prosecution witnesses is a good ploy for discouraging people from giving evidence - no witnesses = no trial = criminals getting away scot free.

Rape is probably the biggest example of offences going unreported, even those who do report are often warned that going ahead to a trial may be even worse than the original rape so drop it.


Post a Comment

<< Home