Rogue 4 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 What makes this murder unique to other murders that get little publicity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 about it Rogue !! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue 4 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 about it Rogue !! Thinking Thinking Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madlib 2 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 What makes this murder unique to other murders that get little publicity He's white? Not a poor brown fella from South Auckland? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nahla 1 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 madlib,they dont get murdered much they are ysually doing the killing...rogue i think it was just the random nature,the fact he appeared to have no enemies,it wasnt gang related,or domestic .And now who the acused is is creating more interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 He's white? Not a poor brown fella from South Auckland? and thousands of police man hours of investigation that went into the killing of the Kahui twins only to face a cone of silence by FAMILY members at every single turn !! I could mention more but why try and relate to uneducated morons Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 "He didn't do it,it is simple as that" !! He is obviously on the payroll of what is going to be a huge "payday" already. A more appropriate remark would have been "innocent until proven guilty" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk 4 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 "He didn't do it,it is simple as that" !! He is obviously on the payroll of what is going to be a huge "payday" already. A more appropriate remark would have been "innocent until proven guilty" Why have the police returned to search the pond? Has he coughed,guilty as hell,or has SI accused narked for his own benefit.Was it the accused name spray painted,but never shown to public? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk 4 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 He's white? Not a poor brown fella from South Auckland? MAD lib,about as surprising as seeing a white man in the weekly herald page of "wanted by police".Or the pictures of wanted on police10,sorry,your comment was weak & pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue 1,099 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 Why have the police returned to search the pond? Has he coughed,guilty as hell,or has SI accused narked for his own benefit.Was it the accused name spray painted,but never shown to public? Maybe the cowshed effluent pond looking for a weapon. It's said the SI accused has no charges connected to the murder but, hell, if he's guilty by association he's going to look after No#1. The whole thing defies my kind of logic as it does to the families bit who knows what goes on in another person's head and after nine months the police wouldn't just pull a name out of a hat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 "He didn't do it,it is simple as that" !! He is obviously on the payroll of what is going to be a huge "payday" already. A more appropriate remark would have been "innocent until proven guilty" I agree David. The law is innocent until proven guilty. I hope he doesn't use the 'provocation' defence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted April 9, 2011 I agree David. The law is innocent until proven guilty. I hope he doesn't use the 'provocation' defence. That's one of the big failings in the justice system we have, Jane and Centro... An accused stands up and says 'I will prove my innocence!' In fact he never ever does anything of the sort. All his lawyers do these days is put up sufficient possibilities to the jury ('If Robin stands on one leg here, puts the gun between his legs and aims at that wall, then the richochet might have taken a 31.45 degree hang to the right and shot all the family members in sequence') and they, rightly or wrongly, think 'Hmmm, that's possible!' and acquit the accused. But acquittal is never ever an affirmation of innocence... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 That's one of the big failings in the justice system we have, Jane and Centro... An accused stands up and says 'I will prove my innocence!' In fact he never ever does anything of the sort. All his lawyers do these days is put up sufficient possibilities to the jury ('If Robin stands on one leg here, puts the gun between his legs and aims at that wall, then the richochet might have taken a 31.45 degree hang to the right and shot all the family members in sequence') and they, rightly or wrongly, think 'Hmmm, that's possible!' and acquit the accused. But acquittal is never ever an affirmation of innocence... In this case I imagine the police divers are searching for a murder weapon. Even if the gun is registered in the name of the accused it still does not mean he is guilty. It just means that he is 'possibly' the killer. Prosecution will have it's work cut out with this one, I think. What is the first line of attack? Motive. I won't get into that side of it because it is all hearsay at this point. Just for a bit of trivia. I have sat on a couple of cases as a juror. One for the High Court, the second for the District Court. I confess, I have a certain amount of respect for the law even if the results were not what I initially expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue 4 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 I hope the police have not decided to charge someone out of share desparation and pressure to convict some like in the Ben Smart and Olivia Hope case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 with regards to control over the family farm,even the father says he had to step in and cool things down when things got heated among the two. It will all come out in the wash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 Just for a bit of trivia. I have sat on a couple of cases as a juror. One for the High Court, the second for the District Court. I've never once been called, sniff! I quite like, just for a break from the coalface here, ha, to go sit in the public gallery at the Court here in Wellington to listen in on a case or two... What I have noticed, just from those visits, is that it is not uncommon for 75% of the cases to be virtually immediately adjourned... The wastage of time - not to mention money - must be enormous... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 I've never once been called, sniff! I quite like, just for a break from the coalface here, ha, to go sit in the public gallery at the Court here in Wellington to listen in on a case or two... What I have noticed, just from those visits, is that it is not uncommon for 75% of the cases to be virtually immediately adjourned... The wastage of time - not to mention money - must be enormous... True, the legal profession have it really tough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodHill 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 I've never once been called, sniff! Prop, I have sat on a jury. Would do it again if given the chance, although you get stood down for a period after being on one. Interestingly for me, the crown who were the prosecutors lost the case, and not based on some absurd presentation of what might have occured under some 'way out' hypothesis. A very enlightening experience, although at the time was hoping I would get the shaft (so to speak) as I was walking up to my jurors chair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 I agree David. The law is innocent until proven guilty. I hope he doesn't use the 'provocation' defence.has now been abolished. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 Prop, I have sat on a jury. Would do it again if given the chance, although you get stood down for a period after being on one. Interestingly for me, the crown who were the prosecutors lost the case, and not based on some absurd presentation of what might have occured under some 'way out' hypothesis. A very enlightening experience, although at the time was hoping I would get the shaft (so to speak) as I was walking up to my jurors chair. Rod, if someone has sat on a jury the opt out time frame is two years between call ups.. However, if you were called up again with the two years and you wanted to do it, you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodHill 0 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 Rod, if someone has sat on a jury the opt out time frame is two years between call ups.. However, if you were called up again with the two years and you wanted to do it, you can. The time out timeframe is 2 years normally, and longer depending on the case you were on (such as long involved murder trials). But I have been called up since the trial I was on, and within the two years, and when I responded, they actually said I was ineligible. So maybe it depends on the province or something. Not sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrofold 147 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 The time out timeframe is 2 years normally, and longer depending on the case you were on (such as long involved murder trials). But I have been called up since the trial I was on, and within the two years, and when I responded, they actually said I was ineligible. So maybe it depends on the province or something. Not sure. I was called up within the two year opt out timeframe too but I was disappearing to the UK, so I would not have been here anyway. Great excuse. I wrote to them and the reply I recieved was "we accept your explanation and you are excused". Who knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 Prop, I have sat on a jury. Would do it again if given the chance, although you get stood down for a period after being on one. Interestingly for me, the crown who were the prosecutors lost the case, and not based on some absurd presentation of what might have occured under some 'way out' hypothesis. One day, eh?, maybe, for me... Like I said, I like sitting in on (admittedly minor) cases at the Court here - and will do the same in the new Supreme Court once something interesting pops up in there, ha... Who knows, maybe one day I will see the fearsome Rumpole in full growl... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voorhees 1 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 Why have the police returned to search the pond? Has he coughed,guilty as hell,or has SI accused narked for his own benefit.Was it the accused name spray painted,but never shown to public? That spraypainted message WAS shown in its entirety to the public. It was shown in the media AND on the TV news, but in the later bulletins and not the Six O'Clock slot There was no name spraypainted. It was just mispelt cuss words Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooboy 1 Report post Posted April 10, 2011 I hope the police have not decided to charge someone out of share desparation and pressure to convict some like in the Ben Smart and Olivia Hope case. I don't think this is desperation at all. I had a chat with a Policeman down this way in the months following this murder and they basically said all was not peace and harmony in this family. It led me to believe at the time, that despite the Police appearing to cast the net wide, they suspected the murderer came from within, or close too, the family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
