New Zealand's Most Expensive Trial Is Over

[NZParrothead58]

This story/(re)trial pretty much consumed the country (again) for the past few months. The verdict finally came out this afternoon and it was a pretty wild reaction. Pretty intersting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10576364

[C-Dawg]

and now comes ACT II....the civil trial where the guys makes millions due to wrongful imprisonment

[alaura1974]

I wonder if that was a scam all along......

[NZParrothead58]

and now comes ACT II....the civil trial where the guys makes millions due to wrongful imprisonment

They are already looking into that! After 13 years behind bars, I'm guessing this guys gut a heck of a pay day coming.

[flyboy55]

I have a theory: in far too many cases, police, prosecutors and even pathologists, quickly establish their suspect based on preliminary evidence and their own 'gut feelings' and then proceed to build a case to convict that suspect. Stray bits of evidence or testimony that don't fit the prosecution's preconceived notions about the case are simply ignored, or even suppressed. Leads that don't look promising because they don't support the prosecution's reconstruction of events are also never followed up.

I think most of this is simply human nature, as in "why make this more complicated than it has to be? We already have the guy that did it." Some of it may be due to preconceived ideas about race, gender or socioeconomic background of the suspect.

There are lots of cases like this, especially with the advent of DNA evidence and the possibility of examining old forensic evidence, where it appears in retrospect that the authorities didn't do their jobs properly in the first place.

I think this is the main reason I can't support the death penalty.

Having said all that, do most Kiwis still think this guy did it?

[Crazy Navy Flyer]

Can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree with flyboy.

[flyboy55]

Can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree with flyboy.

I think that is at least the second time in almost four years . . . but I'm not counting.

[RinglingRingling]

and now comes ACT II....the civil trial where the guys makes millions due to wrongful imprisonment

They are already looking into that! After 13 years behind bars, I'm guessing this guys gut a heck of a pay day coming.

what I like in the story is the cops suing the author of the book. cha-ching for the counter-suit as well.

[RinglingRingling]

I have a theory: in far too many cases, police, prosecutors and even pathologists, quickly establish their suspect based on preliminary evidence and their own 'gut feelings' and then proceed to build a case to convict that suspect. Stray bits of evidence or testimony that don't fit the prosecution's preconceived notions about the case are simply ignored, or even suppressed. Leads that don't look promising because they don't support the prosecution's reconstruction of events are also never followed up.

I think most of this is simply human nature, as in "why make this more complicated than it has to be? We already have the guy that did it." Some of it may be due to preconceived ideas about race, gender or socioeconomic background of the suspect.

There are lots of cases like this, especially with the advent of DNA evidence and the possibility of examining old forensic evidence, where it appears in retrospect that the authorities didn't do their jobs properly in the first place.

I think this is the main reason I can't support the death penalty.

Having said all that, do most Kiwis still think this guy did it?

more than a few cases of even manufacturing evidence to strengthen the case against the wrong guy in a couple of the counties in IL just outside Chicago.

[NZParrothead58]

I have a theory: in far too many cases, police, prosecutors and even pathologists, quickly establish their suspect based on preliminary evidence and their own 'gut feelings' and then proceed to build a case to convict that suspect. Stray bits of evidence or testimony that don't fit the prosecution's preconceived notions about the case are simply ignored, or even suppressed. Leads that don't look promising because they don't support the prosecution's reconstruction of events are also never followed up.

I think most of this is simply human nature, as in "why make this more complicated than it has to be? We already have the guy that did it." Some of it may be due to preconceived ideas about race, gender or socioeconomic background of the suspect.

There are lots of cases like this, especially with the advent of DNA evidence and the possibility of examining old forensic evidence, where it appears in retrospect that the authorities didn't do their jobs properly in the first place.

I think this is the main reason I can't support the death penalty.

Having said all that, do most Kiwis still think this guy did it?

It's kind of hard to read the pulse of the community over here. You have the die hards the TRULY believe he is guilty, but I also get the feeling that the majority of people believe he is innocent. Regardless, he's a celebrity now and is even showing up on the cover of gossip magazines simply because he went fishing and caught some nice fish. It's an unusual group of people over here...but I guess that's just the way it goes.

[flyboy55]

I have a theory: in far too many cases, police, prosecutors and even pathologists, quickly establish their suspect based on preliminary evidence and their own 'gut feelings' and then proceed to build a case to convict that suspect. Stray bits of evidence or testimony that don't fit the prosecution's preconceived notions about the case are simply ignored, or even suppressed. Leads that don't look promising because they don't support the prosecution's reconstruction of events are also never followed up.

I think most of this is simply human nature, as in "why make this more complicated than it has to be? We already have the guy that did it." Some of it may be due to preconceived ideas about race, gender or socioeconomic background of the suspect.

There are lots of cases like this, especially with the advent of DNA evidence and the possibility of examining old forensic evidence, where it appears in retrospect that the authorities didn't do their jobs properly in the first place.

I think this is the main reason I can't support the death penalty.

Having said all that, do most Kiwis still think this guy did it?

It's kind of hard to read the pulse of the community over here. You have the die hards the TRULY believe he is guilty, but I also get the feeling that the majority of people believe he is innocent. Regardless, he's a celebrity now and is even showing up on the cover of gossip magazines simply because he went fishing and caught some nice fish. It's an unusual group of people over here...but I guess that's just the way it goes.

I've had the pleasure of vacationing over there - North Island, South Island, Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland and places in between (I was one of those menacing tourists with the rental camper vans) and I found Kiwis to be among the friendliest people in the world. Beautiful country, too.