Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Dot, who did not want to give her surname, says she has been asking HNZ for years for a bigger house than her current place in Kupe St, Orakei, where she has lived for eight years.
...
"All my family lives on the street, I'm not going anywhere."
She wants a bigger house, but she's not going anywhere? HNZ has to build her an extension on her government subsidised housing?
They should have found a less picky person resident to quote.
-
I caught Peachey last night on TV. Dear god that man is a disgrace, he made it sound as though every single hoodie wearer is up to no good. Rangitoto must have breathed a sigh of relief.
Peachey took over as principal at Rangi in my last year or two there. I don't really remember anything about him, but he certainly didn't give any impressions to me or my parents of being a terrible principal.
I'd tend to think he could do less damage as a right-wing principal of a high school that's not exactly in a poor area, than as an Associate Minister of Education or something, which is presumably what he'll be in 6 months.
-
What would you say if the police now came out and said "We got it wrong. It's just one of those times when you blind yourself to evidence that doesn't fit your case. We are going back to have a fresh look so that all invoved can find closure"?
I, for one, will not be holding my breath on that one but what if they did?I can't imagine they'd come out and say that. Both because I don't think that's what they're looking at, and even if they did, they'd struggle to turn themselves completely around like that. Admitting you're wrong isn't a large part of the police culture.
But if that was the conclusion that they reached and they were open enough to go down that new path, that would be a good thing.
-
As IS stated before there is no statute of limitations on murder so the police could have just not prosecuted until they had a solid case, however long it took.
Well from the police point of view, there are two things to consider:
1. If there is, as far as you can tell, no likelihood of further evidence coming forth, then waiting is going to serve no purpose. I presume that's the conclusion that they reached. I suspect they've collected all the evidence that they're going to get, the bit they are missing is a confession, and that clearly isn't coming forth.
2. While there may be no statute of limitations, it's in the interests of society and the public to make an arrest and bring the case to court as soon as reasonably possible. This is done for a number of reasons. Witnesses and their memories is one. If the court case is ten years down the track, then it's going to be easier for the defense to say "is that really what happened, are you sure you remember?", and it's going to be more difficult for witnesses to remember stuff. They're going to be relying on their statements at the time which may not look as good in court. Another is that there's an un-convicted killer wandering the streets. Until they are arrested they're a completely free person. There's flight risk, there's the possibility that they might commit another crime before they're arrested and put under bail conditions. In this instance, if the suspect started fathering more children, it's going to start to look pretty silly, and potentially a risk for more people.
Waiting to collect more evidence is fine, but only if there's more evidence that they haven't found that might be forthcoming. This trial wasn't exactly rushed to arrest, or to court, they took months collecting evidence and putting pressure on the family before making an arrest, and then another two years or so before the trial took place.
I suspect the police will be very unhappy that it took the jury about the length of a smoko break to return with a not-guilty verdict, and if that's the reflection of their case then maybe they did screw up taking it to court. Waiting another year or two wouldn't have necessarily changed the end result one bit however.
-
Fundamentally, the case failed because the police did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But instead of pointing the finger where it belongs - at hasty police who would not wait to assemble a decent case
That's a possible answer.
It is of course entirely possible that the police had eliminated all avenues of enquiry, interviewed fully everyone, and no more evidence was forthcoming, or indeed looked likely to come out. They therefore took it to court with what they had.
There's obviously a pretty large piece of evidence missing - possibly two. The killer/s knew what happened, and maybe one or more other people know what happened. Neither of those two things are forthcoming however.
In that case, what would we have the police do? They can't just put it on a shelf and wait for evidence that is never forthcoming. At some stage they have to make an arrest based on what they know (if they think they have a chance in court) and progress.
It's only a bad play if future evidence comes out which would have made their case stronger. I'm guess that's a judgement that they've made that those crucial pieces of evidence aren't going to come out at all.
My guess would be that the police "know" they got the right guy, the definitive 'we will not be charging anyone else' seems to back up that guess. They just didn't have the evidence to convict.
-
I dont think we have a coroners court as such in this country, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
We have a coronial service. I think where they have hearings they use a courtroom, I don't think it's a proper court though.
-
Contra the previous post, wage growth is usually stronger than inflation so adjusting the thresholds for inflation alone wouldn't stop the tax-to-gdp ratio rising over time.
While it wouldn't be perfect, it'd be a lot better than the silly system we have now.
-
The latter. By moving quickly, they've shot themselves in the foot. Double jeopardy means they can't charge Kahui again, while if they prosecute anyone else, the earlier trial is reasonable doubt on a plate.
They could charge him again, if significant new evidence came to light. Which is what they'd need really - someone who knows to break their silence.
-
Wait a mo', just to play devil's advocate here, I do find the casual misogyny, homophobia and glorification of black male dysfunction of much hip-hop culture repulsive.
I find it disturbing too.
I just think the link between it, and a bunch of kids wearing a sweatshirt is a little weak. Attack the problem not the clothes its wearing.
Bling however... that shit's gotta be banned.
-
Agreed Kyle, but there are a couple of partially Govt funded bodies that are able to lobby, and perhaps should be for a system that no longer seems to be quite working as well as it should or perhaps could.
Yeah, there's a boundary between policy advice, and lobbying.
I presume that NZ on Air were involved in the decisions about youth radio, and quotas in some way, providing information.