Bain evidence: hearing what you want to hear

In the forth form* I had a memorable music teacher called Mr Williams. He looked and sounded like a mad professor, strode around the class with exaggerated movements and told risque jokes. Which of course endeared him to most forth formers (year 10). Mr Williams was a lot of fun.

One day he rigged up an ancient reel to real tape machine so we could attempt to answer a famous question in musical folklore. Does playing Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven backwards reveal satanic messages? While it is true that guitarist Jimmy Page is quite the fan of Alistair Crowley, the fact that this conspiracy was uncovered by the American Christian right ought to make most people run to the church of high skepticism.

On first listen it sounded to most like the strange groaning of something being played backwards. Mr Williams then suggested what some of the words might be, and where to hear them. Around half the class exclaimed 'oh yeah' while the arch sceptics laughed and said it was all nonsense.

That in a nutshell is what happened with the tape of David Bain's emergency call. The police claimed he said 'I shot the prick'. On hearing the tape on the news tonight I am certain I could hear less of the accused words in the Bain tape than I could hear in the backwards Stairway all those years ago. It was simply meaningless garble. The NZ Herald reports.

"...the words had not been recognised in the first trial in 1994 and did not form part of the transcript. Nor had the ambulance officer who took the call heard them. When the ambulance officer was again played the tape after the police detective said the words were there, he had heard "I shot the prick, I shot" and said he was "stunned that I hadn't heard the words previously."

Just as the Christian right had a reason to go after Led Zeppelin, the police had reasons to 'want' to find something to convict their 'man'. Its significant that some of the people advising the police on the case told them not to use it - no doubt they saw as as simply crap evidence that was only going to damage the police case in the eyes of the judiciary. Which it did. Should it have been suppressed? Perhaps the judiciary were trying to help the police save face, as the police have done precious little to help themselves in their conduct of the Bain case. Chief Justice Sian Elias said the evidence was not relevant nor reliable.

This highlights a key problem with the police investigation. The police decided early on that Bain was guilty. So much so, they didn't even bother to collect evidence from the scene that would suggest otherwise. It sounds like a case of Groupthink amongst the police - a similar rationalised conformity in decision making lay at the heart of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Evidence of the abuse of Laniet by her father gave Robin Bain a strong motive - but the police failed to investigate this option properly. I am inclined to believe Robin was involved somehow, but without the full potential evidence we will never know for sure. It is also possible a proper investigation may have uncovered evidence to indicate Robin's innocence.

So in essence, the police investigation failed the entire family.

PS: A severe lack of critical thinking was also evident with the decisions of our major media outlets to run this as the major news story with headlines like 'I shot the prick' - the next time they criticise the blogosphere for promoting dodgy claims in an irresponsible fashion they deserve to be mocked.

* slight edit - I think I Mr Williams was our third form music teacher, rather than the forth form. It was a few years ago now!

Broad unconvincing in wake of police spying revelations

In the wake of the revelations of police paying informants to spy on legitimate activist groups and political parties, I was most unimpressed by the reaction of Police Commissioner Howard Broad.

According to the Sunday Star Times Rob Gilchrist acted as a $600 per week plus expenses informer. He ratted on Greenpeace, animal rights activists, peace groups, unions and political parties. Police sought personal information on individuals, including details of sexual relationships among activists.

Broad appeared on Radio NZ Nine to Noon programme on Monday. He seemed desperate to claim these protest groups were involved in 'violent acts' - he used this phase several times. In repeatedly using the words 'violent acts' and 'terrorism' Broad is simply engaging in outright spin, if politically motivated slander. How is holding up a coal ship for a few hours, dropping straw on a floor or chaining oneself to a fur shop a 'violent act'? How can all this surveillance activity be by any measure in proportion to the gravity of any potential offence?

When it was set up in 2004 the Special Investigation Group was dedicated to national security related crime with a focus on counter-terrorism. Yet Broad once again demonstrated that terrorism can mean anything authorities want it to mean. "Terrorism is wherever you find it. Someone who wants to commit a violent act or do serious damage to property or disrupt our community substantially.". Even though New Zealand legislation includes an overly broad definition of terrorism, it does not cover serious damage to property (only infrastructure).

Against the Current also takes issue with Broad's claim that the police targeting individuals and not the groups they were involved in. He points to an email Gilchrist received from police asking specifically about the actions of "Climate Change Groups". This demonstrates aspects of Broad's defence are of dubious veracity.

People may ask - how else do you expect the police commissioner to respond? I think he would have been better to acknowledge that police intelligence work is always caught in a balance between community safety and the right to privacy. He could have implied that aspects of this operation may have overstepped the mark, without actually saying so. Broad could have acknowledged that police now have to operate in an environment where the public have higher expectations of police conduct, and this is reflected in the purpose statement of the 2008 policing legislation that demands that policing services are provided in a way that respects human rights.

Wouldn't this have this killed the issue dead? Maybe not, but such an approach would have painted the police in a much better light.

In saying this I am not attempting to give the police free pubic relations advice, but to demonstrate how a police commissioner with social democratic values and genuine respect for human rights might respond. It is clear now that Broad is not such a man. While Broad is preferable as Commissioner if the alternative had been Clint Rickards, it is time there was a new Commissioner.

While Broad may have been the front man this week, Nicky Hagar has previously noted that Assistant Commissioner Jon White has a history of harassing and inprisoning people involved in legitimate protest activity. I will not be surprised if some White neo-McCathyist paw prints are found all over the Gilchrist case.

Privatised police are a bad bad idea

When Helen Clark appointed Annette King as Minister of Police, I was reasonably relieved - as I thought she would be unable to do much damage in this portfolio.

It appears I was wrong.

King now says she is willing to discuss the introduction of private police, using private contractors to do police work.

While advocacy of part-privatisation may be surprising from a "Labour" minister, it has got to be remembered that King is on the right of Labour's caucus, and was close to Roger Douglas during the forth Labour Government.

The proposal has been slammed by Police Association President Greg O'Connor, who quite rightly points out that merely using private contractors is "not going to make things any cheaper". Any extra police are "still going to have to be paid for". Using private people is "not going to solve anything."

There could be significant issues regarding conflicts of interest, especially where 'police' could be conceivably in the pay of somebody else at the same time they are undertaking investigative work. They also might be concerned where their next pay check is coming from after they finish their current 'police' contract.

New Zealand's lax accounting requirements allow a company to appoint the same accounting firm to be both its auditor and its tax/accounting policy adviser. The auditors end up auditing their own work. While it may be claimed there are 'chinese walls' within the auditing firm to prevent information being passed within these two functions, they leave open the perception of compromise.

Now imagine the same accounting firm is employed as a police private contractor in a fraud case. Even the presence of 'the great wall of China' could not prevent perceptions they could have a vested interest in favour of finding 'not enough evidence to prosecute'

Categories: New Zealand, Politics, Privatisation, Labour, Police

UK police shoot dead innocent civilian in the name of the 'war on terror'

UK Police have admitted that man they shot dead in Stockwell tube station yesterday was not connected to the attempted bombings of London on July 21.

In other words - he was an innocent civilian.

This wasn't just a shooting - this was a summary execution, as NRT points out.
"They pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him" - Witness Mark Whitby

This amply demonstrates the reason why shooting people dead on the 'suspicion' of being involved in a terrorist activities is a foolish and dangerous precedent.

I simply do not buy the argument that the only way to stop a suspected bomber in a tube station is to ensure he/she dies by shooting them 5 times. Incapacitating/injuring someone may be justified in some circumstances, but death should only be the absolute last resort, and only when a threat is established as being genuine. In this case it is pretty clear the evidence of a threat was circumstantial at best.

While one passenger may have reported the man wearing a belt with wires coming out of it - the man was only guilty of being an electrician.

And last I checked, running away from plain clothes armed men was not a capital offence, even if they did attempt to identify themselves. While we may hear calls for sympathy for the officer who was forced to make a 'split second' decision, we should also have some sympathy for an civilian who was understandably freaked.

A tube station is a very controlled and predictable environment - there are few places for a person to go. The first thing I would have done in this situation if I was the police would have been to clear the station of any trains - and given the word, this can happen very quickly.

Given that most tubes have CCTV and the train was in the station at the time there is a high chance there will be video evidence of the execution.

Chefen from Sir Humphreys attempts to justify the police action on the basis of a cruel utilitarian logic.
"When it comes to mass murder, the numbers say take a hardline because you'll save more people that way. Tough, but such is life."

In a sense Chefen is arguing that innocent civilians should die on account of the slightest chance it may save others - and this is only a short step from celebrating them as martyrs in the war against terror. In doing so, we would only be adopting the justifications of the terrorists, as well as providing Mr Bin Laden rhetorical means to recruit more martyrs for 'his side'.

And if you want to justify actions on the cold calculation of numbers, Iraqis may also see the logic in taking a 'hard line' against the UK, given the mass murder of 39,000 Iraqi civilians since the American/UK invasion.

Worst of all, Chefen erroneously attributes the guilt for terrorism to racial groups.
"I'm sure all those out there who are expert in the deployment of root-causes arguments can word it much better than "Sorry missus, but your son was running away from armed police towards a tube station and we had four terrorist attacks yesterday and we couldn't take the chance he was going to murder a few dozen commuters just for jollies. I can't wait for the crowd who plead for understanding of why certain populaces have brought terrorism on themselves to try and wiggle this one around 180 degrees."

And 'bought it on themselves' sounds a lot like how the Nazi's attempt to justify the infamous persecution of another racial and other groups - the holocaust.

I was talking to someone last night who compared the Stockwell incident to the bus bombers in Israel. But this example really crystallizes the point - the vast majority of people do not want to live in a society where the police and the armed forces are permitted to kill on sight those who are suspected of a crime.

Perhaps a reason why right wing 'liberals' rail against the 'Nanny State', a state that aims to care for and value the lives of its citizens is that such misnamed 'liberals' really want another type of state altogether - an oppressive state, governed by fear, where the state has unlimited license for indiscriminate violence and persecution. Mostly in the name of defending gross property and income inequalities from the democratic majority.

Bush and Blair harp on about 'defending our values' yet pass draconian anti-terror legislation that takes away the values worth defending, such as the right to a fair trial and the assurance no free person will be imprisoned without charge.

When the terrorists are caught and convicted I don't want them to be executed or put in a jail cell 'with the key thrown away' - that's too easy. Following an open and public court process I would like to see prison, along with an involved and challenging restorative justice process that will allow families of victims the chance to force the terrorists to face the human costs of their actions.

The best weapon we have in the 'war on terror' is the maintenance of our own humanity and the highest level of respect for human life - this is one thing the terrorists can never have.

Categories: London, Politics, Shooting, Police, Bombings

PS: I do think it would be unfortunate if the good work of the UK police in the aftermath of the July 7th bombings was overshadowed by the latest incident. While they were unable to stop the bombs, they were on the case quickly with some good leads, information they shared with the public. I have a suspicion we will find the 'police' involved in the shooting were not ordinary bobbies.

Paul Neazor QC: Rainbow Warrior and Zaoui

Good documentary on Sunday about the Rainbow Warrior bombing. Unfortunately I missed about 15 minutes of it because the video recorder stuffed up. Does anyone know if Sunday will be repeated later in the week? (and I don't mean another day off!)

Alain Mafart and Dominque Prieur were convicted of manslaughter for their part in the bombing of the Greenpeace ship.

I was very interested to learn it was Paul Neazor, as Solicitor General, who reduced the charges against the pair from murder to manslaughter. According to the Police account of 'Operation Wharf' he did so because "with the evidence available it could not be established that Mafart and Prieur were personally responsible for the placing of the explosive devices on the Rainbow Warrior, no that they intended anyone should be killed or injured."

Well I would have thought the use of any bomb implies an intention to injure, unless its a paint bomb or a marshmallow surprise.

The same Paul Neazor Q.C is now the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, charged with the review of the 'Security Risk Certificate' issued to Mr Ahmed Zaoui. Many of the allegations against Zaoui are thought to originate from a smear campaign orchestrated by Algerian security services, agencies who are known to have close links with French security services. As Mr Zaoui says "France has a good big link with the military regime. They are involved with everything in Algeria."

Initially, the French government denied all knowledge of the Rainbow Warrior bombing. But as evidence of their involvement became overwhelming, French Prime Minister Fabius came clean. "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French minister of defense resigned.

It would be fascinating to know how the Rainbow Warrior episode formed Neazor's views/attitude towards French intelligence agencies, as this could have quite a bearing on the Zaoui case. As the French and Algerian governments applied "immense pressure" on Switzerland to deport Zaoui to the African nation of Burkina Faso, they are likely to have 'influenced' the views of our own SIS.

Unfortunately, we are unlikely to know how much credence Neazor gives to the self-interested bleatings of French intelligence agencies.

Given that the last Inspector General Laurie Greig was forced to resign after he uttered the word 'outski' to the news media, comments interpreted as bias on his part, the new IG is not likely to reveal the personal views that influence how he exercises his discretion. But as David Small argues, this only demonstrates the fundamental problems with the office itself.

"Solicitor-General at the time of the 1985 “Rainbow Warrior” bombing, the new I-G reveals very little about himself. It appears that almost everybody who has had close dealings with the former Solicitor-General vouches for his integrity. However, the same was said about Laurie Greig when he took up the position. While the issue of "apparent bias" brought down Greig, any lack of “apparent bias” does not address the fundamental problems with the office itself.

PS: Being 9 years old at the time of the Rainbow Warrior bombing I remember thinking Ma-fart was a funny name :)