So, now it is official, Young's testimony was untruthful. The Bain Team consider this news to be "unadulterated rubbish", which is a refreshing change from the more common "unmitigated rubbish" but all the same pretty much what can be expected from them. It has been suggested that when they say this, it actually means that it is true, but we'll leave that to the experts. Meantime it looks like the house of cards is beginning to collapse.
Is this perjury
?
Perjury is actually very hard to prove it goes back the the doctrine of mens rea or guilty intent every day witnesses lie under oath but proving it was deliberate is hard. DNA exoneration's show that 75-80% miscarriages of justice have occurred because a witness told a "lie" about identifying the Accused in court. But the "lie" though very serious specially in the US where a conviction for say rape is often life without parole . It is extremely rare for a victim or witness to knowingly lie but in a strictly legal way its perjury. But it would be impossible to gain a conviction as the witness honestly believed they were right This guy Young would on the evidence available to plead an honest mistake and likely succeed. That the police have not ruled out arrest in the future could be seen as them accepting he perjured himself but at this stage they can't find the proof it was deliberate. What Police have done is highly unusual and I believe could be a ploy to put pressure on Young or someone close to him to make a mistake. His making a complaint to the IPCA could bite him on the bum as they are not a prosecuting authority so only need to believe on the balance of probabilities or simply believe and they can write it and release it and be safe from legal proceedings or judicial review. But dollars to donuts if a report is done that discredits Young it will be "discredited" like the PCA /Police report into David and Goliath.
So that explains why charges aren't being laid. Thanks for that Linz.
The PCA /Police report into David and Goliath is not discredited around here Linz it is the gospel truth.
I agree wholheartedly Bob My read of the Document is that the report is thoroughly researched and by at least three people in cooperation and was written by a totally different person from those who investigated the complainst. Justice Sir John Jefferies was PCA who oversaw the investigation by a Detective Superintendant whose name eludes me, perhaps Burgess? and colated by Judge Jaine when he became PCA.
Don't I know it. I have complained to police about a perjurer. They have asked the alleged perjurer to come and talk to them but she has avoided them. They cannot compel her to be interviewed, so it stays on the record that she is under investigation. That will come up in any police report on her until she talks to them, so I'm glad I laid my complaint. I'd rather she was charged, however.
On JFRB an interesting issue is being discussed regarding the photocopy documentation that Bryan Bruce was able to secure. Apparently DY was asked about it by the defence but stated he could not locate it.If that is the case then why was BB able to get hold of it?.I would like someone who has the video or trial transcript to check it out.
Under cross-examination Daryl Young was asked if anyone had asked him to try and get the paperwork.At first he said no,and then he said in the last week he had been asked that question.He said he didn't try to find it.
You would have thought the defence team would have asked Young to try and find the paperwork earlier.To be fair to Young,one couldn't expect him to find it at short notice.I mean it all happened 15 years before,and Daryl Young had been working for a different company then.
several actually
Just went to Tm so I could be harassed and seems there is some annoyance at police for the use of the word untruthful to describe Mr Young's evidence. and the Crown Law Office had advised against prosecution.
I think that is a very wise and well considered opinion as the threshold for proving perjury is very high and entails the proving BRD of two seperate issues the first is of course was the testimony true or untrue and in this case, prima face, the testimony was untrue. The second issue is the mens rea test. and it is a test police and prosecutors have to deal with in every case they prosecute. Did the defendant have a guilty intent, did the defendant intend to deceive? That is much harder as it is actually looking to the state of mind of the defendant at the time the untruths were told, were they deliberate or were they honest mistakes? This is shark infested custard to prosecute as the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove the untruth were deliberate and intended to deceive and mislead. Or was the defendant simply mistaken.
As the research into memory and memory contamination has advanced on the back of nuclear DNA it has become very obvious that even seemingly innocent comments can alter memory, an simple afirmation is sufficent to destroy accurate memory. Memory once destroyed it is irretrievable. Many [but not all] Police Academies world wide now recognise that witness memory is their most valuable tool in crime fighting and must be treated with more care than a crime scene, Modern crime scenes can be carefullry photographed, surveyed, videoed and preserved digitally and can if need be completely reconstructed at another site.
Memory cannot be copied, photographed, surveyed or videoed so if contaminated can never be recovered.
But memory contamination is not just a prosecution problem it is a defence problem as well as contamination of a witness memory if found can destroy in seconds a carefully prepared defence. sometimes not straight away but certainly later.
It is one thing to have an incomplete or inaccurate memory but it is another thing to produce under oath the sort of elaborate testimony that this witness did. One could excuse him for thinking, fifteen years later, that he had negotiated the sale when the paperwork suggested otherwise. However, to add to that imperfect recollection, detailed testimony about a man with liquor on his breath emerging half naked from the rear door of a van from within of which a young woman's voice could be heard, this is a very different matter and not just a simple mistake; and that was the "purpose" and "point" of this testimony, to assist in the villification and character assasination of Robin Bain. The sale of the photocopier was incidental and only to establish the time and the background to the facts that assisted the character assasination. One doesn't "by accident" add such elaborate evidence to one's mistaken recollection.
You're quite right of course but I was feeling generous studies have shown the the human brain is capable of some huge leaps in logic. There is no doubt there is a grain of truth in there but it had nothing to do with the 1993 sale as none of the staff at the school knew him or his face, and while we might be terrible at remembering detail but we are actually very good at remembering faces and with very good reason, our way back ancestors were for a long time not great conversationalists so remembering the faces of those in your tribe was very important as stumbling into the wrong cave in the twilight as dinner was being prepared could, if our ancesters forgot faces quickly, mean an invite to dinner was extended though not as a guest but the main course. The years of one sided discourse rubbishing Robin mean that to those who were DB or the others disciples had complete contaminated memories and asking the right questions does instill a new memory and displaces the old. Not asking for the files till the last minute meant Young did not have time to check his memories against known facts so he didn't bother. After all he was not going to say much just that Robin was with a woman and naked and smelt of alcohol. Easy and the defence were crafty enough to leave no time to research the evidence for cross -examination. I believe ther defence underestimated Bryan Bruce as they had seen him off once.
I have a copy of the video when Young swears on the bible before his testimony he looks and sounds very nervous, I think his testimony is very suspect, Brian Bruce seems to be a very capable investigator.
I agree Bob.I take it you are referring to the Investigator Doco. Another detail ,DY "assumes "the alleged other voice coming from the van was a woman's. But he is not certain it seems. Then of course the damning detail of Robin coming out half naked with a towel in the middle of winter.Then on the said day the relieving reacher says no one fitting Young's description came into the office at all.
These guys doing the opinion Docos have to be very careful and thorough to get past the broadcasters screening And TVNZ have had a much more controversial on one previously Murder on the Blade, which got past the BSA unscathed and the not giving time to reply ruling is pretty thin and $6000 is the maximum payment so he got 25% of that I believe it was a good result and now couple with the police investigation, which is still open, kills his testimony.
Keith Hunter mortgaged his home to print and publish Trial by Trickery when Penquin (who had commissioned it) would not touch it as they were scared of defamation proceedings. Well none have eventuated even from the CoA who could have taken contempt proceedings if what was written was wrong they didn't. Even the IPCA could not find fault with it when they investigated it as the complaint about OP Tam so they choose to ignore the book and complaint and investigate their own "complaint" about the lack of police documentation being the main fault Keith sent the 50 pages of documentation in the areas he had documentation about and Justice Lowell Goddard spat the dummy and refused to release the report and instead released a honey and sugar coated press release. I have the full report and have read it and even hard as she tried she had to find several faults and choose to ignore a consideratle amount of documentation damning to Pope
There was no criticism of the book as such unlike the discredited David and Goliath. oh sorry it was the report that was "discredited" not
the purpose of Young's testimony was oh too apparent when he took the stand. His demeanor was telling, he looked quite ill at ease as i recall...and he knew he was there solely to make Robin look like an unprofessional degenrate lowlife basically. I remember thinking when watching the TV news that night "what a load of bollocks, where did they drag this creep up from?"
Ant said ''remember thinking when watching the TV news that night "what a load of bollocks, where did they drag this creep up from?"
Stay out of my head!
Another person who raised my bs meter.She said The first consultation I had with Laniet was on the 30th of November 1993. This was the first time I met her, um –andI saw her briefly on the 15th of December, it was a very brief consultation, without an appointment. The last visit was on the 15th of December.and then we have Q. This came from the defence on your behalf. “She”, being you, “attended Laniet Bain professionally five times.” So –A. Not that I recall.Q. – presumably that information could only have come from you...
Sounds like she claimed for 5 visits in just over 2 weeks.
I just don't buy that bs about the cell phone ringing and Laniet saying she couldn't "work" for 4 days 'cos she was going to Taieri Mouth, and then Copeland telling her she shouldn't have sex for 4 days and then Laniet saying that would be hard because she was staying with her father.
and surprise, surprise she was another of Karam's contacts.
Yes, well, we have no idea what incentives this person had to testify, and it is potentially defamatory to suggest what those might be. But anyone with an insurance assessor's nose for a shaggy dog story would have their alarms on red alert here. Ultimately it was just a bunch of insinuations and innuendo whose purpose was pretty obvious now that we have the full picture. Sorry, Karam. Fail.
