THE TRIUMPH OF OBSERVATION, DEDUCTIVE REASONING, AND SHERLOCK HOLMES
Emailed to every parliamentarian in eastern Australia, surface mailed to Queensland Attorney General, and to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, April 2009.
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a message in two parts which are both essentially the same. It
is important that all Australian M.P.'s and other administrators understand
it. The second part is the more pressing of the two, because it deals
with injustice against an innocent foreigner. The first part merely touches
on a gratifying little triumph of Australian Science, along with dismissal
of something that doesn't rate as Science.
In sending this e-mail, the sender leaves himself open to legal action.
This message is a gauntlet, thrown down as of now. When confidence crooks
inveigle their way into a legal system, sometimes it becomes necessary
for an ordinary citizen to "blow the whistle". This is a parochial
little diversion courtesy of the sunny Sunshine Coast, where flotsam washes
up on the beach. I am currently waiting to learn whether the Qld. Gov't.
has the moral capacity of coping with it. They know all about it, and
have known all about it for two or more long years. You may identify the
people concerned if you so choose: it isn't necessary to do so. What is
necessary is that Australians avoid being led about by the nose, and throw
off the shackles of irrational nonsense. When you consider that a few
words under parliamentary privilege by one of the lawyers sitting on the
benches of the Qld Government would have headed off this little conspiracy
long ago - you begin to understand how fraud and moral paralysis feed
on each other. As for those watchdogs of democracy - the media - some
of them were the first to be sucked in and will be the last to wake up.
THE TRIUMPH OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING: THE APOLLO MOON PROGRAMME.
That remarkable effort in Space exploration needs no introduction: nevertheless
it may surprise some that the triumph of U.S. technology was backed up
by interpretation of the results by australian geologists. Professor S.R.Taylor,
A.N.U., was Principal Investigator. His chemistry combined with the mineralogical
genius of the late Professor A.E. Ringwood, also A.N.U., show how the
moon originated. He drew back from publicly drawing the compelling conclusion
the chemistry demands.
Scientists have to live with scientists. Ninety-odd percent of modern
scientists do not and dare not draw any conclusion favourable to the idea
that there is any overall design or plan in Nature. Professor Taylor was/is
no exception to that rule. Thus he read the chemistry correctly but held
back from the compelling, logical conclusion. Remember, scientists live
amongst scientists. They may have a wife and children to support. We all
need a sphere in which we are accepted and in which we can function. And
scientists do not get published if they imply rational design. Scientists
need to eat, as do we all.
The astute deductions of these leading australian geologists were lost
on the ideologically driven public relations machine.
As soon as we apply the technique of deductive reasoning based on the
principle of a rational universe - the foundation of Western technologic
advance - Taylor & Ringwood's work shows how the moon originated.
I was privileged to be shown this. I don't make a living from Science.
Since publishing those deductions in 2,000, proof upon proof has confirmed
them, so that "he that runs may read". Common Donor Capture
Moon Origin - the most ignored and vilified development in origins science,
since the last one. At least scientists are predictable. A few of them
are secretly hoping, one suspects, that Messenger, currently in
the region of Mercury, will malfunction and send no more data! But Mercury
as the source of our moon and of part of Earth itself is not essential
to Common Donor Capture. Mercury merely happens to be staring us in the
face. Some other, fragmented, planet may have been the source. (For a
possible lead, look up Angrites). [Editor's note, December '09: Messenger
so far has discovered no definitive difference between the surface
of Mercury and the surface of the Moon.]
The problem modern scientists have with moon capture is that it is not
gradual, and it smacks too much of something that might not have been
100% attributable to a succession of accidents far off in the never-never.
And Mercury as a source is potentially testable, in the real world!
The reader with a penchant for terminology might torment himself by researching
EH Chondrites and Aubrites. They are additional to what I already list
in my paper. Here we have exceptional meteorites: their oxygen isotopes
are concomitant with the earth and moon. Aubrites are of special interest
because they have features somewhat suggestive of a Mercury origin. The
point here is not meteorites that support a theory. The point is, that
for nine years, scientists have known of the Common Donor Capture Theory
of Moon Origin, and after nine years, the first person to actually look
into the technical evidence that was always staring them in the face,
could be you. The only way some matters will ever be honestly investigated
is if you or I do it or someone else happens to do it.
Scientists are as bound by group thinking as are other professional groups.
These people have to make a dollar. Some lawyers and media operatives
may well be worse - we investigate a case hereafter - but scientists certainly
have their difficulties.
In any society there are groupings of specialists whose aim easily can
veer off the proper target towards the self-fulfilling target of giving
the group a cosy little living. Members of these self-help cliques have
a mutually beneficial, unwritten, "understanding". They even
develop a secretive, exclusive, language.
The current "scientific" advice re. climate and greenhouse
gases is demonstrably a product of such peer-controlled groupthink. It
happens to fit hand in glove with an innate desire in some people to tax
and regulate others. It also meshes with hard-line environmentalism -
Nature worship - and Man's innate tendency to assuage his conscience.
Sacrifice something to the gods of Nature. Throw something into the sacrificial
well, and appease the angry god of climate change! It helps some people
feel virtuous.
I address the question of greenhouse gases on my site. For example, in
deciphering ice-core temperature indicators, the investigators turn a
blind eye to the possibility that the isotope ratios indicate pressure
rather than temperature. They then publish the findings as fact. A junior
level science student could see through it. It's either incompetence or
fraud. They are not being candid.
Remember, to earn a crust, some 90% or thereabouts of scientists disavow
intentional purpose or design in Nature. The brainwashing sinks in, no
matter how they resist . Are we going to succumb to the brainwashing delusions
of others? Every time these "experts" tell us that they have
some remarkable insight into the climate, they are really telling us that
they are poor lost wanderers casting about for an anchor in Reality. Technical
proof they have none. They might as well just start their own religion.
Research this past month goes within an ace of confirming that coal burning
influences cloud formation, and could cool the earth. It's available via
Sciencedaily . Search on that site under, clouds;greenhouse;lead;ice.
There are two recent entries on this topic. Remember, years ago, the CSIRO
tried to make it rain by seeding clouds with a compound of silver? There
is a factor in cloud formation to do with lead, which is seeded into the
atmosphere through the burning of coal.
We would be unwise to pin our hopes on some theory about clouds and lead.
We would be very wise to pin our hopes on the Creator of all Science and
on the rationality of what he has set up here, of which abundant evidences
exist, including self-regulatory mechanisms. Or are we going to deny his
assurances, and assume he is incapable of the simplest of provisions?
Faith? Or abject, brain-dead Fear?
Let me also point out that I for one am a sinner, and whether you are or not, this world has been fouled up, we can't turn it into Eden, we are stuck with it for the duration, we can't put the fossil fuels back in the ground, but at least we can stop making blathering fools of ourselves and stop kow-towing to something approaching witch doctory.
Here is a story of another profession getting it wrong. With your help,
they should be able to get it right. Who knows? I am not a lawyer. But
it's apparent that some judges/lawyers got lost with this one.
J.P.Pretorius, South African, middle- aged, 5 children, happy marriage, no criminal record, went swimming in crowded, rough conditions on New Year's Day, 2,006, Sunshine Coast. He was driven to and from the beach by friends. He swam for something like an hour, during which he was crashed into by more than one person. At times he wasn't absolutely 100% certain that he would extract himself successfully from the water without help. Others needed rescue. A bikini-clad older woman washed up against his back, and there was some entanglement. He noticed that she was accompanied by a seemingly agitated younger woman. He went closer to them in an attempt to say "sorry". The younger woman reacted with foul language. He put it from his mind, and went on attempting to body surf. When he walked out of the water, three women and a surf lifesaver accused him. He asked to speak to the women. (He is not always easy to understand, being foreign.) The lifesaver refused. Two of the women - the mother-daughter team -- were obviously very antagonistic. To avoid conflict, he got into his friends' car and was driven away. Police later contacted him and charged him with sexual assault of three females. He was found guilty at two trials, one trial was undecided, he won one appeal but lost another. He got twelve months suspended sentence, $2,000 fine, and has nearly been driven to bankruptcy defending himself. He collapsed once in court. I personally wrote to every Qld. State M.P., more than once, and to people such as the (A.L.P.) Premier, Attorney General, and Mr. Pretorius' local Member - if foreigners residing in Australia have a member - repeatedly. The proceedings were patently ridiculous. To begin, he isn't a sufficiently strong swimmer to have done everything claimed. On top of this, the media went gangbusters, rushed off without the facts, and put his image in front of the potential jurors and judges - he was pictured in the introductory news mosaic, Channel 7, Sunshine Coast, for 3 months solid. He hadn't then been convicted of anything! He was misrepresented extensively in the media. Of course, the media can now claim that they weren't intentionally misleading the public - which makes them - what? At the end, it became necessary to call in Sherlock Holmes! You, the recipient of this e-mail, are invited to emulate Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, evaluate the case of a wronged foreigner, determine who is/are the real crook(s), and help get him or them nailed. Doyle did all that, in real life. I warn you you may have trouble contacting Queen Anna. Once again the Qld A.L.P. Government has showed its green credentials by whacking a clearing ban on landholders such as myself who forego income by not clearing trees - zero compensation in my part of the State. They steal millions from environmentally friendly landholders at the stroke of a pen, to show off to their allies the Greenies. She has done this to save the climate, so now she and environment minister Robertson, in a fit of altruism, have mothballed their houses to preserve the carbon, and are living under a coolabah tree next to a billabong. Zero compensation. By the non-response I am getting from her new Attorney General, I suspect we can assume she took other Cabinet ministers with her. They are all helping the tree grow. Some say that Banjo Patterson was in love when he penned "Waltzing Matilda". He was suffering some sort of brain fever. His misconceptions about leaping into Australian billabongs for a start - I leaped into the billabong, myself, and if sheep skeletons and bogged bull weren't enough, I crashed into Prof. Garnault, who was trying to fry a yabby on a glow-worm. He does this to save carbon emissions. Fortunately I had brought my own water. Unfortunately, someone hogged the bio-degradable soap. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Prof. Garnault, on the suspicion he uses a soft variety on some audiences - but it turned out that Anna grabbed it to wash out the mouths of her Cabinet. This was after she ordered them to sleep under the coolabah, and stop complaining about the endangered(!?) fruit bats above them ……….. mutiny by the Cabinet was narrowly averted by the unexpected arrival of three armed troopers in the company of a squatter …that was when I leaped into the billabong …personally I don't care for raw yabby; mutton, now…that's more tempting….. .
OVERVIEW OF QLD SUPREME COURT RULING R v PRETORIUS QCA 58 (20 MARCH 2009).
This ruling is a presentable exercise in page-fill which discharges the
three authors' duty to review the superficial procedures of the preceding
jury trial. It fulfills the bureaucratic requirements . It reveals a detailed
understanding of trial procedure, and neglects Justice - the upholding
of the innocent and the bringing down of the guilty. It is technical,
whilst being mute on the overriding question of technical importance -
have our procedures led to the innocent being upheld, whilst the guilty
is brought down? And, if not, where was the error in the procedures, and
how can we, the appeal judges, correct it? Procedural guidelines are to
serve Justice. Justice is never to be the slave of procedural guidelines.
Appeal judges are to check and see that Justice is given free rein to
work within the guidelines. And so they are obligated to learn about a
case, and, at the end of the day, to be able to say with a degree of certainty
that there was sound reasoning, sound procedure, and a believable result.
They are the "quality assurance" team. In this case, one previous
successful appeal and one hung jury announced in no uncertain terms that,
here, they had better be alert. Yet they fell into trap after trap.
It will be necessary first to clear away the obfuscation. The way will
then be clear to logically investigate the complaints that were brought
to Maroochydore Police on New Year's Day 2006. These complaints were never
investigated by a detective. At the end of this document, the conclusions
that any detective worthy of the title would have reached will have become
apparent.
The appeal was on the grounds that, since Mr. Pretorius' surfing as observed by the complainants, at distance, from the beach, was not the subject of any complaint by people close enough to be touched by him, it was not right to allow it as evidence when charging him with touching the three complainants.
Put simply, if you see a big, slow, ungainly, dangerous-looking dog cavorting
amongst chickens, and one or two injured chickens have come to you and
complained that that big dog injured them, can you rightly use that obvious
cavorting as evidence against the dog, if another reasonable explanation
is that fast dog(s), no longer visible, did the injuring?
Very well: but what if the complainants assert that is was the big dog
that injured them? Yes, but what if the big dog asserts that he didn't,
and conditions were such that incontestable identification of him by the
complainants was impossible?
We turn to other means. WE do - the prosecutors of Peter Pretorius didn't!
Was the modus operandi of the attacker as described by the victims,
similar to the (distantly observed) modus operandi of the slow,
big, dog? Answer: probably different in one case, possibly similar in
others.
Well, then: does the big dog have any history of savagery towards fowls? Is anything in his emotional make-up suggestive? Will anyone except the three complainants step forward to complain about him in this area of behavior? Does he habitually bite fowls? Did he act as though he had done something wrong, when accosted by the outraged fowls? Negative on all counts.
Ah! You say. The Supreme Court judges know it was roosters, not dogs, that were responsible. These people know their details. And the Police will have evaluated Mr. Pretorius in a professional manner. He wouldn't have been sent up on charges without reasonable evidence. Remember, two juries found him guilty!
Perhaps the Supreme Court, after elucidating the matter of roosters,
will tell us what this evidence was. The simple facts are, there is none.
(The police "enquiry" was a non-existent fiasco.) We do have
an article in the local media, written less than 36 hours after the event,
which leaves no room for any possibility other than that Mr. Pretorius
was the one and only attacker, he acted guiltily, fled the scene, and
police were closing in on this, quote, "creep". The Sunshine
Coast Daily of 3rd Jan. '06, is available to be read, and this was
but the beginning of media attention that was inaccurate, misleading,
and detrimental to justice. It did contain one remarkable piece of information.
The description of the man in that paper, with the exclusion of the South
African accent, was taken direct from the S.C.D. journalist who
was, believe it or not, a victim. She described the man she glimpsed under
the water, attacking her (and whom she did not hear speak). This description
of this "creep" renders him of a different size, hair colour
, facial expression, and swimming mode to Mr. P. This careful eyewitness
also observed black swimming shorts and a gold wedding band, which, given
the quality of the witnesses who have sworn that he was wearing light
olive-green togs and a silvery wedding band, all but rules him out as
the subject of this journalist's scrutiny.
After 36 hours, though, the "creep" sequentially began to take on Mr. P.'s true features - except the togs. The three women and the male surf lifesaver are presumably still wondering how they managed to see black or navy blue togs with a distinctive bright yellow V on a man standing before them in broad daylight, when this terrible man walked innocently out onto the beach, wearing togs that were light olive-green with a pale stripe. Well, that's what the totally reliable and steady Mr. Saayman, after consulting with his wife and children, swore they were. Mr. Saayman, then a fully bearded man, drove Mr. P. home. Except that two of the complainants swore and swear to this day that the beardless Mr.P. was the driver!
The complaining party, having unequivocally proved that they, like some
of the remainder of us, are incapable of accurately remembering the most
basic features of a man standing before them in broad daylight, having
taken no notes, but fully assured that this magical changeling had unquestionably
been molesting girls all the time that he was as well as hidden from them
for purposes of detailed observation, out in the high surf, swear to this
day that he was doing so. The Supreme Court sees no problem in charging
Mr.P. with the aid of this evidence, and makes it "pedantic"
and "theoretical" to equivocate over minor details such as identification.
Quote: "The risk of cross-contamination [discussion amongst the witnesses
in an attempt to arrive at a consensus] was more theoretical than real."
That statement is beyond words for incompetence. These people COPIED each
other in their wording. They CHANGED the details as time went by, so as
to make it look better! The record is there in writing. As for the suggestion
that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable:"It lacks merit ….The
identification evidence … would have entitled a jury … to conclude
that the appellant was the assailant".
It seems that members of our Supreme Court have never read a "whodunit".
This appeal ruling denies the accumulated wisdom of centuries of criminal
investigation. We needn't remind ourselves of the number of innocent people
who were inadvertently condemned through misidentification, in broad daylight.
This isn't even grade one level criminal investigation. As for juries
making wrong decisions: Mr John Citizen is surprisingly "savvy",
so juries, properly selected and conducted, tend to be successful. Where
they can go astray is when pedantic theorists obfuscate and confuse them
with a mountain of irrelevancies and no admissible facts. Call a group
of citizens together ,lay upon them the responsibility of making a decision,
but give them no usable facts - what will be the outcome? They will rely
on things such as warm feelings and notions of popularity, and become
frustrated. Exit Lady Justice with the balances and the blindfold.
Enter trial by popularity. Their decision by definition will be
meaningless. Whether their decision is correct or incorrect, it will be
meaningless.
What admissible fact is available by which Mr. P. can be convicted beyond
reasonable doubt?
Here is a challenge to the Supreme Court. Give an accurate summation
of the facts of this case to a man in the street, and find if anyone will
agree with you that admissible evidence exists in this case. Try the jury
system - the system you are charged with the responsibility of upholding,
not destroying. Give the man in the street and the jury system a chance!
Put it into practice on behalf of this man, and on behalf of Queensland!
Yes, be pedantic and be theoretical, as you seem to imply Mr. Pretorius
and his lawyer were being by insisting on matters of provable fact , and
see if Mr J. Citizen is so benighted that he can't drive a coach and four
with a bunch of turkeys through these so-called proceedings.
Ah yes. Turkeys, roosters, theories, yes, here we are. The ruling.
Effectively what the appeal was based on was: since Mr. Pretorius' surfing
under the distant observation of the three women and the lifesaver was
not reported as criminal by anyone on the spot, it cannot be regarded
as criminal and cannot be utilized as evidence. So, please give him a
trial in which it is not permitted as evidence. As a corollary to this
the appeal was suggesting that, since it was not unreasonable to consider
the possibility of someone other than Mr. P. being a culprit, he should
be given a trial in which this possibility was investigated - i.e., deal
with each complaint separately, so as not to fix in the mind of the jury
the idea that this man attacked three women and therefore their united
observations carry great weight. Success in this appeal would presumably
allow jurors to consider each complaint on its individual merits, without
having their thinking fogged by having to think of all the attacks as
one, and without the idea that this man habitually preys on women when
he goes swimming. Success in this appeal would also partially remove the
lifesaver from the ranks of the so-called eyewitnesses. The court records
show this man to have exceeded the facts more than once, hopefully through
his zeal, but in a way that amounts to bearing false witness. Only Mr.
Pretorius' near-total recall and fully consistent words, prevented him
from fully achieving his purpose. In this Supreme Court Ruling, the judges
seem to put some faith in this lifesaver's evaluation of the events. Again,
do they regard it as "pedantic", and "theoretical"
to put credence in such mundane things as facts and recorded words, or
do they, like the lifesaver, have some mystical powers of sight and understanding
that raise them above the man on the street?
Why ever anyone with no criminal record should need to appeal for fundamental
human rights such as these, in 2009, staggers belief.
The Supreme Court claims to have delivered a ruling on the appeal .
There is no ruling on that actual appeal, other than page-fill. Nowhere
is the possibility of an offender or offenders other than Mr. Pretorius
put forward as a possibility. No-where is it seriously argued that his
body-surfing may not have been with criminal intent. No-where are the
unusual conditions of the day taken into consideration. No-where does
anyone ask the glaring question: Is it likely that all these criminal
acts were committed by this man? Is there ANY supporting evidence?
This document and these proceedings are an insult to all of us; to Maroochydore; to those who did genuinely try to do something about a predator (whether perceived or real) on that day; to painstaking, impeccable witnesses such as Mr. Saayman, who finds himself implicitly classed as a fool and a conspirator by a Supreme Court ruling; to reason, logic, and proper method in criminal prosecution; to the Queensland Government and the Queensland people.
Ever look back at something you have done and say, "What came over
me?" "What entered into that chain of events?"
Does this Pretorius business need an appeal, or does it need a priest?
What came over everybody? Were we invaded?
Mr. Pretorius is exceptional for a start. Having him beside you in water
and hearing him speak can send cold shivers up the spine. Instinctively,
people tend to be wary of someone with his build, his voice, and his visage.
It is natural to regard him as threatening .
He went swimming in "body contact" conditions. Perhaps he was
trying to please his hosts by showing enthusiasm during the swimming outing?
Rumor gives us a story to the general effect that the investigating detective
was an erstwhile drinking companion or some sort of associate of the lifesaver.
He was promoted out of the force to the detective force and again was
promoted to London, England, for the 1st trial, at which he was booked
to testify. That Source can't be far from the mark because a) The police
and the lifesaver both got this cock-and-bull idea that Mr. Pretorius
had made a confession. There was an attempt on the part of both to twist
his words to fabricate a confession. [An aside: article 37 of this Supreme
Court Ruling introduces a misleading "guidance case" involving
violent abduction and sexual assault on land. In two assaults the face
of the assailant was seen; in the third, it was not, but because the modus
operandi was so similar, the judge included the third in the charge
against the one man. On top of this, there was a confession. Quote, "Two
of the complainants identified the accused as their assailant. The third
did not but, in her case, there was evidence of a confession". What
exactly are they driving at here?] b) The legal people found the police
investigation report to be essentially non-existent. All they found was
a mess. c) The media was not guided properly by the Police. d) A policeman/detective
who was to have testified at the first trial was absent.
I.e., we have a citizen's arrest scenario in which the citizens in cooperation
with the media determine to get the crim.. No police guidance or investigation.
Mr. Pretorius walks up the beach, to be accosted by two known, visually
recognizable media personalities as complainants. One is known on
the Sunshine Coast, the other on the Sunshine Coast and farther afield.
Mr. Pretorius' original legal team directs him unwisely and thus exacerbates
the lack of communication and understanding between all parties. He does
not get to tell his straightforward, believable story to people who would
immediately have set all to rights. He does not get to tell his story
in court, in the one way that could win his case - from his own lips,
as it happened, without "legal" doctoring.
His scheduled barrister cannot attend the trial. The last-minute replacement
is not even fully briefed.
Public sentiment is at a high point over the ongoing exercise track molestations.
When the whole mess finally wends its way to the Supreme Court, that
Court goes into delirium on the far side of the moon, along with Pfennig
vs The Queen, The Queen vs Pfennig, Phillips vs The
Queen, Carlton vs Collingwood…. Ah.. the score is.. sorry,
the ball's been lost down a crater. Uh? The basic principle of admissibility
of evidence is that, unless there is some good reason for not receiving
it, evidence that is relevant is admissible….. Evidence is relevant
if it could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment
of the probability of the existence of the fact in issue in the proceedings
(HML vs The Queen) Yes, well Collingwood is being charged for kicking
the ball down the crater and losing it, and we have 50 witnesses - all
green coloured, with pointy ears…….
I shall now invite Sherlock Homes to step onto the page and solve the
case. Good day, Mr.Holmes.
My word, Watson, coming home from the Reichenbach Falls via Afghanistan
and Tibet this time, things have changed. Collingwood did not kick the
ball down this crater. What happened was that one of those green people
over there surreptitiously souvenired the ball.
Which green person?
Watson, my friend. The one pregnant female in the group.
But, goodness me, Holmes. Look at this ball in the crater.
That's a Pterodactyl egg. See the scuffle marks, where the mother
touches the ground?
But why has it got Steden written on it?
Because the mother works for Steden. See this old Pterodactyl
over here? Looks like she may have stopped laying. She won't be working
for Steden. Ah, yes. It's on the leg, here. See? Property of
Dunlop Ball Manufacturing Division. Now we'll gather these eggs and
look into your little problem. Remember, Watson, always remember. Gather
the facts. Eliminate that which is impossible. That which remains, no
matter how improbable, is the solution. Remember it, apply it. Ah, and
in deference to Lord Kelvin, whom I see has made progress with thermodynamics
and refrigeration during my long absence: When you are up against a barrier,
you are on the other side of a breakthrough.
I think I have set down some of the facts.
In time, and, with improvement, Watson, you could almost have the makings
of a clerk of some sort. This list above the place where you bring me
in. It has points of interest. The missing detective, for one. That's
my entry ticket, so to speak, eh? Hmm. Watson, what do you make of this
somewhat strange run of events?
You insist I must set down the facts and eliminate the impossible, so
that the possible comes into view. I have deduced that no evidence exists
against the accused, unless it be that the mother and daughter say that
he was their attacker. The journalist, the woman who was first attacked,
described a seemingly different person, and her description was put in
print within a day of the event. The mother and daughter hadn't come up
with a final description of him until after the first trial - they were
still saying he had a broken, even flattened nose and the appearance of
a rugby player, well along the litigation trail. The description finally
arrived at was a composite of the journalist's cautious, responsible description,
and the accused's actual appearance - except the swimming togs remained
dark with a yellow V, and that alone renders the descriptions nonsensical,
if the accused was the culprit.
I see you put complete faith in Mr. Saayman's evidence regarding the
togs?
By the tone of your question, Holmes, I deduce that you have no difficulty
with the evidence of the swimming togs, yourself.
\Quite right, Watson. The togs and wedding ring evidence is of little
significance, even though, of itself, it starkly reveals the dangers of
eyewitness identification under difficult circumstances. Everyone can
make mistakes in remembering the colour of things. The question of guilt
or innocence hinges on something far more provable than impressions in
high surf.
How so, my friend?
The daughter talked of full body groping, of a male feeling her in all
the wrong places. The journalist's attack as she described it was different,
although deliberate enough, and quite frightening. Someone grabbed her
ankle. He came in again, and grabbed her arm. Shortly after this, he had
her around the waist. This woman gives the impression of being reliable.
The daughter gives very little evidence of being reliable, but there is
one factor that to my mind is suggestive that she was perhaps attacked.
The accused encountered her in an intensely angry state. Now this woman
could have been angry for reasons other than those she described, and
the accused happened to provide a convenient whipping boy for that anger.
Or perhaps he did accidentally come into contact with her, the event somehow
slipped his mind, and the fright magnified itself into loathing and imagined
full-on assault in her shocked state. Or perhaps the anger was faked.
But take the first assumption - there was a real predator in the surf.
There is no male born to woman yet who doesn't have at least the tiniest
inkling, somewhere in his consciousness, that going up to a female uninvited
and groping her body can at least produce a response from the Police.
Conscience he might have none; but he will know that he is breaking the
law, and therefore he can be pursued.
I think we can safely assume that the accused knows there is more than
a man-made law against this behavior.
Precisely. No-one has come forward with evidence that he is void of conscience
in such matters.
Therefore, at the very least, we deduce that he would attempt to avoid
detection.
There is no other alternative to that conclusion.
Unless he has grown weary of the world, and wishes to retire from society
at Her Majesties' expense for a while?
Then, why is he going to this trouble to defend himself?
True. Where is this leading us in relation to the colour of his swimming
togs, Holmes?
Well, Mr. Pretorius is a chemical engineer with five languages. Mr. Saayman,
his host on that day, is somewhere in the same league. Assume they conspire
to cheat justice. They are not without intelligence and understanding
of police procedure.
They dispose of the swimmers and any other identifiable items he was wearing, and substitute them for something quite different.
Not merely that, Watson. Remember, we are assuming they are crooked people,
void of conscience, they are conspirators, they don't stop at perjury.
They will prepare themselves well with any false statements they can muster
to prove the supposed colour of the togs. They will push this forward
as an item of the defense. It will feature in the first trial. What did
they say about togs in the first trial?
I think his legal counsel forgot to tender them as evidence. It was well
after the first trial when I finally convinced him that he must get sworn
statements regarding his togs and wedding ring.
So you are telling me that he took no interest in trying to prove or
disprove what he was wearing?
Not only that: he stubbornly resisted my requests that he do so.
So, let us eliminate the impossible in the matter of togs. It is impossible
that he, in conference with Mr. Saayman, didn't understand that the togs
have significance as evidence. It is a fact that they made no attempt
to tamper with that evidence for something of the order of 12 months.
Mr Saayman hadn't been asked to make a sworn statement about them during
all that time. Therefore the togs confirm his innocence, irrespective
of colour. I see that Lestrade has now got a job working for Qld Justice,
and he may be knocking on our door bye-and-bye. He always did have a habit
of nabbing people on the basis of first appearances.
He'll have to wade through that pile of Pterodactyl eggs to get
inside the door. Holmes, where are we now? We have eliminated Mr. Pretorius's
guilt as to serious intentional misdemeanor in the water, but it's still
not clear, is it? How did it all happen? The accused didn't do it. Who
did?
Slow down, my friend and companion, slow down. Or we will be out in the
dark with Lestrade. The journalist - by the account, a cool, sober person
- carefully described a person somewhat dissimilar to Mr. Pretorius. She
only came to believe her attacker was Mr. Pretorius because of seemingly
compelling subsequent events. The mother and daughter were adamant
they were both attacked by Mr. Pretorius. They did, after the progression
of time, get many of his features correct, which would scarcely be surprising,
since they accosted him on the beach after he left the water. Separate
the two sets of witnesses. Progress by logic. The journalist, upon learning
of the complaint by the mother and daughter, then decided to go to the
lifesaver with her own story. Believing her attacker was the same as their
attacker, she then, understandably, hitched herself to their train.
But, Holmes, confound it, we have conclusively proved that the vigorous
groping which the daughter graphically described was not the work of Mr
Pretorius!
Yes, Watson. Yet the mother and daughter insist precisely the opposite.
I admit to being befogged in the matter.
Watson. In a time not far distant from the time in which Sir Arthur created
us, technicians discovered that when an observer travels from point A
to point B, his measurement of the speed of light as he travels is always
the same, irrespective of his speed and direction. I know this, because
I am, after all, Sherlock Holmes, and I have in great measure the light.
Light photons being objects; how can an object always be measured travelling
at the same speed irrespective of the speed of the observer?
I shall attempt to apply your methods, Holmes, in the hope that I shall
catch some light. Speed equals distance travelled divided by time. Distance
between A and B is fixed. If I alter the speed at which I travel from
A to B yet my speed nevertheless measures the same relative to a light
particle, the only solution is - since the distance is not variable -
time is variable.
Correct, Watson. I see my efforts at directing your reasoning along certain
paths have not been without some budding fruit. A'l bet Einstein thought
of that. Now to return to the problem in hand. What is the problem we
are trying to solve? Mr.Pretorius did not assault the mother and daughter.
The mother and daughter fanatically assert he did. The mother and daughter
certainly are not blind and incompetent. Therefore?
Holmes. Be careful what you suggest. Two witnesses, speaking the same
thing. Their testimony agrees so closely. In places it is almost word
for word. Lestrade is certain it was him. Holmes, it's getting me in the
stomach. How can it be?
My friend. Any detective worth a pennyfarthing would have uncovered this
pair in a few days. You just now showed us how.
Holmes, I am at a loss. Let me catch my breath. Kindly elucidate.
I will use an example well known to most of us - but I doubt it's well
known to the mother and daughter. When God sent his own Son to this earth
and four men wrote eyewitness accounts of it, how much of those accounts
were copied one from the other?
Holmes, the Gospels, as we all know, contain many points of superficial contradiction, and none of what we might call, parroting. And they are the most read eyewitness accounts in the world today.
The standard reference for eyewitness accounting, you might say. Every
detective's guidebook. And I also recall something in the Old Testament
- Proverbs, I think it is, about people who dig pits.
But, Holmes! You forget. Why were they so angry, when Mr. Pretorius encountered
them? Why did the daughter say she kicked him to push herself away, with
a trooper's words to match the action? Why did they go to the lifesaver
and complain? Why did they follow him to his friend's car? Why did they
stand and watch him so intently as he was surfing? Why did they involve
the other complainant? Why? Why? Why?
Yes: why did they, Watson; why did they? And they did it without shame,
modesty, or reticence, and with magical eyes that figuratively could spot
a hermit crab catching a shrimp at 80 paces. There's an adjective to describe
it: brazen. All those questions can be readily answered. I will give you
one of many that cannot be answered. Note this, Watson: every criminal
gives himself away sooner or later. This pair don't even score compared
with Irene Adler, a real actress with real talent. Why would a young woman
not habituated to wearing spectacles, who has been rated within the top
100 of Australia's sexiest women, with experience in TV presenting, and
no sign of "missing a trick" in court or out of court, not be
able to distinguish between a man with a full beard and one with none?
And why would her mother suffer from exactly the same failure of vision?
Remember, this is the couple who fanatically claim superior vision, so
as to be able to definitively state it was Mr. Pretorius who so callously
molested so many girls, plus themselves, in wild surf
Why, Holmes?
Because the script, depending on how things developed as they went along,
sounded good with the guilty beast jumping into his car and speeding off.
Mr. Saayman was an embarrassing complication. When co-ordinating their
stories for public consumption, their original idea of encouraging their
quarry to flee, whether on foot or as the driver of some sort of vehicle,
remained in their minds. As the script developed, they committed themselves
to Mr. Pretorius being the driver. Aspects of this suddenly conceived
project were new ground for them, and they were merely drawing a bow at
a venture, to see what might transpire, and improvising as things unfolded.
They had ample time subsequently to influence and amend the story, without
Police interference, so they managed to smooth over the getaway driver
contradiction. They are media experts!
You speak as though these people are actors.
The daughter is listed on the Internet as an actor. From the mother's
little story about a hand down her bathers - if she had enough bathers
to accommodate a hand - she inherits it from her mother. Their testimonies
in court prove they rehearse together. But if that is not sufficient to
convince us that they are actors, their own accounts of their ordeals
at the hands their attacker clinches everything. They simply recount bedroom
scenes, with water added to throw any suspicious listeners off the scent.
In water or out of water, serious sexual assault implies violent securing
of the victim. It cannot happen but through use of overwhelming force.
That is why we are entitled to believe the journalist. If the accounts
handed in by this pair are to be believed, they were either suffering
paralysis or a man figuratively was holding a loaded gun at their heads.
Their acting is tolerable; but they need a script writer. Comic soap drags
after a short time.
But surely this is absurd! I don't believe it!
Remember what I said. Eliminate the impossible. That which remains, no
matter how difficult to accept, is the answer. And, difficult though this
may be to accept, it doesn't rank with the difficulty of accepting the
legal system's blundering against the same wall again and again, capped
by a Supreme Court ruling from the era of trial by reading chicken gizzards.
But, Holmes. What were they trying to achieve?
Actors sometimes act for the fun of it, and sometimes in response to
a dare. A bunch of pranksters acted their way into being given a day inspecting
a British warship. They were masquerading as the Emperor and Empress of
Abyssinia, with entourage. As another option, we could consider the possibility
that they simply conceived a diabolical hatred towards him, and that was
that. But the most likely motive would be money, which, whether they made
some in the end, or not, would be "worth a try." That aspect
could be worth investigation. You have an imagination, Watson. There may
be a variety of motives.
What then becomes of the man who troubled the journalist?
This brings to mind one of those possible motives. The daughter calls
herself a "music manager", which, according to the description
of her business on the Internet, includes training and managing young
women who can pose, dance, and sing. Entertainment, Watson: and it's hair-prickling
stuff with a power running through it....She-Devil Music..... Speak
of the Devil.... Watson, this ex-tv presenter - come - manager of
a "local media company", lives and breathes in a differnet world
to you and me.She is a powerful person with a weird ability to control
others. The Internet is right in front of us. Now, consider: she just
might have a male acquaintance who was taking advantage of the conditions
at Alexandra Headlands to indulge a need to dominate and debauch. Birds
of a feather. As Ben Johnson wrote in The Alchemist: it is 'absurd
to think that Nature in the earth bred gold, perfect i' the instant -
something went before'. Women generally don't behave as do these two,
without some negative male input somewhere. Say, for sake of argument,
a violent, abusive male, or perhaps an intoxicated male, deliberately
targets the journalist. The journalist eventually leaves the water in
fear and disgust, sees that her boy is o.k., and sits on the beach to
think. Her tormentor sees this, and has a stab of fear that she might
give in a description. So he nips over to mum and daughter, and by threats
or entreaty sees to it that they pitch in to make sure that his description
isn't the one that gets reported. Mum and daughter are not wanting in
ideas. They are not strangers to the surf lifesaver. Song and dance swings
into action, and it comes natural. It's merely a variation on some of
the nightclub - type stuff with which the daughter is familiar. And we
can envisage variants to that. Here is another thought. What are the possibilities
of a joint effort between male person(s) and the women to gain media attention
and perhaps money thrown into the bargain? These people have i.q. and
talent. The permutations and combinations keep on keeping on.
Maybe it's just pure devilry?
I don't know whether Dr. Moriarty had a child hidden somewhere or no.
Some scion of that monster may have sprung up here in Australia. The Moriarty
who fell screaming into the boiling maelstrom of the Reichenbach Falls
never leaves us and I almost sense his sinister vibrations on the web
of vice and intrigue right now. His eternal aim is to termite society
in general and Justice in particular.
Speaking of devilry, what's that noise that's been wafting in here from
out on Baker Street this past half hour?
From the pattern of ball impact on pavements and walls, I'd say it's
Australian Rules. The street urchins discovered our Pterodactyl eggs.
But, hark. It's suddenly gone quiet. Take a look, if you don't mind.
It's Lestrade. He's speaking to the lads about order on the streets.
He's saying they should be at school. To which school would you send these
urchins?
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Yours Faithfully,
Philip Heywood.
--------------------------------------
Response recieved from QLD Attorney General's office 4/06/2009:
Parker & Hart The Australian Newspaper 1969
Sent 8/06/2009 to Crime and Misconduct Commission:
CMC COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT: REQUEST INVESTIGATION QLD ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND/OR HIS STAFF Failure to report a crime. Conspiracy to conceal evidence
of malpractice within the QDPP.
From Philip B. Heywood. RE. J.P.PRETORIUS CASE.
Enclosed herewith in this registered post package is a duplicate of printed materials mailed to the QLD. A/G's office within the past six weeks. I advised the CMC by e-mail that I was mailing relevant materials to the A/G (and Premier). As you will know, a copy of some of those materials was simultaneously electronically mailed to the CMC. Everything he received electronically, you also received. However, I did not send the A/G's surface mail by registered post. The only way to prove he received the duplicate of the enclosed would be by retrieval from his office. Also please note that my hand-written side-scripts are not identical to those on his copy. I did in fact go to greater lengths to highlight pertinent facts in his copy. This printed evidence of court records and media reports shows without the slightest shadow of doubt that further investigation by the Justice Department was called for. It also contained undeniable evidence of a crime - conspiracy to pervert Justice. As sender, I implicitly trusted that Department to act according to Law. To my knowledge, they notified no-one of evidence of conspiracy, and proceeded with the standard ignore-the-whistleblower procedure.
Enclosed find a copy of the e-mailed response to me of his office, 4th this month. I find in it no notification that evidence of a crime has been reported to relevant authority. I find deliberate denial of the facts with which his office was supplied. You have those facts before you. Remember, these are but "the tip of the iceberg". We have proof of conspiracy and incompetence, compounded by failure on the part of the DPP to amend its mistakes - and of this Government's seeming paralysis when it comes to acting on behalf of a wronged individual and on behalf of its legal team. I will not detain you with a short list of precedents and politically "correct" interventions in Qld Law - not to mention gross injustices. I say that if I was a law practitioner I would be very uneasy about being part of so cloistered a system. By definition of their procedures, they were ripe for the picking in this sort of scenario. But that is outside your brief: This is a bona fide complaint. You are obliged to act. Conspiracy to cover over a provable injustice is a serious matter. Failure to act to uphold justice when accurately notified of a breach therein is at the very best, incompetence. Kindly notify me of receipt of this package. daypl@telstra.com
Philip Heywood.
--------------------------------------
Emailed 4/06/2009 to the Premier of Queensland
Dear Ms Bligh,
For your own sake I suggest you intervene in this Sunshine Coast business
ere it blow up in your face. I have just now had my first response from
the new A.G.. Someone from his department must have typed out the standard
fob-off. You know them by heart. The A.G.'s Officers' fob-off is an outright
denial of the facts of history and of the facts of the real world. Let's
cease the comedy. Do you realize how defenseless your administration is
here? Every moment you hesitate the thing rubs in deeper. Are you going
to destroy the credibility of the Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions
by making it necessary for people such as myself to publicly state the
pathetic, laughable facts so that justice can be done? Do you fully understand
what has happened here? Your justice system was hit by the ultimate nightmare:
a confluence of circumstances that wouldn't happen normally in fifty years.
An absentee detective; a foreigner with language difficulties; and a confluence
of conspiracies of some sort. The evidence of it is undeniable. You must
act decisively to stop it snowballing. Your law enforcement people deserve
better than this.
How is Qld Justice going to look when I publish this here, there, and
everywhere? Which law firms in Qld do you expect will line up to sue me
for defamation of the con-women involved here? I again urge you to intervene
on behalf of a lot of hurting people.
Let me state one obvious fact. The A.G.'s Officer's statement that the
legal system is independent is true in an analogous sense to the Qld.
Gov't being independent of the Queen. So why do we have a monarch/president?
As a safety measure. By definition, what we have witnessed with this Sunshine
Coast affair will happen occasionally in the best systems. By definition,
unless the Parliament will exercise its legal rights and act (if the system
fails entirely to correct itself) - injustice will happen and the system
will by definition have failed. People out there aren't so thick that
they believe in the infallibility of justice systems.
Here is another message to the Queensland government shortly after the above:
Further to recent messages from me re. J.P.Pretorius/ sex crime questions:
You will understand that the Police, the D.P.P., and the Qld. Gov't are
coming off a low base here. I am therefore being repetitious and I am
informing a variety of people and organizations.
The detective who was a.w.o.l. back at the beginning was scarcely a problem
to be addressed by his colleagues. That's a management concern. Organizations
under unfair dismissal laws must cope somehow. At least he was shifted
elsewhere(?). This author is 100% for Police, as a generality.
The Maroochydore based D.P.P. was the opposite - when its personnel would
have been well advised to go a.w.o.l., they got fired up. They got so
fired up, one of two - not all of them locals at Maroochydore - found
it desirable to alter the laws of physics, with witnesses. The details
are on the record and unlike one or two prosecution people, that record
doesn't distort and deny the facts. (Although, would you believe it, there
is in fact a question mark hanging over some details of the recording
accuracy of the first D.C. trial?!)
But to be fair to the D.P.P. - they had the media breathing down their
necks. In this utopia for malcontents and madmen - our totally "equal"
Qld legal set-up - they had a media-savvy "she-devil music manager"
cracking the whip. Bring her home for lunch, to meet your family. Chique,
attractive, talented woman - the woman for your boys. Incidentally, she
knows her rights under Qld law. Just keep the conversation away from childhood
erections. And be careful what you do at the table. She notes that some
things are hot.
The legal profession is something of a secret society and it likes to
stay that way- but you can't force your clients not to overhear things.
We may be at least 75% assured that the Maroochydore D.P.P. was so stung
that they temporarily panicked and had two sections working on the same
problem. This problem was to get Mr. Pretorius nailed, and there would
be all Hell (in a figure) to pay if they didn't. When did this near-panic
set in? Take it at 75% that it had its origins on the Sunday, repeat,
Sunday, immediately after the hung jury trial.
Small wonder that, come the third trial, the D.P.P. and its ring-in trouble-shooter
man were ready. They may have been even more ready after a closed conference
with the judge. The smile on the troubleshooter's face when he came out
of conference bespoke confidence. They were yet more ready when the judge
moved the hearing to a room where the witness stand was elevated relative
to the jury. What was a major coup the D.P.P. was to pull off in this
new room with the elevated stand? He would prove conclusively to the jury
that he, a representative of the Qld Gov't, was an expert of such technical
prowess that he could order them to believe that that man on that stand
couldn't possibly fit in the back seat of a Toyota Camry. He outright
denied the tenets of police investigation and common knowledge. I won't
disgust the reader with any more of the State-backed prosecution inanities.
When you have no evidence except fear of complaint against you, you find
evidence out of thin air.
The charming music manager was charmed and mollified.
Police, please note: If you are familiar with classic confidence-men
combination sex criminals from history, they can be totally disarming
and loveable. They can be surprisingly conversant with police methods.
They can deceive the best of us. I am a total amateur. I am yet trying
to discern the full motive - if it exists. I think we may assume that
this woman is not a female Ted Bundy, but there are similarities. Ted
Bundy, the American boy to bring home to lunch, was driven to rape and
kill young women. Perhaps over a hundred. He didn't score that high by
being stupid, and he deceived to perfection. This female seems driven
to ruin and debauch - males, presumably - not necessarily to kill. The
court records, her media-recorded activities about court, and her Internet
publications, prove it. You don't see your victim collapse in court, and
then rejoice in his guilty verdict, if you are a mere hoaxer. This women
and her mother were driven - by what?
Money? Publicity? The natural enmity between Satanism and decency? The
war to the death between crime and law? Madness? Fear? After the first
trial, the mother was observed thanking the lifesaver for what he had
done. Was she relieved that success at trial had gotten them off the hook
somehow? Mr. Pretorius senses that they were motivated by rage, rage,
rage, not necessarily fear. If they were totally driven by rage, there
is the motive - inspired rage. Personally, I tend to that option.
If there was fear, what was the cause of the fear? It strikes me there are three candidates as motives for fear in their case. 1). They began on a course of action at the beach when they were half out of their minds, possibly triggered by a male known to them roughing them up(?), woke up to find the police involved, and found themselves in a situation from which it would be damaging to them personally to withdraw. A confluence of all but unbelievable contributing factors enabled them somehow to pull it off. They brazened it through. 2). A male person/persons with power over them ordered/coaxed them to do it. Remember, he would have no idea whatsoever that it would go any further than the lifesaver --- "Ah, sorry, Sir, may have been mistaken in our identification of the brute. No, we aren't sure of him, we won't ask you to call the police." A diversion, in case the journalist actually decides to report a description of her attacker. The women miss their opportunity to bail out. The diversion turns into a major headache for Qld. Justice. 3). They themselves or male accomplice(s) have something hidden in the closet relating to sexual misconduct, and they were panicked at the thought of him being questioned by police on that matter.
I regard it as one-in-a- million that this pair are in any deeper than they look to be.
Regards, P.H..
--------------------------------------
19 June 2009 Response from the CMC. Please note these words are entirely those of the CMC.
Mr Phillip Heywood
<daypl@telstra.com>
Dear Mr Heywood
RE: YOUR CONCERNS
I refer to your most recent correspondences with the CMC during which you raised concerns about conduct of a number of people involved in the conviction of Mr J Pretorius and the events preceding it.
We have carefully considered the information you gave us in your emails and understand your concerns are in relation to the actions of the following parties:
a) the journalists who initially reported on the incident;
b) the police officers involved in the investigation and subsequent arrest of Mr Pretorius;
c) the solicitors and barristers representing Mr Pretorius; and
d) the judge/s who presided over the matter.
Further, we understand you make the following allegations.
(1) The Department of Public Prosecutions perjured themselves during the trial/s of Mr Pretorius.
(2) There was collusion between the Queensland Police Service, the Department of Public Prosecutions, one of the presiding judges and a one of the barristers acting for Mr Pretorius to convict the defendant.
Though I may have used different words to describe your concerns or not referred to every issue that you raised, please be assured that we have considered all the information you gave us.
Under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, the CMC's role is to ensure that complaints involving suspected 'official misconduct' in Queensland's public sector agencies are dealt with effectively and appropriately.
Attached, for your information, are relevant excerpts from the Act that define the term 'official misconduct' and outline the role of the CMC.
In making a decision about the way to deal with a complaint, the CMC must consider the circumstances of the case and the 'misconduct principles' set out in section 34 of the Act. The Act also recognises that in certain circumstances the CMC can decide not to take any action in relation to a complaint.
The CMC considers it is appropriate not to take any further action in relation to your concerns number (1) and (2) above because, having regard to the information available to the CMC, there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal offence or a breach of discipline that would warrant dismissal of any officer of the Department.
As you have been previously advised because the journalists and the solicitors you are referring to are not employed by a unit of public administration as defined by the Act, the CMC is unable to assist you.
Information in relation to making a complaint about the actions of a journalist can be found at the Australian Press Club's website.
Complaints in relation to the actions of solicitors should be addressed to the Legal Services Commission, PO Box 10310, Brisbane Adelaide Street Qld 4000.
FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE CMC:
I note that you have regularly contacted the CMC since 7 November 2007 in relation to the investigation and trials involving Mr Pretorius.
You may recall that we have advised you on a number of occasions in the past about why the CMC is unable to assist you. Nothing that you have raised in your recent correspondence causes us to alter our view. While we acknowledge that this matter remains of concern to you, we are simply not in a position to take any further action.
Having regard to the lengthy history of previous communications between you and the CMC, the nature of your concerns, the advice we have already given you in relation to those concerns, and the fact that no new information has been provided by you, I formally advise that the CMC does not propose to correspond with you further, nor to engage in any further conversations with you by telephone or in person about this matter.
Of course, should you at some time in the future have any other concerns that you believe are a matter for the CMC you may always contact us again.
Yours sincerely
DIANNE MCFARLANE
Acting Assistant Director
Complaints Services
--------------------------------------
Text of an email sent to parliamentarians etc following receipt of CMC's response.
Below is my final to the CMC - it was possibly outside their scope from the beginning. The System is, after all, the Thing. As an outsider and an amateur I take the liberty of advising the reader that my short foray into Qld Law has revealed an almost all-pervasive culture of subconscious mistrust stemming it seems from people somewhere along the line getting onto the slippery slope of not telling quite the whole truth. In other words, our Law System is a potential training ground for legalized perjury. I doubt that any of the practitioners originally were anything but honest, straight people. Something about this System is corrupting too many of its members. There is an almost pervasive disquiet. These people really don't wish to be associated with something that isn't morally correct. As an amateur I refrain from commenting on the structure of the System itself, but I do take the liberty of suggesting that as an immediate remedial step an absolutely above-reproach non-political person from the ranks of elected parliamentarians be appointed to do a bit of checking. Exposing the odd case of lying here and there and naming and shaming the liars could bring about a sudden transformation. Everyone except the crooks these people have to represent will be relieved. The jury system might be able to be employed in a new way - give public details of the suspected deceit/fabrication, and let the Public vote on whether or not it's reprehensible. ---- Just a thought.
Should the High Court go the way of the Supreme Court in this Pretorius business and dally in dream world, the next step will be to publish this remarkable saga on the 'Net. The scope is wide. We could even have a section for pinning the tail on the biggest ass. I don't think the lovely ladies involved will top score. The QLD. DPP and Qld Justice might go somewhere near? So the next communication from me could be notification of a new sort of entertainment on the 'net, to assist in passing these longer nights. You have a completely innocent man on your books.
My written submission to the CMC contained undeniable evidence of, a): Conviction of a man against whom no allowable evidence exists; b); Utilization by the DPP of evidence that is by definition false; c) Allowing of this evidence by the District Court Judges: and d) Cover-up by the DPP. All this is obvious to a anyone who cares to glance at it. Their response was meaningless bureaucracyspeak. What follows is my final submission to them on this matter - of which they have already intimated they wish to hear no more.
CMC. Just a final note for the benefit of yourself personally and the
CMC. I brought this to your attention not necessarily because it is in
your jurisdiction but because the Justice System is under attack from
confidence crooks and amongst other things it is my purpose to assist
the Justice System. I would say you covered yourself pretty well and you
found the relevant parts of the Act etc. I specifically invited the CMC
to monitor this business because it was at the back of my mind that you
might have the opportunity to do what you can to act as circuit breaker.
I don't know whether or not you were given the opportunity to pass relevant
information to the Prosecution People. But that is why I specifically
lodged a complaint against the DPP. If you were given the opportunity
to talk to someone about a complaint, it entered my mind that you might
be able to explain to them the basis of the complaint. I'm not against
these people, I am for them.
If you had the opportunity to bring to their attention the relevant facts that would enable them to quietly bring the matter to a close, and you took it -- well done. If you wish to claim that no new evidence and no evidence of Prosecution shady practice was provided by me, you are of course speaking technically, not morally. You are being governed by lines arbitrarily drawn in sand. You are following the letter of the Law, but make certain you do not step outside the spirit of the Law.
If the matter doesn't come to a just and equable solution, the proper procedure on my part will be to put up full photographs of people such as the Attorney General, Police Minister, Chief Public Prosecutor, and so on, beside the "See my undies" girl's internet filth, along with her classification as an actor and the story of her acting - written in indelible ink through three District Court trials. I will bring to the attention of the Public the undeniable facts of a case in which no admissible evidence exists against the accused. I will explain how it happened - just as it was explained to the CMC. No-one will enyoy it.
Your reply, which I have in hand, may or may not be part of the story
of how Qld Justice became a tool and helpless plaything of switched on
performers.
P.H.
--------------------------------------
Emailed 24/07/2009 to Parliamentarians, a wide cross-section of Lawyers etc. Copies were individually surfaced mailed to Prime Minister, Premier and other high officials.
Dear Sir/Madam,
You will understand that this business has broken homes
and driven people to mental sickness. This message was first sent to the
Queensland government: I am now sending it to a wide variety of recipients.
On Saturday last I looked for a suitable environment on
the 'net to begin to publish the Pretorius Affair. I am not going to detain
you with ideology or unnecessary detail. I believe the Premier is/was
a teacher. I suspect she isn't a complete fool. And I know she recognizes
my position as an ex-public servant with the ideals of an unbiased public
servant. I am not about to waste anyone's time.
SEARCH. "Bill D'arcy victim of trial by media Qld".
CONTACT. 1) The Dally m who courageously runs that site. His e-mail is listed. I have a 'phone no. which may also raise him - (03)96461649. He may give you relevant follow-up but I list essentials herewith for convenience. 2) This is essential - this man is to be listened to and he sets it all in context. He has a bipolar daughter who became the victim of the same thing that we are witnessing with these bizarre foul-ups. (I happen to have a son - now deceased by his own hand - whose mental problems show me exactly what this gentleman is saying.) He is Mike Cox, (07)54841348. 3) Go on to Dr. Travis Gee, U.Q., (07)34704416.
We are looking at a medical/psychological phenomenon known in everyday terms as a witch hunt. Peds under the bed syndrome. I misspelled the P, eh, komrad. The Justice System, towing along an infantile media, has become a tool in that witch hunt. The media itself became the head of the hunt.
When it comes to D'arcy - no friend of mine and definitely no political ally of mine, a man outside the ambit of my thinking until last Saturday - look at his photograph. There, as in the case of Pretorius, is proof absolute - right through to the High Court. He is a pedaeophile. Looks, mannerisms, personal auras, and speech mannerisms. You are looking at the evidence - the only evidence - his personal image. Oh - I forgot. The names. D'arcy. Pretorius. Sinister. Chilling. Damning.
I was once in a room with a sizeable group of mentally fit young adult males and females, involved in role playing. A man burst in the door and in totally authentic tones announced that one person was to go outside to be executed. This was reds under the bed era. I laughed, I raged, I rolled on the floor, I went out hunting for reds. I went off to bed, having witnessed unreality become reality. Every one of those people bar myself believed it. I suspect that some of the females might have needed sedatives to get to sleep. One male person confidentially informed me that he had a hole in his heart and was lucky to still be alive. The females especially believed it. One or two may believe it yet!
This girl whom D'arcy raped 35 yrs past whilst she was placidly sitting on his knee in front of a class is the victim of police malpractice, psychiatric unprofessionalism, and her own mental state. I doubt that we would need to dig deep to uncover criminality in that deluded mental state. My deceased son exhibited the odd bit of criminality. Our Supreme Court approved a conviction plus a hefty jail term based on a blathering absurdity arising from an outright impossibility. The string of other proposed pedaeophile offenses does not stand investigation. One offense is proposed to have happened at a school at which the offender was not a teacher at the time! This latter statement may seem incomprehensible and I wouldn't include it were it not that we have all witnessed the incomprehensible lies of the Pretorius Prosecution.
You understand the implications. It is now Pretorius + D'arcy + ........ ask Mike Cox.
Philip Heywood.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Elsewhere in this investigation we touched on the Archer-Shee v. Admiralty Misidentification. That classic case owes its existence to a trusted and very trusting Postal Department officer who, in her mind, saw what her assumptions (as distinct from her eyes) caused her to see. People in official positions of public trust deserve to be believed in preference to those in lesser positions. In a law court this applies so long as it remains certain that the officer concerned is not seeing things in his mind that could not have been seen with his eyes or heard with his ears. The following extracts, from the second trial, are provided to help the reader evaluate the testimony of the trusted and very trusting deputy school principal/lifesaving volunteer. This man took no notes, relied on his memory, changed his wording, and invariably agreed with and corroborrated the McGraths' evidence. By definition of the physical conditions of the day, he was not an eyewitness to any attack in the water. He was a busy man, in charge of perhaps the busiest Queensland beach of the year, and whilst pursuing his duties he was thrown something out of left field that almost never happens. Nothing that he says in the entire proceedings has any significance, more or less, than that said by the McGraths. He believed them inplicitly from the outset and gave evidence accordingly. Although this goes deeper than the absent-minded assertions of a short-sighted postmistress, it does have parrallels with Archer-Shee.
MarkAlistair Thornton, Sworn and Examined:
Is your name ..................?. 'Yes' Are you a teacher by occupation? 'Yes' You are also a patrol captain at Alexandra Headlands Surf Lifesaving Club? 'Yes'. .......... In the afternoon.. around 4pm ....how would you describe the conditions....? 'Moderate - waves 1/2m to a metre, .......fairly even spilling waves... quite pleasant conditions, not unsafe much at all. Around 4'oclock, how many people were in the surf around that time 'Probably about 80-100'.............When did someone first come up to you and talk to you about this matter? 'I was standing towards the south flag close to the water's edge, and two ladies approached me, a younger one, and an older one and claimed that they had been indecently assaulted in the water..... The younger one said that he'd approached her twice.......He put his hands down around her legs.....No, sorry.....specifically, she said, her legs and mentioned the inner thigh, I just remeber that paticular phrase. 'And the older one?' She was also equally disgusted, if you like, and said, he ran his hands down her back and slipped his hand inside her togs. 'Did you gather that the two women had a family relationship?' Later on.......I found that they were mother and daughter.' Was anything said about the paticular man who had done this? 'They started describing....and the next thing I obviously said was, well, let's point him out to me-- and we started moving to where we could get a better view....' And how did that go, the pointing out excercise? 'Well, there were quite a few people in the water, .......but when you look out beyound them to where the waves are breaking, there's less people....and picking out a single male wasn't too difficult. We didn't take long to say, Yes, that one there! - and agree on which person we were talking about.' When you say, We? 'That was the two ladies and myself; however, as we were pointing and talking about this, a third lady who was standing a few meters away, said, Are you talking about that guy out there in the surf, and we said, Yes. And she said, Well he's just groped me while I was out there in the surf--as well.' I see. 'And so, she joined us in comfirming the identity of the person.' Ok, now, are you able to say ....that you already had the person pointed out to you by that stage or......? 'I think we were going through the process of them saying, Yes, That one there, and describing and pointing.' Did the third women join in that exercise or not? 'She was already standing there--as far as I could tell, she was standing on the shore also looking at--out to sea at the person, and.....quickly agreed that it was the same person who had bothered her.' Can you describe that person from what you saw in the surf at that time? 'Yep. I'd say, middle-aged, over 6 foot, sort of sandy'ish coloured hair, wearing a pair of dark coloured togs....' Now, Mr Thornton - the ladies had pointed him out and did you make some observations yourself before you called the police? 'Before I contacted the police, I watched the behaviour of the person indicated to me in the water.' And what was your observation, your direct observation, without putting assumptions on it? 'I watched him move across and line himself up with a couple of female bathers and catch a wave in such a way that he collided with them and I could see by their reaction that there had been some contact ........' ........' On several more occasions I observed him doing the same thing; moving sideways across until he was in line with some female bathers and then catching a wave in such a way that he collided with them' ........ Now, did you have a conversation with this man? 'I did'. Are you able to recall .... the actual words? 'Pretty close' Well, when you're giving us the exact words, can you please say so and at other times, can you just tell us whether that was the gist or words to the effect? 'I'll try.' .........................'I said, It is clear to me that you are deliberately running into other surfers and I have complaints from several women that you have been touching them indecently. To which he replied, It was accidental' I replied, .....several times, more times, must be clearly deliberate and I won't believe it was accidental -words to that effect. To which he replied, I'm sorry. Look, I won't do it again. I'm visiting here. I'm from South Africa and I'm going home or going back in the morning - words to that effect. ...... And I said, Well, it doesn't matter where you go, you still can't do this. ..... He maintained -- he said he was sorry, it was accidental. ......... He mentioned that he was visiting; that he was returning to South Africa the next day'....................What was he wearing? 'Wearing? He was wearing a dark coloured pair of togs with this quite distinctive yellow piping and a little flash across the back as well.' ............ ' He picked up his belongings and rejoined the fellow that he'd been with before and they walked up one of the access tracks towards the car park............. The ladies who had been complaining to me about the behaviour were standing several meters away obviously observing discreetly. They followed the gentleman, both gentlemen, along the path to the car park' And those ladies subsequently came back? 'They did .... The police arrived a few minutes later and I made a statement and so did they.'
This is a summary of the Prosecution Lawyer's questioning of their pivotal witness. The Defence lawyer then questioned the same crown witness (summary only, not in strict chronologic order).
You'd made it plain to him that you'd received some complaints from women about him touching them inappropriately? 'Correct' Did he seem taken aback by that? 'Not in the slightest. .......he ... claimed it was accidental ....... I said I'd been watching his behaviour, and I believed he was deliberately swimming into people, and I had several complaints from these women about indecent touching' ......Did he say to you, something along the lines of, Well, if you show me who they are, I'll apologize to them? 'No, he never made any.......' I'm suggesting to you that ....... he said something along those lines to you: Well, if you point them out to me, I'll apologize! 'No, I don't believe he ever said anything along those lines.' Could it be that he said that, but because of the length of time between you having the conversation with him, and putting finger to keyboard about, it's something that you've forgotten?' I do not believe he ever said that. .... I would have remembered that statement ..... I don't believe he made any statement about apologizing.'Well, did he mention Rockhampton at any stage? 'No' Yeppoon? 'No. If I had... I would have remembered that for certain because after the discussions .... I said, Oh, he's here from South Africa and he's flying back tomorrow. .' All right. Well, he didn't specifically say where home was, though, did he? 'No..... I don't know which phrase he used .... In my statement I said South Africa, and that was in March, but again I'm not certain of the word he used on the - at the time.' What I'm suggesting to you is that what he said to you was that if he had accidentally touched anyone, then he was sorry! 'I'm not sure if the word sorry came out. I can't be certain. He said, It was accidental. I promise I won't do it again. Please let me go.' I'm suggesting to you he didn't say , I promise I won't do it again. 'I remember being stunned by him saying that. It was very clear in my recollection .... I REFUSED TO BELIEVE IT COULD BE ACCIDENTAL.'
COMMENT: Emphas is added. This man's story is drawn from memories, not notes. At the beach, he was trying to converse with someone whom he had difficulty understanding, and he was under pressure. His confusion about South Africa is straightforward and irrelevant. His selective retrieval of a confession, three months later, from a conversation that he obviously did not accurately recall, can only be excused on the basis of the phrase in large print. Like the postmistress -- the possibility that he had been deceived did not enter the ambit of his thinking. His otherwise inexplicable behaviour can be seen as innocent in that light. He isn't the first to have suffered from such misconceptions. Mr. Pretorius took notes on the day of this incident and his ability as an eyewitness is exceptional. His account of their conversation fits perfectly - he said he was sorry the trouble had arisen, he offered to apologize to the women if introduced to them, he wished to explain that it must have been an accident, he was from South Africa and was flying home tomorrow. It didn't take us long to solve that little conundrum, did it? After spending $millions, the Qld Deprtment of Public Prosecutions still hasn't discovered what he said. More follows: it may be helpful to re-visit the very beginning of this man's testimony, immediately after he was sworn.
There is a patrol log of every shift that's performed by lifesavers - correct? You are responsible for signing off on these logs when you are the patrol captain? 'Correct'. Now, can I suggest to you, as recorded at the sign-on, 2.30pm, there were 150 swimmers in the water? 'I don't remember exactly but if that's what it says .....' ........ Well, then you wrote down some entries for mid-patrol and you said there were 180 swimmers? 'Yes'. Forty people using surf craft? 'Yes'. And 700 on the beach? 'Yes'. And that would have been at about the time these women approached you and you were conducting your period of observation of people in the surf? 'Yes.' And here's a record that for the entire [4 hr] shift there were 35 preventative actions taken? 'Approximately'. But then, here is the separate section for rescues; correct? 'Correct'. Between 2 and 3, there are two rescues by rescue tube [flotation device with lifesaver in attendance]? 'Yes'. And three by rescue boat? 'Yes'. Between 3 and 4 you've recorded one with the rescue tube and 2 with the boat - correct? 'Correct'. And between 4 and 5 you've recorded 8 rescues with the rescue tube and 1 with the boat? 'Yes'. You didn't have access to to the patrol log when you gave your statement to the police, did you? 'No'. And you didn't have access to the patrol log when you gave evidence at the committal? 'No'. And when this matter came last before the District Court in the previous trial, you didn't have access to the patrol log then either, did you? 'I had looked at it ...... ' But you weren't asked any questions about it, were you? 'No'. When you made your statement to police 18th March 2006, you made no mention of ... rescues? 'Correct'. When you gave your evidence at the committal hearing, you were asked how many people were in the water. You said, It was sort of spread a bit, but there was about 100? 'Yes'. And then you were asked, And how many people were on the beach? And you said, Oh, probably 200 or so....... .
COMMENT: Again, we are not here to quibble over incidentals. But some of those rescues did call for minor medical follow-up. The waves were described as 'huge' by the journalist. Surf varies from time-to-time-and place-to-place, but what this witness effectively did was to deny the existence of the very conditions that render his observations from the beach meaningless. In this witness we have a trusted official of the Education System who abandons basic language and communication, doubling as a trusted official of surfing who abandons the facts of the surf conditions of the day. Further to this, there is the compelling matter of his observed (and completely innocent) failure to fulfill the role of impartial disattatchment from the other crown witnesses. The Defence lawyer tactfully touched on it with the following, which more-or-less puts the finger on the glaring collusion between the crown witnesses, evidenced by the trial records themselves..
You gave evidence yesterday that you saw the younger of the two - well, the people you know to be mother and daughter -.........the younger of that pair, to go into the water? 'With my son?' With your son, yes. Now, again, that wasn't something you put in your original statement, do you agree? 'I agree'. And, indeed, although you did make mention of a number of matters that were amplified perhaps in your statement at the committal hearing,-correct?- 'Yes'.- You didn't mention the younger of that pair going into the water at the committal either? 'No'. In fact, can I suggest to you, you did talk about your son though?--- 'Yes'. What you said at p. 43 line 35, you said, I continued to observe him in the water. I asked one of our patrol members to go out into the water and to maintain a position close to this person and observe him as well. And for the purposes also of making sure we didn't perhaps .... lose him. So it was another observer in the water? 'Correct'. You made though no mention of the fact that at the same time this lady went into the water as well? 'Correct'. Now ......I'm not implying anything critical of you .... What I want to ask you about is whether .... you met with those two witnesses when you came to Court last time --- you did? 'We did meet each other'. Were you -- were you sitting outside the Court together waiting for your turn to go in? 'We had been in the same room'. What about at the last trial, did you wait outside with them last time? 'There were times when we were in the same room, yes'. Now, did you, in the course of talking to these people you now know them to be Paula and Gaye [Pam]., is that right?....... Did either of them mention to you anything about Paula having gone back into the water and pointing the man out to your son? 'I don't believe so'. You don't think so. Can you tell us why it is you didn't mention her going back into the water, in your statement? 'Well, it wasn't relevant particularly........' All right. So when you gave evidence at the committal and you described your son whom you said was simply a patrol member, that was the significant event? 'Yes. It was an extra measure of identification......' .... If Paula McGrath had gone into the water and gone up in close proximity to the person and pointed at him, or indicated him, that would be something that you'd remember. Do you agree? 'Perhaps. I don't remember how far out she went. I simply don't have any recollection'
Violet coloured recollection aside: the second District Court Trial was run by a judge who at least had his eyes in his head, and his good sense and fairness seems to have rubbed off on some members of the jury. The second District Court Trial, which resulted in a hung jury, was the only event in the entire four-year farce that carried any semblance of reason or justice.
The judge at the first trial gives the impression of a horse who caught sight of some succulent weeds and cantered over to them, breaking the traces and leaving caution and Law far behind. The weeds had a violet hue. This enthusiastic steed frolick'd 'mongst the pansies and succulent thistles, taking good care with the Prosecution filly who, in time, when she gets a grasp of the facts of life and of Law, could show promise. The Defence filly was from the wrong side of the fence altogether. Whether this was occasioned by the steed's lively cavorting and throwing the Defence into disorder by abruptly changing the trial date, who but the horse himself can say? But his delight with these weeds was marred at the sentencing, where he received and read out a message from myself, which questioned whether he could tell the difference between an item of evidence and a ring-tailed 'possum. He did mention the possibility of referring my document to the local police. It would have been unnecessary. They, along with the Police Minister, already possessed a copy. I think we can assume the weeds were the type that generates horse colic.
So the first trial with it's overenthusiastic steed rushing to the salvation
of the trembling violets and fainting fiona's, we can understand. Chivalry
isn't dead yet, and long may it live. In like vein was the selective recollection
of the surf lifesaver. He could remember anything if it damned the villain,
and could recollect nothing if it did anything else. Horseplay and blind
chivalry, long may they live. But now we come to the third District Court
Trial. Here is where the horseplay ceases and the chivalry fades.
In the couple of weeks that is the time lapse between the typing of the
surf lifesaver/schoolmaster's testimony under cross-examination above,
and the text you are now reading, without even trying I stumbled across
yet another shameful miscarriage of Queensland Justice. It has to do with
disgraced former conservative politicians in this case, although it is
clear these errors are cross-political. So we now embark upon the pathway
to the moonlight kid, and discover how bright the moon shines over the
ex-sunshine State.
To do so, we need to comprehend the entrenched carrying on of tradition,
in institutions and elsewhere, and especially in institutions such as
Police and Law. The Moon Never Sets over Qld Law will be developed,
in time, back on the main Law page, but we can lead into it here by examining
the behaviour of the prosecution lawyer in the third trial. At this trial
he brought with him a trainee prosecution lawyer of some sort as an observer,
whom we may assume was to learn 'the ropes'. And so, as in military institutions
of long-standing tradition, the novices are placed amongst those with
experience, and characteristics both good and bad tend to carry on from
one generation to the next. Here in the third trial we see exhibited a
practice that has brought Western Law into disrepute, and will go on bringing
it into disrepute whilst ever it is entertained.
Those with a memory for the events in the Garden of Eden might recall
the Serpent/Seducer's phrase: "Yea, And hath God said...?" That
sentiment, re-phrased and re-addressed to every generation, is at the
source of every malaise and every misery that mankind personally or collectively
ever suffers. In place of "God", put a near-equivalent, such
as "the truth", or "the true witness". "Yea,
Hath the true witness said....?" "Yea, Hath truth said....?"
If the Seducer had rocked up to Eve and said, "God got it wrong",
he wouldn't have had a candle. If he had said, "I am suggesting to
you that you can take your eyes off the truth for one moment", he
would have got nowhere. Here is his angle. "Ahem, E., God is your
friend, and he cares for you. He is my friend, and I, like him, care for
you. We all have your best interests at heart. Let's get this all cosy
and we'll work things out even better for you. And (displaying his scintillating
colours and entrancing form to best advantage) -think of the excitement!"
Bye and bye, Eve did something that would make a dispassionate observer
think that she believed that one plus one equals six.
At this third trial, the prosecution lawyer utilized
that exact same method to get a jury to believe that one plus one equals
six. He did so as part of his training of a novice lawyer, who might one
day take his place somewhere in Queensland Law. Looking at the wording,
his questions appear totally fair, friendly, and innocuous. Look beneath
the scintillating sophistry, and we see subtle cunning, words and questions
that are scientifically designed to deceive. "Yea, and hath this
witness said....?"
Everything that T. Saayman said was already on the record. At the end
of the prosecution cross-examination the defence asked only one question,
and it shows the total reliability of the witness. Everything he said
was already on police record. He never diverted one point from his previous
testimony. So why did the Prosecution ask all these questions?
THEODORIS JOHANNES SAAYMEN, SWORN AND EXAMINED.
Sir, please state your full name?......... And your occupation sir?......
'Cabinet maker' And you live on the Sunshine Coast?..... 'I do' Now, you
originally come from South Africa is that right? 'I Do' And you know the
accused?.... 'Yes' How long have you known him?.... 'Probably since 1982'
Ok. And how would you describe your relationship with him, if any? 'We
studied the same subjects in engineering-electronic engineering.' Was
that in Australia or South Africa?.... 'No, in South Africa.' And when
did you come to Australia?.... ' I came here in 1988.' And do you know
when the accused came to Australia?.... ' It was a few years before me'
And how much contact have you had with him since you've been in Australia?....
'Oh, a few times a year' Now, if I can take you to-oh, sorry, I'll just
go back a step. Do you know how tall the accused is?..... 'Not exactly,
but I....he's fairly tall: probably over two metres.' Ok, how tall are
you, sir?.... 'I am 1.88.' Ok. Now, sir, if I could take you back to New
Year's Day, the first of January 2006: Did you see the accused that day?....
'Yes, I did' Where were you living then?..... '16 Roys Road, Palmwoods.'
Ok. And how far is that drive-wise from Alexandra Headland Beach?.....
'Probably around twenty minutes' And did you live at that address by yourself?...
'Myself and my family.' And how many-do you have children?.... 'Yes, I
do: I have two boys' And what were their ages at that time?..... 'Oh,
being 2008, it's-- 10 and 13' And you live there with your wife as well?...
'That's correct' Now, had you invited the accused over for lunch or something
like that?.... 'Yes, yes' What time did...?..... 'He must have arrived-arrived
there about 11:30 in the morning' Ok. And you had lunch, socialized....?....
'Yes'..... Then there's a decision made to go to the beach?.... 'That's
correct' Do you know what time it was when you arrived at the beach?....
'Oh it must have been around 2:00 o'clock, I think.' And how did you get
to the beach?.... 'Drove in my car' Can you describe your car, please?......
'It's a golden Toyota Camry' What year?.... 'It's a 2002' And what's the
registration number?..... '800-GUG.' And on the way there where was everyone
seated?.... 'Myself and my wife were seated in front, and Mr Pretorius
and the two kids were seated in the back.' And did you park in the car
park near the Alexandra Surf-Lifesaving Club-Alexandra Headland Surf-Lifesaving
Club?..... 'Yes' Is that the northern end of the car-park?...... 'No,
the southern end.' The one right outside the surf club: Is that right?....
'Right on the beach.' Ok. Now, sir, you arrived about 2, you and your
family went down to the beach, Mr Pretorius went down to the beach: Is
that right?...... ' That's correct.' And then he basically went into the
surf: you busied yourself with your children.... 'That's correct.' Ok.
Now, did you subsequently see Mr Pretorius the accused?.... 'Oh, I saw
him going into the sea' Yes. After that though....?..... 'I didn't '.....
did you....?........ 'see him.' For how long sir?.... 'Oh, for a fairly
long period of time: probably two hours.' And then about that time, your
family and you had decided to go home?... 'That's correct' And was it
then that you went to look for Mr Pretorius?.... 'Yes' Ok. Where did you
take up with him?.... 'Pardon?' Where did you take up with him when you
went to look....?..... 'I walked into the surf and as I was walking into
the water, probably only ankle deep, I saw him coming out.' Ok. You are
wearing a beard today?..... 'Always had one.' Ok. You had one at that
time as well?..... 'Always had one.' All right. Can you say how Mr. Pretorius
was dressed when he came out of the water?.... 'He wore board-shorts'
And do you remember what colour they were?.... 'Olivey-Green.'..... And
did they have any other colour on them?..... 'They definitely had a light-coloured
stripe down the side.' Ok. And who's property were those board shorts?.....
'Mine.' Ok. You'd lent them to him?.... 'Yes.' How many other pairs do
you have?.... 'Only two other pairs' Ok. And what were the colours of
those?..... 'Light blue and maroon' And did either of them have other
colours other than light blue and maroon, respectively?... 'Just white.'
Ok. All right. So, you've met him coming out of the water: just describe
events from there?... 'From there, we walked out of the water. Mr Pretorius
was stopped by the life-guard...' Uh-huh?... 'and I just continued walking
on.' Ok. They had some sort of a conversation?.... 'They had some sort
of conversation, yes.' You weren't privy to any...?... 'No.' You went
to the car-park area?.... 'That's correct.' Were your family-your wife
and two children at the car by then? 'Yes, they were there.' And how long
after that did you see Mr. Pretorius, if at all?.... 'Probably around
three or four minutes later, he arrived, got into the car.' Which seat
did he get into?.... 'He got into the-- the back seat behind the driver.'
And who drove?... 'I did.' And who was in the front seat?.... 'Myself
and my wife.' Now, This is the same Gold Camry-or brown....?..... 'That's
correct' Now, you then drove home?.... 'No. We went to MacDonald's to
have a quick bite before we went home.' Ok. When you left the-to get to
MacDonald's from the car-park-when you exited the car-park....?.... 'Yes.'....
Did you turn left or right?.... 'Left.' Ok. And which MacDonald's did
you go to?.... 'Kuluin.' Ok. All right. Now, sir, how long had you owned
that car at that stage?.... 'Since 2002' And do you still have it or you've...?....
'I do.' Ok. Is there-what's the leg-room like in the back compared to
the front?.... 'Oh, lots of leg-room.' Are they the same or different
or....?.... 'Oh, I would say it would be a little bit more smaller in
the back than the front.'
This cross-examination by the prosecution lawyer, was followed by the only question by the defence lawyer.
Mr Saayman, you were approached by police not long after the day we are
talking about?.... 'That's correct.' And you gave a statement to police
concerning these matters on the 23'rd of January 2006. 'That's correct.'
That's all I have, thankyou.
The prosecution lawyer was at least capable of finding his way to a courtroom, which any person being capable of, would have seen at a glance that the prosecution case was a joke and the prosecution witnesses were in disarray. He knew that Saayman is honest - if he understands the meaning of that term. He respected innocence not one iota, but deliberately set about to cloud the case in the eyes of the jury. He did so without providing any motive or mechanism for a South African conspiracy. He didn't mention conspiracy. Startling words such as conspiracy would perhaps awaken the jury. He allows by his subtle questioning for Saayman to be a dotard who can't locate himself in a car park, and can't remember the colour of his own car (perhaps he steals cars!), through to him conspiratorially going about without a beard whilst he fools us into believing he has one (a false beard, perhaps?!). The crowning deceit of these whisperings is the height-of-the-accused--insufficient-room-in-the-back-seat-of -the-car delusion. It's obvious he knew exactly what he was doing. He either knew he was perverting the course of justice - or he has been so mentally brainwashed by his occupation that he does not recognize the real meaning of justice.
He knew these people were honest and he stood by and saw them defamed.
He also defamed the jury - by allowing them full backing of government
authority to consider as a possibility something that is the equivalent
of one plus one equalling six.
We begin to see how and why Queensland has a problem -- but more on that
anon.
Record of court proceedings and other relevant items.