Sick of David Bain?

Let’s talk about Amanda Knox instead.

Jailed suspect Knox attends murder trial session in Perugia

Amanda Knox is an American woman who was jointly convicted, with her boyfriend at the time Raffaele Sollecito, of the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, on 1 November 2007.

Meredith Kercher, a 21 year old British university exchange student from Coulsdon, South London, was found dead on the floor of her bedroom with stab wounds to the throat. Some of her belongings were missing, including cash, two credit cards, two mobile phones, and her house keys.

Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast native raised in Perugia, was convicted in October 2008 of having sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher, and was sentenced to 30 years, reduced on appeal to 16 years in December 2009.

Also tried were Knox, an American exchange student and flatmate of Kercher, and Knox’s then-boyfriend, Sollecito, an Italian student. Knox and Sollecito were convicted on charges of sexual assault and murder in December 2009, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively.

Their convictions were overturned on appeal on 3 October 2011 by a panel of six jurors and two judges. In an official statement of their grounds for overturning the convictions the judges wrote there was a “material non-existence” of evidence to support the guilty verdicts at the trial. The appeal judges further stated that the prosecution’s theory of an association between Sollecito, Knox and Guede was “not corroborated by any evidence” and “far from probable”.

I first heard of the case—and it stuck in my mind ever since—when I read this

Two intelligent young people with previously bright futures, named Amanda and Raffaele, are now seven days into spending the next quarter-century of their lives behind bars for a crime they almost certainly did not commit.

on LessWrong.com, a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality.
The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom.

The author wielded something called “the Sword of Bayes” and, to the following propositions

1. Amanda Knox is guilty (of killing Meredith Kercher)
2. Raffaele Sollecito is guilty (of killing Meredith Kercher)
3. Rudy Guédé is guilty (of killing Meredith Kercher)

assigned the following probabilities.

1. Small. Something on the order of 0.01 or 0.1 at most.
2. Ditto.
3. About as high as the other two numbers are low. 0.99 as a (probably weak) lower bound.

The author continues

Needless to say, this differs markedly from the consensus of the jury in Perugia, Italy.

How could this be?

Am I really suggesting that the estimates of eight jurors — among whom two professional judges — who heard the case for a year, along with something like 60% of the Italian public and probably half the Internet (and a significantly larger fraction of the non-American Internet), could be off by such a large amount?

Of course, the author really was suggesting exactly that. (It’s tempting to say—but, for obvious reasons, I won’t—that the LessWrong.com author was vindicated by the verdict of the appeal court in October 2011, that overturned Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions.)

I won’t go into the nitty gritty details of the case. If you’re interested in further reading, Injustice in Perugia is a website set up by a Knox and Sollecito supporter, documenting the case.

This post’s take-home messages are two: read LessWrong.com, and learn the Bayesian Way.

AllYourBayes

Drug users fill New Zealand jails

This was on the front page of the Dominion Post today.

POLICY CRITICISED: The New Zealand Drug Foundation says court-focused treatment of minor offenders is not working.

Petty drug users fill New Zealand jails

Hundreds of people are locked up for petty drug offences every year – many for crimes our top legal body says should not exist.

Justice Ministry figures show a significant amount of court time is taken up by minor drug cases, with nearly as many people imprisoned for possessing a small quantity of cannabis as for dealing.

Among these offenders are hundreds imprisoned for possessing a pipe or a needle, an offence the Law Commission recommended legalising last year.

The figures also show fewer than one in three minor drug offenders is offered diversion, allowing them to avoid a criminal record.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation said the figures were alarming and showed the court-focused treatment of minor offenders was not working.

But Justice Minister Judith Collins said all drug offending – no matter how minor – should be dealt with through the criminal justice system.

In the past six years, possession of small amounts of cannabis or smoking utensils, such as a pipe, made up about half of all drug charges laid by police.

While most offenders received a fine or community work, more than 2800 were imprisoned on minor drug offences.

These included possession of needles, pipes, and small amounts of cannabis or methamphetamine.

Imprisonment for petty offences almost equals the number locked up for more serious crimes.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said locking up minor drug offenders was simply stupid policy.

“You send someone away for a minor drug conviction and they can come out a meth cook,” he said.

Rather than dealing with people through the criminal justice system, the Government could introduce a mandatory cautioning scheme, he said.

“For a drug like cannabis you could get three cautions before being diverted to a treatment programme. We are not talking about decriminalising or legalising, it’s about a more pragmatic way to get help for people that need it.”

However, Ms Collins said the justice system was the right place for all drug offenders.

“The Government relies on enforcement agencies such as police to make appropriate decisions on how to charge someone for their offending, and the judiciary to make appropriate sentencing decisions based on the circumstances of individual cases.”

The Government had policies to ensure anyone requiring drug treatment received it, she said.

Last year a Law Commission’s review of New Zealand’s 35-year-old drug laws criticised the uneven and criminally focused approach to drug offending.

It also recommended a three-strike system for minor offending, and legalising pipes and needles.

Police opposed most recommendations – including legalising pipes and needles. The Government has followed up only on a handful, notably introducing drug courts. However, the figures show the police may have started to treat minor drug offenders less aggressively.

In the year to June 2012, there was a substantial drop in the number of people being charged, convicted and imprisoned for possession of utensils.

Police said that the drop could be attributed to the introduction of a pre-charge warning in September 2010.

The move gave police discretion to warn rather than charge people arrested on offences carrying a sentence of six months or less imprisonment.

The warnings are not available to people caught with methamphetamine.

Police say people charged with drug possession are likely to get diversion, particularly on a first offence, but ministry figures show minor drug charges usually result in a conviction.

PUNISHING DRUG USE

How New Zealand has treated minor drug offenders over the past six years:

CANNABIS POSSESSION

Charges: 17,931

Convicted: 13,131

Imprisoned: 890

Maximum penalty: 3 months in prison and/or a $500 fine

CANNABIS UTENSIL

(SUCH AS A PIPE)

Charges: 11,057

Convicted: 7,563

Imprisoned: 737

Maximum penalty: A year in prison and/or $500 fine

METHAMPHETAMINE POSSESSION

Charges: 2185

Convicted: 1523

Imprisoned: 341

Maximum penalty: 6 months in prison and/or $1000 fine

METHAMPHETAMINE UTENSIL

(SUCH AS A PIPE)

Charges: 3899

Convicted: 2765

Imprisoned: 548

Maximum penalty: A year in prison and/or a $500 fine

– © Fairfax NZ News

I didn’t know this happened in New Zealand. 🙁

Does it?! (Where did these figures come from? Can anyone vouch for them?)

District councils – Who are you?

I thought it might be important for dealing with the Rotorua District Council to find out precisely what the Council is… so I asked. It took a few weeks to get a considered response.

Dear Reed

My email below refers. Kathy confirmed that Council is a territorial authority. Below, please find an explanation.

Territorial authorities of New Zealand
Territorial authorities are the second tier of local government in New Zealand, below regional councils. There are 67 territorial authorities: 13 city councils, 53 district councils, and the Chatham Islands Council. Six territorial authorities (Auckland Council, Nelson City Council, Gisborne, Tasman, and Marlborough District Councils and the Chatham Islands Council) also perform the functions of a regional council and thus are known as unitary authorities. Territorial authority districts are not subdivisions of regions, and some of them fall within more than one region. Taupo District has the distinction of straddling the boundaries of four different regions (see below). Regional council areas are based on water catchment areas, whereas territorial authorities are based on community of interest and road access. Regional councils are responsible for the administration of many environmental and public transport matters, while the territorial authorities administer local roading and reserves, sewerage, building consents, the land use and subdivision aspects of resource management, and other local matters. Some activities are delegated to council-controlled organisations.

I trust the above information answers your question.

Thanks

**** ******
Policy Planner

Their considered response was the same as their unconsidered response – which I’d already explained couldn’t be correct. Try again…

Thanks for that but it doesn’t answer the question I asked.

The Local Government Act 2002 states: –
territorial authority means a city council or a district council named in Part 2 of Schedule 2

The Rotorua District Council must have existed prior to the existence of territorial authorities.
Territorial Authority is a title/role that has been given to the Council. This doesn’t tell me what type of organisation the Council is.

The type of organisation that the Council is should be defined by its establishment.
When was the Council established and which Act was it established under?

Cheers

Reed Robinson

And their response…

Hi Reed

I will investigate further and get back to you.

Regards

**** ******
Policy Planner

Sent today…

Hi ***

Can you please investigate these related questions at the same time.

1. Do the Rotorua District Council and Council employees have a fiduciary duty to Rotorua property owners?
2. If not, what duty do the Rotorua District Council and Council employees have to Rotorua property owners?

I asked these questions in June 2011 and the following is a summary of Council’s response at the time…

I re-asked these questions in July 2011 and Council has not responded.

Cheers

Reed Robinson

I’ll post Council’s responses if I get any.

** Related blogpost from 2011 – Something stinks in Rotorua.

Robin Bain is innocent

I’m sick to death of hearing about evil charlatan David Bain and his odious sock puppet Joe Karam. Unfortunately, my interest in the Bain case has been rekindled by my co-blogger Reed’s report on Fisher’s Report on Binnie’s Report on the David Bain case. I’m writing a response with the title Bayes, Bain and Binnie, which I’ll post soon. Meanwhile, here’s a piece I wrote a few years ago on the 13th anniversary of the Bain murders.

[Reprised from beNZylpiperazine, June 2007.]

10f

13 years ago today, on a cold Dunedin morning, David Bain slaughtered his youngest sister Laniet (2 shots to the head as she lay sleeping, and 1 further shot as she lay gurgling dying), his mother Margaret (1 shot to the head while she lay sleeping), his brother Stephen (a shot through Stephen’s hand, then 1 shot through the head after a prolonged struggle during which David partially strangled Stephen with his own teeshirt) and his younger sister Arawa (1 shot to the head as she prayed or pleaded for mercy, after David’s first shot missed) – all in quick succession.

Lastly, David slaughtered his father Robin (1 shot to the head). But first, David put the washing machine on and went off on his usual morning paper run. Returning, he hid in a curtained alcove in the lounge and calmly waited for his father to enter the house after waking in the caravan outside where he slept. How cold-blooded is that?

Now, of course, David Bain is a free man, and two thirds of New Zealanders believe David Bain is innocent. Stuff.co.nz has delighted us with images of the remorseless killer enjoying life on the outside in the David Bain gallery.

There are far fewer pictures on the web of his dead family members. Google Image Search turned up nothing at all for Arawa or Laniet, and no images of Stephen. A search for images of Margaret produced a single image of David, and a search for images of Robin produced two images, again of David. So I guess when I said there are few fewer pictures… I really meant none at all.

But the exercise wasn’t altogether fruitless. I was introduced to Robin Bain’s namesake, an actress by the name of, er, Robin Bain. And I don’t think she’s innocent…

Don’t ask about the bronze rat

1280px-Bayes'_Theorem_MMB_01

Here’s a story problem about a situation that doctors often encounter:

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer. 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies. 9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies. A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

What do you think the answer is? If you haven’t encountered this kind of problem before, please take a moment to come up with your own answer before continuing.

If you think it would help, make like a constipated mathematician.

If you get the answer wrong, you’re irrational.

If you click here to find the correct answer, you’re both irrational and lazy.

(Judge not, that ye be not judged? Yeah, I already worked out the correct answer myself, thanks. :-))

Vegetable Man

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility—young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel, but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.”

Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.” So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days.

At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead. (NIV)

Mandatory Suicide

Military suicides outnumber combat deaths – economy and leadership to blame

By ROBERT LAURIE – There’s a good chance that this is the most depressing statistic you’ll see all year.

According to a new Army report, as of November, 303 active-duty, Reserve and National Guard soldiers had committed suicide in 2012.  During the same period, 212 men and women in uniform were lost due to combat fatalities in Afghanistan.

It’s depressing, and disgusting.

Our military has sacrificed precious blood and treasure in Afghanistan for an ill-defined, and as such probably unwinnable, war.  They’ve been given an arbitrary withdrawal date which has nothing to do with the accomplishment of any military goal and everything to do with politics.  While they wait to leave, they’re still forced to fight, but their Commander in Chief has offered them little in the way of an objective.

When they finally do earn a ticket home, they return to a broken, barely functional, America.  The economy is in the dumper, jobs are nigh-on impossible to come by, and – as a result of their low pay – former soldiers find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult financial position. All too often, this is leading to depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

Given the lack of leadership, coupled with the reality of the U.S. fiscal situation, are we really supposed to be surprised about the ugly numbers?

The President, the government, and every American citizen should be ashamed that we’re doing so little to support the men and women who protect our nation. This is the darkest scandal of the Obama administration.

This next song is dedicated to all our friends who made it back alive from the Persian Gulf …

Turkey shoot! Why Tyrants and Psychopaths Love Gun Prohibition.

Guns: The great equaliser…

The old saying goes that God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Col. Samuel Colt’s revolver continues to serve as an equalizer. Being bigger, tougher and meaner than the next guy may not mean jack spit if the next guy carries a .357 in his waistband.

Bad attitude and big muscles make a poor match for a 200-grain lead slug.

John Birch – of no relation to the famed anticommunist – knows this well. His organization, Concealed Carry Inc., awards a free handgun every month to Chicago residents. The reason? To give citizens in the nation’s murder capital a fighting chance.

“I would feel terrible if someone needed a gun and I didn’t give him one, and they ended up dead,” said Birch, quoted in a May 26 Associated Press report.

Even though “Awards only go to people who are at least 21-years-old, have had a background check, and have completed a firearms training course,” the city of Al Capone is going ballistic over Birch’s giveaway, in which recipients are selected on the basis of an essay contest and lottery.

“I think he is encouraging violence,” said City of Chicago Attorney Mara Georges. “I think he is encouraging civil disobedience. I think he’s encouraging people to break the law,” namely a 20-year-old, citywide handgun ban.

Warned Georges, “if he’s going to violate the law, we are going to have to very, very fiercely protect our laws.”

Nearly 700 homicides happened in Chicago last year, and three-quarters of those were gun-related, according to AP. With fewer guns in fewer hands, Georges is confident the murder rate will drop.

Actually, it’s the other way around.

“Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes,” argues John Lott in his groundbreaking book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Further, “reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed-handgun permits issued.” Having more guns in the hands (and inside the jacket pockets) of Americans deters violent crime, including murder.

The reason for this fact is simple: Firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Being strong doesn’t help much when you’re dead or wetting your pants in fear because your potential victim shoved a barrel muzzle under your nose…

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2002/06/14164/#fLqWfpdUvV7IghKV.99

New Zealand’s ‘Cold’ Civil War. Constitutional Crisis.

I write this post in corrolation with my post: The Coming American civil War.

One of the many important Blog posts I wanted to write last year but never had time was a commentary on the prosecution and imprisonment of the Racist Maori Radicals Tame Iti and the TuHoe terrorists after he was discovered doing military training and plotting to, Kill white New Zealanders, Kidnap John Key, and overthrow our Democratic government by ‘terrorist’ means.
Due to Police blundering, and Botched up legislation regarding Terrorism, hastily written and enacted in wake of 911, Tame iti and co escaped prosecution for their Murderous Racist scheme, Yet were convicted on various Fire arms charges and received short prison sentences.
Read about it here:
My veiw of it here:
As a person whom had spent years been warning New Zealand that the doctrines of the Indigenous rights radicals were very dangerous and would lead to violence, Tami It is actions proved me right, and many would think that I would be happy that Tame iti and co received Jail time.
For the record let me now state that I was very pleased that the Police caught Tame iti before innocent Pakeha got murdered, yet what may surprise you to know is that I was not happy at all about the charges used in the end to Jail Iti and co… ie They were not convicted for plotting murder and mayhem, but instead are serving time on various fire arms possession charges.
*In My Book Possession of Fire arms is not a crime but a Right!*
*In My Book Military training is not a crime but a Right too*
Thus for me the whole saga ended in absolute travesty, and served to buttress Evil government powers and worked against the legitimate rights and liberties of We the people of New Zealand.
In my view, because the Police failed in their prosecution of the Real crimes of Iti and co… they should have walked free.

As a Libertarian activist, I am attempting to get the right to Bare arms, and to form private militia constitutionally protected, as a defense against Tyrannical Government.

From this it ought to be obvious why I have added this as an update to my post on the coming American Civil war.
Currently We the people have our arses hanging in the breeze… just the way the Police and politicians want us and are completely defenseless and at the mercy of State Power…
They can virtually do what ever they want with us.

This raises the thorny question of what defines and distinguished Righteous Freedom fighters from Evil Terrorist plotters?
Tami Iti and co consider themselves heroic freedom fighters committed to getting Justice, and defeating an Evil and oppressive state.
Why do I deny this view of Iti and Co?
Are the distinctions between Terrorist and freedom fighter merely arbitrary… a matter of personal prejudice and opinion?
Millions believe Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are not terrorists, But Freedom fighters against tyranny too! Millions of deluded fools thing that Revolutions of Vladimir Lenin, Mao, Castro/ Che Guevara, Mugabe, etc were all heroic struggles against tyranny, when in fact they were the very opposite… they were Tyrannies in the making.
What Really distinguishes the Goodies from the Baddies?
When is it justifiable…if ever, to take up arms against a democratic state?
This is a massive subject yet a few years back I wrote a piece called ‘The Right of Revolution’ in support of Commodore Bainimarama’s Military Coup in Fiji.
Read it Here:
I explain what distinguished Bainimarama’s coup, from Rabuka’s and George Speights Coups, and it comes down to the Principles and ideals which motivate the actions.
These must be Righteous, not selfish… not motivated by bigotry… and the primary principle being ‘Political Equality for All’, and One must take care how one goes about ‘fighting for this ideal.
*Good Ends cannot justify Evil means*.
Resorting to arms must be a last resort, and only when the situation is dire and injustice Rife, and the people must be vigilant not to be sucker by the likes of the Marxists whom claim to be fighting for freedom and equality when in fact they are fighting to instill tyranny and oppression.

I will finish this post by saying that New Zealand is still in danger from violent indigenous rights radicals, many whom pose as Moderates yet whom incite Racist bigotry and Cry “Oppression!”
New Zealand is sunk deep into an Apartheid system of government which under john key is ever expanding as he plays politics, bargaining with the evil racists to swing deals and maintain power.
As we speak a Shyster Commission filled with socialists and racists is ‘Reviewing’ and making recommendations for a new Racist Constitution for New Zealand.
Voices of Freedom and equality are completely absent from this process.
This is an Evil usurpation which virtually achieves Tame iti’s ambitions …yet without recourse to arms!
And apart from a few Brave souls, like John Ansell, New Zealanders are doing nothing to stop it, or to ensure the New constitution is founded upon Equality and ensures limited Government, let alone be prepared to repair to arms if and when the Racist constitution is foisted upon us.
*And our Gun Laws have already rendered us defenseless!*
Read about this here:and here:
The reality is that in the unlikely event that Libertarians, and others like John Ansell be successful in provoking a call for the enactment of a just constitution of equality for all, New Zealand is in great danger of an Evil Armed rebellion of the same nature which Tame iti was hoping to generate… on a massive scale… driven by vile Indigenous rights Race Hatred and greed!
Don’t believe that our Gun laws are preventing the Racists from tooling up!
Tame Iti and co proved they are doing just that.

This Heinous evil… Racially motivated Civil war is waiting in the wings, in fact one could say we are already experiencing the beginning of one… as a ‘Cold’ Civil War with Indigenous Appartheid.
Welcome 2013.
My final remark is a question.
“What are you doing in defence of freedom, Justice and equality in New Zealand?
Rephrased: “Will you sell out your Childrens future to apatheid?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!