Wednesday, 25 July 2012

History passed the coroner by [updated]

Look, call me simple (go on, I know you want to) but I just don’t understand how a coroner could take six years to issue a report damning a suspect in a murder trial that is now long over.

Coroner Garry Evans [now concludes] the twins were injured in the same manner at the same time at the hands of the same person. They died from brain injuries sustained while in the sole custody of Mr Kahui at their home in South Auckland. Mr Evans dismissed claims the twins could have been killed by their mother Macsyna King or her brother Stuart King…

Six years? To come to that conclusion?  With evidence prosecutors presumably would have or could have used?

Either the coroner has been dragging his feet or the prosecutors were incompetent—or the police failed to provide the evidence necessary for the prosecution to be successful. I can’t begin to understand any other reason it’s taken so long for this conclusion to emerge.

Either way, it seems to highlight yet another failure of our failing justice system. Or am I missing something?

[Listen to this issue being discussed on “Nine to Noon.”]

UPDATE: Yes, there’s something very strange here, as Lindsay Mitchell notes:

Coroner Gary Evans found Macsyna King "had no involvement in the death of her twins."
Contrast that to a coroner's report last week that found two good Samaritans had contributed to the death of Iraena Asher.
I am going on media hearsay, but these findings seem utterly incongruous.


  1. The jury could have brought in the same verdict in 2008, but they fell for the Defence team's bait and switch routine with a Macsyna King conspiracy theory that the Coroner has since found was impossible.

    A doubt in the mind of a juror is all it takes.

    On the other hand, if Kahui had taken the stand at his trial, as he was later compelled to do at the Inquest (giving the Coroner 'new' evidence), the jury would probably not have fallen for bait and switch.

  2. same thing in the Ewen McDonald case, really, the jury going on eloquence and PCness rather than common sense. This is just about every time nowadays with the big murder trials.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.