Please Help Me Fundraise!!

When I'm not spending my time researching, posting and blogging about crimes from New zealand and around the world, I'm busy with my studies. I am currently completely a Diploma in Mental Health Support Work. Because of this, I haven't seen my daughter, who lives with her grandparents in another city, in months. She'd really like for me to come and stay for a bit, and I would love that too. But it's not easy to make ends meet on a student allowance, and I have two cats as well, and nobody to look after them while I'm gone. As a result, I'm crowdfunding to try and raise the money and I would really appreciate everyone's kindess and generosity so I can go and spend some quality time with my girl!!

The History of Crime: Animal Trials

In the modern age, most judicial systems recognise that animals cannot be held responsible for "crimes" because they lack the cognitive ability, and the moral agency, to tell right from wrong. But this wasn't always the case.

In the Middle Ages, animals were routinely subjected to the same criminal charges, and proceedings, as humans. In fact, criminal trials against animals were considered perfectly normal, and were conducted right up into the 18th century. The podcast Criminal covered one such case from the 1400s, in their very first episode. This rather famous animal trial featured a pig, who was tried for the murder and mutilation of an infant. The pig was found guilty, and sentenced to death by hanging.

Pigs were common defendants in medieval animal trials, mainly due to different way in which livestock were kept at the time. When we think of farm animals, we think of large herds contained by acres of a fencing, but in the Middle Ages, the number of animals being farmed were much smaller. Most peasant families owned one or two animals - a pig, a couple of chickens and maybe a goat or a cow for milking - and these animals were largely free roaming.  

More often than not, the victims of animal "homicide" were children, because the living conditions of the time bought them into close, regular contact with livestock. Medieval children, unless they were members of the aristocracy, were not educated, so they were not in school during the day. They were put to work from the moment they were of an age and size to do so, usually in the same fields as their parents. When not working, they were playing in the muddy streets, right alongside all the roaming farm animals. Deaths due to frightened or enraged animals encountering small children were fairly common, especially as what would be considered a minor injury today, would be life-threatening in medieval times. In a society where hygiene is non-existant and antibiotics haven't been discovered yet, an open wound, however small, can be a death sentence.

But trying animals for the death or injury of humans wasn't the only type of animal trial, there were also the religious trials. The Middle Ages were an era of Biblical literalism, and of witch trials, where the Roman Catholic Church was systematically stamping out "the competition" - paganism, midwifery, herbalists and other traditional forms of folk medicine. Part of that campaign included demonising certain animals, as the demonic familiars of witches. Black cats are the most obvious candidate, but they were by no means the only targets of the astute witch hunter. Cats of any colour were fair game, as were dogs, certain types of birds, rats, and insects.

One particular case, recorded by the infamous Witch-finder General, Matthew Hopkins, is that of Jane Wallis of Huntingdonshire, East Anglia. According to Hopkins, Jane Wallis had two familiars who went by the names Grizzel and Greediguts. In her confession (obtained by torture, of course), Wallis claimed that the familiars could take almost any form, but appeared most often as greyhounds with a bristle of hog hair running down their backs. She also confessed to suckling these creatures from her "Witch's marks." These marks, also called Witch's teats, were believed to be a permanent mark that the Devil placed upon the body of an initiate witch, as a visible sign of her compact with the malignant forces. These marks were most often described as being wart-like in appearance, the origin of the modern caricature of the witch with the wart on her nose that we see in popular culture.

In reality, these witch's teats were actually real warts, scars or birthmarks, marks that the person who possessed them had no control over, but were enough to condemn them.

Another common type of animal trial, while less likely to end in the cruel and unnecessary death of an innocent creature, is every bit as disturbing as the other examples I've discussed in this post. In fact, it's a little bit more disturbing on some levels. These are trials for beastiality, which was apparently a lot more common than I am remotely comfortable even thinking about. The reason I say that these trials where less likely to end with the execution of the animal is because, in many of these cases, the animals were recognised as the "victims" of men with unnatural urges.

In case you weren't disturbed enough already, I'd just like to point out that it appears that animals had more rights over their bodies than most women at this stage in history. God, that's depressing.

But, back to the unnatural urges. Defendants in these trials usually tried to claim that the animal had "seduced them" in some way, but, according to historical records, it seems judges generally rejected these claims on the basis that animals weren't capable of consent, nor of seducing anybody. The accused beast-lovers were usually put to death, and the animals given a reprieve, probably on the grounds that killing them was a waste, because nobody wanted to eat sausages made from the pig that Billy Bob had his dick in last week.

By the 1800s, animal trials were nowhere near as common as they had been in the Middle Ages, but they still occurred from time to time, and there are even a few well-known examples of animal trials from the early 20th century. The most notable being a circus elephant which was put on trial, and hanged, for killing it's trainer. In fact, while researching this subject, I even found a case from 2008. That's right, a 21st Century animal trial...sort of. The trial occurred in Macedonia, where a wild bear was accused of stealing honey from a local beekeeper's hives. The bear was found guilty, but since no-one wanted to even attempt to extract damages from a wild bear, the park's service was given a hefty fine instead.

I think this is where I'm supposed to make some kind of bad joke about pic-a-nic baskets or something.

URGENT MISSING PERSONS ALERT!

Wellington Police are appealing for help to find 20-year-old Caitlyn Bird, who has been reported missing by her family.

She was last seen in Glover Park, Wellington, on Monday 9 May, 2016. She has not been missing before and her family have concerns for her safety.

Caitlyn is 178cm tall, with mid-length brown hair, hazel eyes, and a distinctive American accent. When she was last seen, she was wearing dark jeans, a black raincoat and a heavy, men’s brown and white checked outdoor shirt.  

Anyone who may have seen Caitlyn or have information on her whereabouts is asked to contact Wellington Police on (04) 381 2000 or, after hours, Emergency 111 and ask for Police.

The following is an open letter to all New Zealanders, from Antonio Gotingco, husband of murdered Auckland woman, Blessie Gotingco.  For those not already familiar with the story, Blessie's death was horrific; she was run down with a car, brutally raped, murdered, and her body dumped in a South Auckland cemetary.  Her murderer, Tony Robertson, was a convicted child molester, who had only recently been paroled.  The Corrections Department were so concerned about Robertson's risk of reoffending, that prior to his release, they had applied to the High Court, and been granted, extended supervision orders, including electronic monitoring.   Robertson was to wear a GPS ankle bracelet, had a 8pm - 6am curfew, and only live at an approved address.  He was also to stay away from any parks or other areas children are likely to frequent.  In the months leading up to Blessie's murder, Robertson was arrested and appeared in court three times for breaching his release conditions.  Despite these breaches, he was not sent back to prison.  Robertson also attended two more court hearings, brought by the Corrections Department, asking for further extensions of the supervision orders.  These further extensions were granted, so the question is, why did none of these provisions save the life of Blessie Gotingco?  Just this week, a governmental inquiry found that neither NZ Corrections, nor the NZ Police was responsible in any way, for Blessie's death.  Her husband disagrees, and would like to see these authorities be held to account for a crime that should not have happened, and could have been prevented.  

"To My Fellow New Zealanders: We stand for Blessie -- a beloved wife, mother and grandmother to us her family. She is also a daughter, sister, aunt, friend, co-worker, colleague and a fellow New Zealander to the rest of us.

Blessie and I and our three children left our family home in the Philippines and moved to New Zealand in 2004, confident that our adopted country was a safe and beautiful place to live in. We settled on the North Shore of Auckland, believing it was an ideal place to raise a family and lead a happy comfortable life. We were so wrong.

 We lost our beautiful Blessie at the hands of an evil person who was supposed to be under strict monitoring in the community by authorities to whom we have entrusted our lives for protection. The Government, particularly the Department of Corrections has given a new meaning to ineptitude and stupidity. The Government sounded the death knell for Blessie by failing miserably to deliver the primary role of governance which is to ensure its citizens are safe and secure from the scum of society. Its decision to put a sadistic, unreformed criminal in our neighbourhood sealed the fate of our much-loved Blessie. It was like putting a snake in a hen house.

The Corrections Department knew all along based on their records that this monster would reoffend and yet it did not lift a finger even when public safety was sure to be compromised. Highlighting their ineptness, this pure and unadulterated evil was never properly monitored to stop him from committing this very heinous crime. The department knew all along that it would just be a matter of time before he committed another crime. And yet they continue to add insult to our injury by claiming that they have exceeded standards in their management of this hardened criminal. For us, hearing these pronouncements is like rubbing salt to our raw wounds. What has happened is very unchristian. How can this dastardly act happen in a country supposedly founded and built on Christian values?

It is of public record how our beloved Blessie was brutally taken from us. What has happened to us is the worst that can happen to any family. While it is our fervent hope that no other family will experience the horror and tragedy that we have gone through, there is no guarantee unless we get our acts together and push for relevant changes in the Corrections Department and the so called justice system as a whole.

We are now facing the biggest challenge of our life by considering filing a civil case against the Department of Corrections for the wrongful death of my wife, our beloved Blessie. It's tough enough, and the Government is not providing us with legal assistance -- a sad irony considering that they are all too happy paying for the legal expenses of Blessie's murderer. In fact, the Government has been overly generous in accommodating this criminal, with sky’s the limit to all his extravagant legal spending.

We are hoping that the good people of New Zealand will once again stand with us by donating towards our costs. We are going to undertake our own review of the mismanagement/non-monitoring of "evil" which enabled him to take our Blessie. We our counting on your help, even if it is only $1, it will help us expose the sham that is the management of sex offenders in New Zealand. We need to put a stop to this vicious cycle of ineptness and stupidity in the justice system. We firmly believe that a civil case against the Department of Corrections is our only option and a worthy course of action. Together let us show them the power to the people. Never again! We all deserve better.

Respectfully yours,

Antonio Gotingco"

Mr Gotingco has started a Givealittle page to raise funds for private litigation against NZ Corrections, please consider donating to his cause, because the system failed Blessie, and they need to recognise it and learn from it instead of denying all responsibility with a whitewash inquiry.

Blessie Gotingco's Family Consider Civil Suit - NZ Herald
Results of Tony Robertson Management Inquiry

A family affair: One family, two murders that shocked the nation.

 Moko Sayviah Rangitoheriri will forever be three years old, his cheeky grin in photographs a remnant of happier days, the days before he went to stay with his mother's friend Tania Shailer, and her boyfriend David Haewera.  Moko's mother had no idea, could never have imagined, the brutality that her "friend" Tania, and her partner, would inflict on the defenseless three-year-old boy with the cheeky grin.

Moko Rangitoheriri  

 Moko and his 8-year-old sister had been entrusted to Tania Shailer, a former early childhood teacher, by their mother, so she could remain with their older brother, who was in Starship hospital.  The family live in Taupo, and Starship is in Auckland, a 5-hour drive away, so it made sense to leave the other two children in good hands and stay in Auckland.  Shailer and the mother were friends, and Shailer's experience with young children made her the natural choice of caregiver for a worried mother who wanted to stay at the bedside of her sick child.


Warning: The following contains graphic descriptions of acts of violence perpetrated against an innocent child.  Please use discretion in choosing whether to read this segment of the post, as some readers may find it very upsetting.

Over the course of the two months which Moko and his sister, Aroha* spent with Shailer and Haewera, Moko was kicked, punched, thrown into walls,  dropped on the floor face first, slapped with a sandal, bitten and stomped on by two full-grown adults.  He had feces rubbed in his face, was denied food and water, and was not given any medical treatment, even though if likely would have saved his life, severe as his injuries were, if he'd been taken to hospital just a few days earlier.


When Moko was finally taken to Taupo Hospital and admitted to the intensive care unit, he was suffering from internal hemorrhaging, swelling of the brain and septic shock from a ruptured bowel.  His face was badly swollen, and every inch of his tiny body was covered in bruises, abrasions and human bite marks.  

As if that wasn't heartbreaking enough, Moko had been in that condition for four days before the people responsible bothered to take him to hospital.  When Moko died, his tiny body was so damaged by the vicious attacks he'd endured, that he was barely recognisable to his own mother and aunt, when they went to identify him in the morgue.

At this point, you might be thinking that this awful tragedy couldn't get any worse, but you'd be wrong about that.  It can, and it did.  Because Moko's sister, only 7-years-old at the time, was forced to witness the malicious acts of violence that Shailer and Haewera perpetrated on her little brother.  Aroha tried to protect him as much as she was able to, but what hope does a 7-year-old have of defending against two adults?  

Moko's brave sister hid him in a closet so he wouldn't be beaten, she tried to sneak food and water to him, and was punished herself for doing so.  Aroha wanted desperately to tell someone what was happening, but Shailer and Haewera told her that they would kill her mother if she said anything.  She was afraid to go to school each day because she was worried about what the couple might do to Moko while she wasn't there.

And the final, most aggregious act perpetrated by this pair of oxygen bandits...during Moko's last beating, before he died, Shailer and Haewera forced Aroha to join in.  They made her kick her terribly injured little brother, and after he died, told her that it was her actions that had killed him.

There are no words that can express the horror and anger that I feel just writing about this, as well as the incredible sympathy and heartbreak for Aroha and what she must be going through.  I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in the devil or anything like that, but I do believe that what these two people did to Moko and his sister was pure, unadulterated evil.  

Moko died a slow, agonising death, murdered in cold blood over an eight week period at the hands of Tania Shailer and David Haewera.  But if you're reading Moko's story for the first time, and hoping that Shailer and Haewera were punished with the full force of the law, I'm sorry to have to disappoint you.

Last week, these baby-killers were given a downgraded charge of manslaughter in exchange for a guilty plea.  They will reappear for sentencing in the Rotorua High Court on June 27th, and we can only hope, will be given the harshest possible sentence by the judge.  If I am able to arrange it, I fully intend to be there outside that court for the sentencing, sign in hand, to highlight the grave injustice of letting these vicious scumbags away with manslaughter.

Tania Shailer and David Haewera systematically tortured and beat that little boy over the course of 60 days, until his body was so damaged that it could no longer sustain life.  That's not manslaughter, that's murder!  These people are murderers.  They are vicious killers and they should never be allowed to walk the streets again or come within 5 feet of a child for the rest of their lives!

Now we come to the latest tragic twist in this case.  Since the court case has finished, the media have been allowed to reveal that David Haewera is a close relative of Ben Haewera, another convicted child killer.  Ben Haewera was sentenced to 12 years in prison for beating his 5-year-old stepson, James Whakaruru, to death in 1999, and there are a number of frightening similarities in how James and Moko died.  

James Whakaruru

Ben Haewera had been abusing little James for years, yet nothing had been done, despite the fact that Ben had already served nine months in prison for abusing James when he was just 2-years-old.  After James died and Ben Haewera was convicted, the country was shocked and outraged to learn the full extent of the abuse James suffered, and just how badly authorities had dropped the ball and failed to save his life.

James' mother and step-father, as well as relatives on both sides of his family had come to the attention of child welfare and youth justice organisations on numerous occasions.  James had been admitted to Accident & Emergency many times, with serious injuries, but doctors who treated him failed to recognise the ongoing abuse.  Neighbours and friends of the family knew what was going on but all assumed that "somebody else" would do something about it.  Everyone in James' life failed him on some level, right up to his death.

Like Moko, James endured sustained, regular physical abuse over a long period of time, until his ravaged body could not take any more abuse.  The details of what James suffered at the hands of his step-father are just as sickening as the abuse suffered by Moko Rangitoheriri, so I will not go over those details.  I will include links to some of the many news articles covering the case, so that those who wish to can learn more about James' life and tragic death.

James Whakaruru could have been saved, had people paid attention and stepped up and done something instead of turning a blind eye, or assuming that someone else would take care of it.  Moko's death can't be blamed on the system failing him, because the system had no involvement, and no one knew or even suspected what was happening to Moko until it was too late.  However, both Tania Shailer and David Haewera have attempted to mitigate their guilt by claiming that they weren't coping with having Moko and Aroha to care for, as well as their own four children.  I don't know if that's true, but if there's any grain of truth in that claim,  all they needed to do was speak up and ask for help.

New Zealand's death toll of abused children just keeps on rising, and we, as a country, are not doing nearly enough to stem that tide.  By allowing Moko's murderers to plead to manslaughter, we send a message to every child abuser that they won't be punished to the full extent of the law, that we don't care enough about this nation's children to put their abusers away for a long, long time.

But this isn't about punitive sentencing, because sentencing only comes after a child has died.  We have to do more to stop violence in the home before it's too late.  We have to do more to combat the things that fuel family violence, like poverty and addictions.  Only when we work to mitigate all of the contributing factors in family violence will we start saving more children from a violent death.

There is a forum on Facebook for people who want to express their anger and frustration over Moko's tragic death and the heinous plea deal given to his killers.  There is a rally planned for the 27th of June, outside the Rotorua High Court, to coincide with the sentencing of Tania Shailer and David Haewera, please consider coming along and showing your support.  You can find all the relevant information at Justice For Moko.

LINKS

Killed by his carers: Moko's last days - NZ Herald
Inquest to be held in toddler's death - NZ Herald
Now who will march for Moko? - Stuff.co.nz
Carer forced sister to deliver final blow to Moko - Stuff.co.nz
Child's road to a lonely, brutal death - NZ Herald
James Whakaruru killer in trouble again - Newshub
James Whakaruru Report - For Our Children

Daryl Kirk: Victim or Villian?

At 19, Daryl Kirk didn't look like a killer, and a year later, she still doesn't, not really.  But when you look closely, you notice the hard lines of her mouth, the somewhat staunch looking posture as she stands in the defense box and the challenging gaze as she faces the court.  Daryl Kirk has seen pain and violence, she's seen drug use and abuse, she's seen more than anyone should have seen at the age of 20.  

In 2015, when Daryl's mother Kelly's violent and drug-addled boyfriend, Adam Watkins, chased Daryl with a meat cleaver, threatening to kill her and her mother with it, she picked up a .22 semi-automatic rifle and shot Watkins.  Ironically, the rifle was Watkins gun, which he kept to protect himself from some local gang-members who had been causing him trouble.

Daryl has just been convicted of the manslaughter of Adam Watkins, who she claims she shot in self defense.  But the Crown had pushed for a murder conviction, and pushed hard, alleging that Daryl was not acting in defense of herself or her family at all, but had snapped and killed Watkins out of rage.  

The jury agreed with the defense, that Daryl had some justification for her actions that day, and was a scared teen who shot the violent thug who was terrorising her and her family. Much of the evidence presented in the case backed up that version of events.  Daryl has no prior history of violence, and is apparently a quiet, rather shy young woman who has experienced years of domestic abuse from her mother's violent partners.  She's also witnessed her mother's ongoing struggle with drug addiction, and yet seems to have stayed out of trouble for the most part, herself.  To me, she comes across as very sympathetic.  


So why did the Crown push so hard for a conviction that, in U.S jurisprudence, would be called Malice Murder, a murder committed with malicious intent?  The Crown seems to believe that Daryl Kirk had plenty of malice towards Adam Watkins.  But why would the Crown think this about a 19-year-old girl who has been subjected to a life surrounded by domestic violence, and drug abuse?

I'll come back to that, but first lets look at what happened in the lead up to Watkins murder....


On the day he died, Watkins was high on a cocktail of illegal drugs, including methamphetamine.  Witnesses backed up Daryl's testimony that Watkins had picked up a meat cleaver and chased and threatened a number of people with it.  There were at least seven people in the home at the time, Watkins, Kelly Kirk, Daryl Kirk and Daryl's boyfriend, Kyle Barndon, as well as some friends who were visiting.  

According to witness testimony, Watkins began verbally abusing Kelly Kirk, and when one of the visiting friends intervened on Kelly's behalf, Watkins "lost it."  He picked up the meat cleaver and waved it around violently, chasing the others in the house while screaming threats at them.  Neighbours who lived across the road heard the shouting, and saw Watkins and a number of other people running around the property.  

These witnesses said that they saw Watkins and others run out of and back into the house a number of times, and that it definitely looked as if Watkins was chasing them.  They also confirmed that Watkins was holding some kind of weapon, though they weren't able to conclusively identify it, and thought it looked like some kind of axe, or possibly a machete.

Daryl Kirk's version of events states that Watkins chased her back inside the house from the driveway, where she'd fled to escape him.   Once back in the house, Daryl ran her bedroom, and Watkins followed her, trapping her in the bedroom, still swinging the cleaver and making threats.  Daryl grabbed the .22 rifle and, in fear for her life and the lives of her mother and the others on the property, shot Watkins three times.  

Later testimony, from the same neighbours who saw and heard the initial conflicts on the property, stated that they saw a distraught teen girl with barefeet leave the residence and run away down the street.  Daryl, scared and in shock after the shooting, ran to a relatives home not knowing that Watkins was already dead.  She thought she'd only wounded him, and in court told the jury that she hadn't wanted to kill him, just stop him from terrorising her and her family.

When Daryl finally learned that Watkins was dead, the Aunt, who's house Daryl had run to, testified that Daryl began sobbing hysterically and saying that she never meant to kill Watkins.  This is not the behaviour of a person who has snapped and killed someone in a fit of rage.  There are discrepancies in parts of Daryl's account of the shooting, but those discrepancies, according to the defense, can be attributed to the chaotic scene, the fear that Daryl was in, and to shock due to the fact that she'd never shot a person before.

For me, the witness testimony of Daryl's behaviour both before and after shooting, fits much better with the defense's version of events than with the Crowns.  Daryl fled the scene crying and afraid, and she was a shy, quiet girl who had no history of violence or of angry outbursts.  

Victims of domestic violence can snap and kill, but in a number of those cases, the fact that these killers are also victims, many of them suffering years of abuse, is recognized and acknowledged by the Crown when charging these women.  They are often charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter, and may also agree to plead guilty in exchange for greatly reduced sentences.  Why not this time?

The concern for me is that the Crown chose to go after Daryl Kirk because of her mother, and her run-ins with the law over the years.  

Kelly Kirk has a long history of violent relationships and drug use.  In 1992, Kelly, who was 15 at the time, was dating now-convicted double murderer, Graeme Burton, when he stabbed a nightclub lighting technician in revenge, after bouncers at the same club had thrown him out.  Burton was jailed for that murder, but was released on parole in 2006, where he went on a six month, meth-fueled crime spree which culminated in a shooting rampage in the hills of Wainuiomata, outside of Wellington.  Burton shot at a number of mountain bikers, killing Karl Kuchenbecker.  He then aimed his shotgun at police, who shot first, hitting him in the leg.  Burton survived the injury and was given a life-sentence with a minimum 26-year non-parole period.

It took Kelly a year to find the courage to use the opportunity presented by Burton's inprisonment, and break up with him from the safety of a prison visiting booth.  Despite the protection offered by the safety glass, Burton still launched himself at it in a futile effort to physically attack Kelly.  Prison staff would not allow Burton to write to Kelly, so he got friends and family who visited him in prison to drop his threatening notes directly into her letterbox.  When he briefly escaped from prison in 1998, the police whisked Kelly and her children (not Burton's) into protective custody because, despite being in prison for six years at that point, his anger at Kelly for breaking up with him, and his desire for revenge against her, had not diminished. 

Kelly Kirk spent years living in fear of Burton, but many of her other boyfriends could be just as dangerous.  Thanks to the damaging influence of Burton and subsequant boyfriends, Kelly was introduced to hard drugs and became addicted to morphine.  Something that has played a role in the kind of men she let into her, and her kids, lives.  Many of those men were not just violent, they too were drug addicts, a dangerous and volatile combination.

Kelly has become well known to police over the years, she's been jailed a few times, and her previous partners have all had long rap-sheets.  So did that history cause the police, and the prosecutors to stop seeing her daughter, Daryl, as a victim, and instead see her as a member of a "bad" family?  Did they assume like mother, like daughter?  Did they believe perhaps that Daryl was the product of a violent upbringing and, therefore, must be a violent person?

I will conclude by saying that I think the jury got it right in this case.  I believe that Daryl Kirk was terrified, in fear of her life, her mother's life, her boyfriend's life, and the lives of the other people in that house.  She shot a man who had brutalised her and her family, just like all the other men her mother bought into their lives.  Daryl Kirk was trying, in the only way she could, to stop that vicious cycle of violence.  It wasn't the right response, we know that from the safety of our non-violent homes, but Daryl had known nothing but violence for her entire life.  What possible chance did she have to realise that violence can be stopped in other ways, that there are people and organisations out there that can help?  

I believe the jury got it right, and the Crown and the police got it wrong.  They allowed themselves to see this family as a stereotype, instead of seeing them as real people, as victims of a violent, drug-fueled thug who was one more in a long line of violent, drug-fueled thugs who had victimised this family.  I just hope the judge also sees Daryl Kirk as a real person, and a victim, and imposes a sentence that will take that into account, and hopefully, give her a chance to rebuild her life instead of becoming just one more prison statistic.


Accused Claims Self-Defense in Shooting Death 
Accused Still Has Nightmares About Murder
Defense says Scared Teen, Crown says Rage-filled Murderer  Daryl Kirk's Mother on Past with Graeme Burton
Wikipedia entry on Graeme Burton

Victim or Predator: The Gay Panic Defense

On the evening of December 27th, 2014, staff at the Ascot-Epsom Motel in South Auckland discovered one of their guests, bleeding and disoriented, staggering across the courtyard.  The man's name is Ihaia Gillman-Harris.
His assailants, two teenage boys he'd offered a lift and a room for the night.
But within minutes of checking in to the Ascot, Gillman-Harris was viciously assaulted with a baseball bat.  He died in surgery later the same night from multiple head injuries.

The trial for those teenage boys began today and their defense is a familiar one for members of the LGBT community, and it's a defense that makes my blood boil every time it's trotted out. 

It even has it's own name, the "gay panic defense".

I'm a straight woman, I'll put that out there right now, because it's going to help me make an important point about this case.  Lets imagine that I've murdered someone, another woman, and that woman happens to be lesbian.  The police come and I tell them that I was only acting in self-defense because she was a lesbian, she tried to rape me, and I panicked and killed her.

Ridiculous right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that women can't be perpetrators of sexual violence, because they absolutely can.  I'm also not saying that women can't rape other women, because they absolutely can.  What I am saying is that if I, as a straight woman, used that defense in a criminal court on a murder charge, I would have to show pretty overwhelming evidence for my claim to slide that defense past a jury. 

But when a man claims that another man tried to rape him, and that's why he resorted to murder, that's somehow a legitimate defense, and one that often needs very little evidence to be upheld.  Here are some examples....

In 2011, South Australian man, Michael John Lindsey, bashed and stabbed an aquaintance, Andrew Negre, to death.  At trial, he claimed he was provoked by Negre's unwanted sexual advances but was found guilty of murder, and sentenced to 23 years in prison.  But in 2015, Lindsey successfully appealed his conviction to the High Court, where he was granted a new trial based on his claim that "gay panic" is a legitimate defense, and that the judge didn't make it clear to the jury just how much provocation could be used as a mitigating factor to murder charges.

Hold on to your koalas, it gets worse.  In the wake of Lindsey's appeal, there were renewed calls to ban the gay panic defense as some other Australian states have done.  Sounds like a good idea right? Not according to the South Australian Law Society, who had this to say in a letter to Legaslative Review Committee...

“It is surprising...that the occasion of the delivery of Lindsey v R has been met with renewed calls for reform concerning the regrettably coined ‘gay panic defence'.  The common law partial defence has a rationale which, when properly explained to the community, would be seen to be acceptable and consistent with social norms.  Importantly, the partial-defence works to avoid an inappropriate murder conviction.” - Rocco Perotta, President of the Law Society (and probably a giant, homophobic douche-canoe)

Australian bigotry at it's finest folks.

In Cook County, Illinois in 2009, 30-year-old Joseph Biedermann stabbed his neighbour Terence Hauser 61 times.  Biedermann claimed self-defense, telling the jury at his murder trial that Hauser had threatened to rape and murder him just hours after the pair had first met in a local bar.  

Biedermann's claims of a violent struggle with Hauser, who he alleged attacked him with a sword, were not backed up by the evidence.  Hauser's apartment, where the murder occurred, showed no signs of such an epic struggle, and many of Hauser's 61 stab wounds were to the back.  

Police said Hauser's death looked more like an unprovoked and brutal slaughter than an attempt to fend off an attack.  Despite this, a jury found Biedermann not guilty, accepting his "gay panic defense" as legitimate, and the vicious murderer who stabbed a single father 61 times walked free.  

This defense has been extended to excuse the murder of transgendered victims too.

In 2015, US Marine, Lance Cpl. Joseph Scott Pemberton, was arrested for the murder of 26-year-old Filipino woman, Jennifer Laude.  Laude, who was transgendered, was discovered strangled and drowned in a toilet bowl at a hotel in Olongapo City.  Pemberton had met Laude in a nightclub the night before she was found dead, and admitted accompanying her to the hotel for sex.  Pemberton testified that he was not aware Laude was trans, and had "panicked" after discovering she had a penis.  He then claimed that he strangled her, but left her unconscious but alive.  I presume we're expected to believe she drowned herself in the toilet, because that makes soooo much sense.

That last sentence was all sarcasm, in case anyone couldn't tell.

Jennifer Laude

Why is this ridiculous defense still being allowed in our courts? or in ANY court anywhere in the world?

It's 2016, and it's well past time to put the "gay panic defense" in the trashbag of history once and for all.


 Day One of Gillman-Harris Murder Trial

 Law Society Supports "Gay Panic Defense."

Green MP Calls for "Gay Panic Defense" to be Abolished

"Gay Panic Defense" Used to Aquit Illinois Man 

 Marine Claims "Gay Panic Defense" In Murder of Trans Filipino Woman