|
|
Post by fish on Sept 19, 2024 9:04:06 GMT 12
Who has been following this?
Wealthy eye surgeon accused of murdering wife, who was working all day and all night for the DHB procuring PPE for during the covid pandemic, including overseeing a $20m fuck up, died in an apparent suicide.
It has been an absolutely media gift, utterly sensational expose of private lives.
So the eye surgeon has a descent meth habit and has blown $300k on hookers in a couple of years. Full on double life stuff.
The jury is out for deliberation, after 8 weeks the jury has dropped down to 11 (one went sick I think). Interestingly, the jury is now 3 men and 8 women. Given the case is around domestic violence, husband kills wife, I wonder if the jury composition will influence the verdict?
It is certainly not clear cut. I am leaning to it being a suicide due to the incomprehendable work pressure, the personality traits and the knowledge her husband was an utter sex fiend, banging every slapper he could find. It would be sole destroying firstly to find out your partner was cheating, but to the extent of blowing hundreds of thousands on hookers is next level.
But that said, there are a few curious facts that don't sit right for finding a not-guilty verdict. The unexplained cut on Polkinghorne's head, the trashed bedroom (ottoman tipped over). I haven't got my head around the actual hanging rope. Crown says the knots were tied very loosely and halfway up a bannister, Defense says there were two ropes and the one she (allegedly) used was cut down.
One thing is for sure, I really feel for the jurors, getting stuck on a trial like that for 8 weeks plus. That would be a mindboggling disruption to every day life, let alone the psychological impact of having to go through that type of evidence day in, day out.
And I hope they do reach a verdict, it would be completely gutting for all involved if it turned into a hung jury and they had to start again.
|
|
|
|
Post by elliot749 on Sept 19, 2024 9:48:56 GMT 12
"turned into a hung jury" great pun!
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 19, 2024 13:56:47 GMT 12
its a weird one that's for sure.
When I was on one for 5 days it flew
past as we were being presented lots of info, much being very interesting. But 7-8 weeks is a while.
I hope they up the payments for trials that long.
My team knows I will not write a get out if it letter but I will top the jury payment up to their usual pay for the period.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 23, 2024 15:14:58 GMT 12
Not Guilty
Jury previously posed a question to the judge with his response
"Most of the people on the jury don’t think there is enough evidence to support that Pauline committed suicide, however some people on the jury do not think the Crown has supplied evidence that we can answer yes to the question 'has the Crown made you sure that Dr Polkinghorne caused the death of his wife, Ms Pauline Hanna, by intentionally strangling her'. Please can we have some direction."
Justice Lang told the jury that it is the Crown who have to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and it is not sufficient to think Polkinghorne is "probably guilty or very likely guilty".
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 23, 2024 15:37:02 GMT 12
Not Guilty Jury previously posed a question to the judge with his response "Most of the people on the jury don’t think there is enough evidence to support that Pauline committed suicide, however some people on the jury do not think the Crown has supplied evidence that we can answer yes to the question 'has the Crown made you sure that Dr Polkinghorne caused the death of his wife, Ms Pauline Hanna, by intentionally strangling her'. Please can we have some direction."
Justice Lang told the jury that it is the Crown who have to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and it is not sufficient to think Polkinghorne is "probably guilty or very likely guilty".It is good it wasn't a hung jury, and needing a retrial. That whole 'burden of proof' thing. There clearly wasn't any factual evidence it was murder. But there were some suspicious issues. Noting I didn't sit through the 8 weeks of evidence, I sounds highly likely she was strung out with work pressure, high expectations of herself and ran into a dead end. Hope the Jury get some sort of Knighthood for their service. Distinguished Service Medal or some sort of formal acknowledgement. 8 weeks of sitting through that is above and beyond for the average citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 23, 2024 17:11:09 GMT 12
It is good it wasn't a hung jury, and needing a retrial. That whole 'burden of proof' thing. There clearly wasn't any factual evidence it was murder. But there were some suspicious issues. Noting I didn't sit through the 8 weeks of evidence, I sounds highly likely she was strung out with work pressure, high expectations of herself and ran into a dead end. Hope the Jury get some sort of Knighthood for their service. Distinguished Service Medal or some sort of formal acknowledgement. 8 weeks of sitting through that is above and beyond for the average citizen. KB post, written before verdict, posted afterwards the likes of this suggested police behaviour is a worry: When Hanna first died, it was difficult to reach conclusions on what happened. The Police seemed to be very effective at leaking evidence to the media that portrayed Polkinghorne is a bad light. The rushing off to the arms of Madison Ashton made him look guilty, and the rumoured affairs and drug use made it look like a typical he killed the wife to get her out of the way.
But then more stories came out that Hanna knew of his outside relationships, and even took part in some of them. It didn’t appear she was going to leave him. Motive was less.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Sept 23, 2024 17:30:06 GMT 12
Could almost say there will be a re trial
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 23, 2024 17:33:19 GMT 12
Could almost say there will be a re trial Why? |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Sept 23, 2024 18:58:39 GMT 12
Could almost say there will be a re trial Why? Confirmed on tv1 news theres to be no re trial.Glad I wasnt on the jury.It would be hung. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 23, 2024 19:30:07 GMT 12
Confirmed on tv1 news theres to be no re trial.Glad I wasnt on the jury.It would be hung. A verdict was reached. There is a key principle, no double jeopardy. Can't be tried again and again until the prosecution get the verdict they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 23, 2024 19:43:32 GMT 12
Unless you want to build a Hundertwasser Centre in Whangarei with ratepayer money.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 23, 2024 20:00:29 GMT 12
This case is going to be the gift that keeps on giving for the media. This story from Stuffed is interesting to say the least, potentially inflammatory. So, the hooker, Ashton, wanted Polkinghorne found guilty. Note the subtext that she didn't actually say she thought he did it, just she wanted him found guilty. It is a fairly long and convoluted article, but worth reading. Let me see how well I can summarise it. Hannah had paid sex with Ashton as a threesome and potentially wider group sex, with Polkinghorne, at least 3 times. That was a fair while ago though, starting circa 2011. Ashton was called as a Police witness, but bailed. Police couldn't find her, include Aus police and apparently Interpol. Accept all the media outlets could find her no problem, as she did this story well before the verdict. Polkinghorne told Ashton he had divorced Hannah 3 years before her death. So Polkinghorne was lieing to his hooker. She thought he was single, and obviously viewed him as a sugar daddy. Other than professional fees, he settled a $110k debt for her, and gave her other 'loans' in the 10's of thousands. They were embarking on a 'relationship' when Hannah died. He was planning on spending his retirement with the hooker. There is some other weirdness about a Sydney based lawyer that Ashton recommended, working on the Defense, but she came to Auckland but then didn't work at the trial. Apparently issues with the lawyer arranging defense witness or not doing that properly. And when the Cops busted Ashton and Polkinghorne at the luxury Mt Cook lodge, they weren't after Polkinghorne, they were after Ashton's phones. Apparently she was scantily clad with all the sex toys out at the time of the bust, and was very unhappy about it. Her main issue was the Police endangering her, I assume in reference to privacy of her other clients. There is reference to Ashton and Polkinghorne's heavy drug use, but she says she has been clean for several years. Anyway, none of this changes any fundamentals of the trial, as in there was no factual evidence of murder. But it adds another substantial layer of intrigue. It is curious that the Police couldn't manage to get a key witness to appear. There are comments that the prosecutions case was so weak it should never have gone to trial. It is highly likely that the Police initiated charges on the basis of getting Ashton in the witness box, but they fucked it up and she went to ground. Sounds like she would have been a volatile and combative witness at best. Turns out Hannah was on Prozac for something like 20 years, but more interestingly, her GP put her on Naltrexone, that is generally used to manage addictions and commonly used for opioid addictions. In this context it sounds like Hannah was using it to manage alcohol dependency. Along with prescription weight loss drugs. The most likely scenario people point to is Polkinghorne loosing is rag on P, lashing out and killing her. But, the major paradox of someone loosing their rag on P is then having the mental acuity to then stage a suicide and calmly lie to Police. It just doesn't happen. Police are well versed at spotting someone strung out on that stuff. What I think is going on is the Police have suspicions but know they can't prove it. So put they guy through hell with 3 years of charges hanging over him, an incredibly expensive 8 week trial (Polkinghorne's defense costs would be a million plus surely), but the main point, Police leaking all the private details of drugs, hookers etc about this previously respected top flight surgeon. Regardless of the trial, the Police have personally insured Polkinghorne is punished as much as they can get away with. He may be found not guilty, but his name is now inextricably linked with mud. www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350422658/polkinghorne-murder-trial-sex-worker-madison-ashton-breaks-her-silence-reveals |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Sept 24, 2024 10:24:33 GMT 12
Strange how he even ended up in court The coroner findings haven't been made available yet
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 24, 2024 11:07:51 GMT 12
The jury only took 10 hours to get a verdict.
That was fast considering the trail length and suggests the Crowns case was just not that flash.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 24, 2024 14:23:49 GMT 12
The jury only took 10 hours to get a verdict. That was fast considering the trail length and suggests the Crowns case was just not that flash. If there was a proper public prosecutors office, rather than these types of prosecutions being driven by the police, it would never have got into court. Further post here, with some interesting comments such as, I believe from a trial lawyer:
I can’t see how the jury could have convicted. Of course it is possible that he did this, I wasn’t at the trial so don’t know enough to be sure, but the defence pathology evidence was enough to make me think it was suicide on the balance of probabilities.
The main factor in the pathology evidence was the absence of signs of struggle. Anyone who has been involved in a murder case where there is some form of strangulation will be aware of the physiological signs; they weren’t present here. Combine that with the lack of external signs of force and I think that there is realistically only one likely explanation. Strangulation is not a quick process and almost always involves struggle; this does not fit the pattern.
Of course, I could be wrong and Polkinghorne may be a genius criminal who left no sign of his nefarious doings. However, if I were the judge in this case I would have found him not guilty, and were I the coroner I would rule it likely a suicide.
Also, remember my oft-repeated point: never trust reporting of the trial to have got the evidence right. They often don’t know what they are listening to.
|
|
