Samson might I enquire into which category above you fall..
I am mainly interested in cases where an innocent person has been prosecuted and acquitted, or prosecuted and jailed.
The dossier on Mark Lundy is explosive in revealing police corruption and perjuring on the stand.
I keep offering you the document and you ignore it. Steve Braunias has read it, as has Mike White, and I can absolutely assure you they know he is innocent, however they phrase it in the media. I know the key activist extremely well, so do they.
I have no idea why you want him to be guilty, because he is not. He had been invoiced for 550k by a man who was developing rootstock for his vineyard but that debt was not yet due. This man told his creditors, of which he had several, that he would pay them when Mark Lundy paid him. His debts were around 700k. One of these creditors, probably the largest one, decided to encourage Mark Lundy to pay this man so he would get paid. He contracted debt collectors to visit Lundy to speed things up, but he was in Petone. Lundy's wife perceived this as a home invasion, screamed for help, and she was axed to stop the screaming before the neighbours would investigate.
Rod Miller is a crook, the test he did was illegal in his home country.
These are the stark facts, which few are acquainted with. This research has been conducted over 15 years by people, and he will be released later this year. You should debate matters in which you have done the appropriate research don't you think? I have read the Lundy thread here, and have already tried to correct David1819 on IA.
This Lundy case is one I have spent thousands of hours on, not so much to discover what happened, that is straightforward, but to work on ways to educate the people and the courts.