There is a twisted far-left narrative that goes: The cops needed to confect a conspiracy because they were so excited about a war on terror! Having a Terrorism Act they had to find some terrorists! They made it up!.
Anyone repeating this claim now discredits themselves.
Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic weapons require lengthy and detailed explanations from the accused (and now acquitted) long before they require explanations from the police.
Yes, there is a right to silence in criminal law. But we are talking not about criminal sanction.
These people have demanded the moral high ground, and demanded the support of the left. Far too many gifted it too cheaply.
Valerie Morse said on radio today she doesn't have to comment on the evidence because it was gathered illegally and it's up to the police to prove her guilt, which they will never be able to do.
But she does have some explaining to do if she hopes to influence public opinion, or cast herself as a victim.
So does every other apology seeker: Were you part of the molotov throwing, semiautomatic firing group, or not? You cannot purport to be an anti war activist when you are throwing molotov cocktails.
John Pagani has risen considerably in our esteem today.
Valerie Morse is a high-profile activist. She gained notoriety for burning the NZ flag at an ANZAC Day service in Wellington in 2007, and was of course one of those arrested during the course of the Urerewa "terrorist" raids in that same year. Charges against her as a result of the latter were dropped a couple of weeks ago after the Supreme Court decision excluding evidence gained by covert surveillance.
Ms Morse told Victoria University's magazine Salient in 2007 of her desire for a peaceful world. Salient quotes her thus:
In an interview with Salient in May this year, Valerie said, “My heart and my passion is really about stopping wars and stopping the horrors that are associated with wars. I suppose the exploitation and domination of people. I want to see a world free of violence and war.”
Today, the Herald has published an outline of some of the evidence which the Supreme Court ruled to be inadmissable. We should be grateful that suppression orders surrounding this evidence were lifted, because it is rather troubling; check this out:
Evidence from Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe was given to the hearing that film and photographs of a September 2007 camp showed a woman he said was Ms Morse holding an object believed to be a Molotov cocktail.
The person carried the object out of the view of the camera and returned a short time later without it.
Mr Pascoe was to give evidence that he believed she threw the Molotov cocktail into an outdoor oven, where police later found remnants of Molotov cocktails.
He concluded the person in the film and photographs was Ms Morse because that person was wearing clothing the same as Ms Morse was seen wearing when she was observed on her way to Ruatoki.
In both cases, the clothing was three-quarter trousers, two-tone footwear and a black long-sleeved, round-neck t-shirt.
That was the only basis for the identification because in all the images her face was concealed.
The judge said other evidence tended to corroborate the identification. Ms Morse was seen travelling into the area before the camp, and police found the t-shirt at her house.
Two surveillance cameras were set up and showed a group of people "milling about" the area. Some were running down a path towards where the burnt-out oven was later found.
Many people moving in different directions were shown in the video film, and one person - not the person alleged to be Ms Morse - could be seen making the throwing motion with an object in his hand.
Photos of a person holding a pistol in various military type poses were said to be of Ms Morse.
It makes us wonder; why would a person who wants to see "a world free of violence and war" be learning to make and throw Molotov cocktails in a remote part of New Zealand in the company of other activists, and why would she be posing military-style with a firearm?
The Urewera defendants who had their charges dismissed recently should be counting themselves very fortunate; it would seem, if you'll pardon the expression, that they have dodged a bullet. The charges have not been dismissed because there was no evidence of wrong-doing, but because the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence of wrong-doing was inadmissable.