Readers Comments

Received 11/3/09

This is a message from Darryl

It's appalling the crown not paying this man compensation for the loss of
ten years of his freedom, corruption is like a cancer it doesn't get
better by itself, the Judge,Prosecutor and Police who handled this case
should be held accountable I would like to see them lose ten years of
their freedom and see how they cope ,most of them are spineless anyway
kind of men that would push a woman infront of them if there was a firing
squad waiting for them

Received 18/02/09

Is'nt it strange that REX is acquitted of a life-sentence (even though
it's taken 10 years of his life!) and YET, our so-called justice system
says he needs to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE to really show he's 'not guilty'???

Is'nt it even more pathetic that some QC says "its more probable than not
that Haig was somehow involved in the killing".?? Since WHEN did the
CRIMINAL system demand evidence based on 'balance of probability'? Income
tax law and civil law demands the BALANCE OF PROBABILITY onus. It's just
an easy way for the Crown to try and reverse the onus. In the original
trials, if BALANCE OF PROBABILITY WAS THE ONUS, Rex Haig (AND DAVID BAIN) would have ben freed!!

Like DAVID BAIN, our justice system (and those judges that directly made
their verdicts (don't blame the jury..that's rubbish and the
blind-leading-the blind..), now have the possibility of having to 'change
their own mind's'. Does that result in some form of professional
embarrassment? i.e 'egg-on-the face'?

Criminal onus, that convicted HAIG & BAIN, was BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. That is an onus (and the heaviest onus) on the Crown. To now say "on a
balance of probability" that HAIG was 'somehow' involved is a total
contradiction of our justice system. Justice is supposed to mean
'fairness'? Where is this when a man is acquitted of murder but then told
he has to PROVE he is truly innocent. I hope you have all heard of the
AIDWYC (Association in defence of the wrongly convicted). They had a lot
to do, and are still doing, with SCOTT WATSON here. Reuben 'HURRICANE
CARTER' even came to New Zealand in support of Scott. More importantly, 2
years ago they freed STEPHEN TRUSTCOTT (Canada) whom was convicted of a
rape and murder of his schoolfriend when they were pupils. He served some
more than 30 years in prison. He was released on DNA evidence that showed
a GOVERNMENT PATHOLOGIST LIED at the original trial (along with a huge
pile of other improper evidence tendered by Police etc).

Those of you that think that NZ has an infallible and totally correct
justice system, are in for a nasty shock because you can only know this
WHEN you are the subject of such process and see the terrible GAPS (as the
late KEVIN RYAN once said) in the criminal system. There are no such
things as RIGHTS. once you are charged with an imprisonable offence you
are at the mercy of the justice system. Your freedom largely depends on
what Mr policeman says in court.

Be interesting to see the further developments in this case. AND, if you
are reading this REX or Johnathan Eaton, then reply.

Anon.

Received 18/02/09

This is a message from R Bentley

Rex you deserve compo and would like to see you keep up the fight in
clearing your name. I wish i could help, but unfortunately i am not in a
position to do so. We know who killed rodrique as well as the other two
that were murdered. I wish you well.

Received 17/02/09

I'm appalled - NO COMPENSATION for 10 years of being wrongfully convicted!

This is currently on the news, with the "official" announcement not
expected until 3 pm today.

What does this say about the rights of someone who is wrongfully convicted
in this country??!!

Received, Wednesday 28/06/2006

Good luck Rex with your appeal, I hope justice will prevail. Your imprisonment and injustice reminds me of the Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, The Arthur Allan Thomas Case. Makes you wonder how some people can actually sleep straight in their beds at night?

Received, Monday 19/06/2006

justice for rex haig

lloyd gretton

Received, Wednesday 13/06/2006

I wish you all the best for your upcoming appeal. Keep believing truth will prevail. Your fight for justice will help other innocent people caught up in a system that at present seems to favour the presumption of guilt ahead of innocence. Cases like yours cast blemishes on our crown prosecutors and accentuate the flaws of inadequate police investigations. God Bless you and your family.

Anon

Received, Tuesday 12/06/2006

I was one of the people who David Barr spoke to about Hogan's confession to the murder- I told the police what i knew, and yet they did nothing about it, they simply said- 'thanks, bye'. I have heard of lots of alleged incidents of the police tampering with evidence, suppressing evidence or just going after the wrong guy, but this is the first time I've seen it in the flesh. I knew Mark and his family. I also knew David Barr in another context, he may be a dodgy bugger, but i know that he didn't lie when he told me about Hogan's confession- and i know that you didn't do it. Good luck with the hearing.

Anon

Received, Thursday 29/04/2004

Having reviewed the evidence and heard the beliefs of Bryan Rowe who has personally investigated the case, it seems almost certain that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned. He must be pardoned and released immmediately.

Darren Paterson

Received, Mon 15/03/2004

Rex, There a few members of the diving community that have ever been invited to come and stay with my family and I. The reason that I had no problems in welcoming you into our home was because you proved yourself to me to be a man of honour and integrity. I will support you in any way possible Rex, and following your imminent release/pardon, I look forward to sitting down and sharing a few stories. Jim Rigney

Received, Fri 13/02/2004

As an old work companion of Rex I was very interested in listening to the lower court depositions in Invercargill. As I am Ex NZ Police and studied law - I also wanted to follow the points of evidence that could possibly convict Rex. I have to say - that I have seen some prosecution witneses in my time, but Hogan and the other crew member, were the most unreliable witnesses one could ever hope to get. Hogan had already boasted to a number of people that he did the killing of the deceased (Mark Roderiques) and the other crew member was so drunk he did not know if it was day or night. But conveniently remembered and told Police just before the depositions hearing, that he could remember see a body lying and tied up on the back deck and that Rex left the wheel house to deal to the deceased. This startling revelation in his boozed up brain was remarkable - especially when he could not remember anything else.

One other aspect of this case that always stuck out and worried me. A skipper of a boat parked on the opposite side of the wharf to the Antares - heard a conversation between two people. One of the things he thought he head was someone saying "I did not really mean it". But whatever else he heard, he was not saying, but he immedaitely got on the radio, and called his fishing hand from the fish packing shed at Jacksons Bay. The fishing hand came back to his boat and they hurredly went out to anchorage, and as they were proceeding to anchorage, the two of them kept looking back at the Antares. They also had a loaded rifle in the wheelhouse. The question is - why were they a hurry to get out to the anchorage, and if all was quiet on the Antares and at Jacksons Bay, why were they so concerned in looking back at the Antares to see if anthing was happening. I have always believed - That Skipper knew there had been a Murder and that he had heard a vital conversation and decided to scarper the area as quickly as possible.

Rex was at the packing Shed - It was Hogan that returned to the Antares to observe Roderiques packing up his gear and leaving the vessel. Rex had earlier stopped a knife fight between Hogan & Roderiques. So from that point of view - Hogan was the last person that should have gone down to the boat to observe Roderiques packing up his gear and leaving the vessel. Thats obvious.

It was also ironic that one of the witneses who had given the Police a written statement that he had been told by Hogan that he had done the murder himself, was himself killed a day or two before the deposition trial. It was conveniently put down to drugs, but it also came out that he was killed for being a Police snitch.

Another aspect of the final trial that does concern me. When the Jury asked for protection in the court, that they felt intimidated when there were very few people in the court room at that time. IMMEDIATELY - Rex's council (ed. name removed) should have immediately gone to "war" and asked the judge.

1. What intimidation are they referring to?
2. Who has been intimidated ???
3. Who is responsible for the intimidation ???
4. Why should they feel intimidated & what acts or inference has caused them to think like this???
5. And what affect has this intimidation had on the evidence and the trial process????

This I feel should have been done immediately and in a stern manner. It was obvious - that something was not right !!!!

Also right from day 1 when Rex was arrested for the murder - I advised him strongly in Paparoa Prison - "make sure the trial is held in the Westland Police District - which will probably be Greymouth". This advice was not taken and the trial was held in Invercargill - right amongst all the fishermen, drug heads and family of the deceased. Technically it should have been held in Greymouth. That was one BIG mistake !!!!!

Rex would most certainly have had a fair trial in Greymouth. That is for sure.

From a being a work mate and friend of Rex - I can say without any doubt - Rex is no murderer. You could never say the same words about the other two "deadbeats and low life" that put Rex away with their numerous stories of sheer fantasy.

The motive portrayed by the crown in respect to the Abalone Smuggling activity - was a deliberate "red herring". The smuggling operation to Asia did not even evenuate and was deliberately blown up out of all proportions by the Police and the crown.

We have an innocent man in Jail. That I am sure of.

Anon

comment on this page

Terms & Conditions

By viewing the pages of this website, you acknowledge that you have read and accepted these disclaimers. The information published on this site is based on media and other publically available information and is intended only as an introduction to the Rex Haig case. While every endeavour has been made to supply accurate information, errors and omissions may occur. The operators/owners of Rexhaig.com and/or Rex Haig do not accept any liability for any loss or damage which may directly or indirectly result from any opinion, information, representation or omission, whether negligent or otherwise, contained on this site. Any requests for removal of allegedly defamatory material or notifications of error will be considered upon request. Changes or updates to the content of this site may occur without notice. The owners/operators of rexhaig.com acknowledge and accept the rights of third party providers and subsequently make all efforts to provide full references to newspaper articles and other published material. Where an article has been published without the express permission of a third party, that third party may request the article be removed from rexhaig.com. The owners/operators of Rexhaig.com owns all copyright and all other intellectual property rights in this site. Everything on this site is copyrighted unless otherwise noted. Rexhaig.com welcomes the use of this site for your non-commercial use only provided that you retain all copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices contained in the content. We advise that you may not copy or display for redistribution to third parties or for commercial purposes any portion of this site without rexhaig.com's express permission. Rexhaig.com operators/owners and/or Rex Haig are not responsible for, and makes no representations, warranties or conditions concerning, the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Rex Haig.com provides links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement, investigation or verification of the linked site. This website is governed by, and is to be interpreted in accordance with, the laws of New Zealand.