Joke III
What is the first thing David Bain said he wanted to do when he was released from jail?
He said he wanted to go to KFC as he could just murder a family pack!
Okay on more serious Bain issues, I have now swung behind the view that there should not be a new trial. I still think the David did it theory is far more probable than the Robin did it theory, but I can not see a jury concluding beyond reasonable doubt that David did it, especially that I suspect any trial would end of focusing on the emotional aspects of “Don’t send David back to prison again after has has spent 13 years there”.
I don’t want to see Bain get paid millions of dollars compensation, when it still remains probable he murdered his parents and siblings. Somewhat hilariously at dinner this week my father disagreed with me on this point, and I had to point out to him that he really should not be arguiing in favour of children benefiting from parental murder 
So ideal outcome is the Solictor-General reaches an agreement with Bain that there will be no new trial, but no or limited compensation. if Bain demands tens of millions in compensation, then one may need a new trial, but hopefully it can be avoided.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
So ideal outcome is the Solictor-General reaches an agreement with Bain that there will be no new trial, but no or limited compensation. if Bain demands tens of millions in compensation, then one may need a new trial, but hopefully it can be avoided.
Quid pro quo – you sue for millions of dollars and we’ll slap you in jail – will fuel (further) speculation that the NZ justice system is in some way corrupt.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:14 am
There’s no cause of action to sue the Government when you’ve been convicted when you shouldn’t have (unless you can prove conspiracy-type fitups etc.).
The current compensation scheme anvolves as “ex gratia” payment – which you qualify for if you prove to the Government on the balance of probabilities that you are innocent. Discussions of possible compensation are not for discussion now, but on application.
That said (if you’re right about it being probable he won’t get any money), your “ideal solution” is appalling and illegal. The ideal solution to someone who thinks Bain is probably (but not certainly) guilty may be no new trial and no compensation, but the two should not be linked in some sort of deal with Bain is contrary to justice.
There should be a new trial if the Solicitor-General has a good faith belief in guilt and the strength of Crown case, and it’s in the public interest to prosecute. And not to avoid paying a few million in compensation if it would otherwise be warranted.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Even though there should be a new trial as there is no way the verdict in a mass murder should be left unresolved,my guess is that the Crown will cave in as the focus of the new trial by the defence would be on Milton Weir(the police officer involved in gathering evidence against David Bain) and some of his dubious behaviour.
And if you can prove that the cops are bent then all evidence must be treated as unreliable.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Seems strange to argue that a man whose convictions have been quashed and whome you don’t think would be found guilty of murder should be denied compensation for being punished for a crime he has ultimately not been judged guilty of.
I don’t need to be reminded about burdens of proof etc, did that at law school. But this is a man’s life, unless his guilt can be confrimed in a new trial, he has lost 13 years of his life due to faults in the judicial system, for that any of us would expect some compensation.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I have to disagree with you on this one David. The way I see it even though it is a lose lose decision all roads lead to a trial.
A basic legal concept in New Zealand law is the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. As Davids convictions have been quashed he is essentially now on remand, in fact he has now been on remand for 13 odd years. If you held a prisoner on remand for 13 years and then declared that there would be no trial, compensation would be due to them its as simple as that; this is now the same situation. Compensation owed is the status quo until he is proven guilty.
Now extending that premise, before any of the people that think he is guilty (I am still undecided) roll over and let him have some compensation they will want an actual not guilty verdict, note the three states; innocent, guilty, and not guilty. At the moment he is still innocent.
I mentioned earlier that a trial was lose lose, this is for the crown, the way I see it is it can only go two ways not guilty, or guilty, if it is the former then obviously we fall back to the status quo of compensation owed, if however it is the later and they manage to convict him again I see another whole raft of expensive appeals coming on the basis that evidence is now stagnant, in fact some is now outright unavailable; leaving very real grounds for appeal in that the crown should not have brought the trial without more solid evidential backing.
All of this bars one other possibility and that is that he may be pardoned, that depends largely on how Helen Clark?/Governor General? feels about his case, it may however not withdraw the right to compensation.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
And another journalist asked Bain what career he might consider while out on Bail, he replied:
A photographer as I like shooting families.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The only way compensation should be payable is if he took civil action against the various parties that he deems ultimately led to the “substantial miscarriage of justice”. Compo is not a fait accompli, especially in this matter. This is not a David Dougherty or Arthur Thomas situation at all and they need to be distinguished.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am
On the joke theme, Sainsbury asked Bain “what went through your head in the court when you were granted bail”
I was waiting for the answer “well it wasn’t a bullet….”
I can’t believe the gullibility of the New Zealand public driven by the largely uncritical media ‘celebration’ of Bain’s release and focus on trivial side issues and misleading claims about police corruption, and ignoring the primary evidence that all points to David Bain. The hysteria is bizarre. This guy is becoming New Zealand’s OJ. Remember the contempt that was generally felt in New Zealand at the way the defence twisted items and distracted the case away from the evidence.
Unfortunately DPF seems to have now started falling for the hype with his almost Helen Clarkian “it’s all too hard now, let’s move on”. It’s at times like these that you need the system to stand firm, otherwise we may as well use 0900 polls to decide guilt or innocence. Sort of “Dancing with the accused”.
All the forensic evidence points to a single person. All there is on the other side are some theories that have somehow morphed into ‘fact’ through repetition, and some nitpicking items that are trivial on balance. The appeal court came to the right conclusion as to the evidence, even though they weren’t entitled to. To support David Bain requires either ignorance or belief in such unlikely and extreme convolutions of circumstance and behaviour that, if your kids told you such a story you would dismiss it as fantasy.
In terms of a retrial, as Graeme said, if you think he “probably” did it, the only outcome can be a retrial. The case can’t get much stronger and you are setting a new evidentiary benchmark if such as case can’t be heard. The HB farmer murder depositions going on at the moment would have no hope based on such a test. Compared to that, the Bain case is a complete step change upwards in evidence.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Not funny.
Types like you may as well spit out the one about the 2 yr old girl being shot as well.
Go on. You want to.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Can anyonee refresh my memory on the motives of David Bain for killing his entire famiily?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I think we may underestimate the strentgh of a new crown case. Presumably the crown is not restricted to what they presented at the initial trial. As has been said repetition of hearsay has become taken as fact in this case. Surely the crown, for the first time in 13 years will have the opportunity to present multiple witness to counter the claims of incest etc and paint laniet as unreliable (she also claims to have had a baby or be pregnant to her father which was disproved at pm). Also available to the crown aremultiple witnesses to testify to Davids increasingly bizzare behaviour pre murder. The crown may also choose to offer a motive…”unhinged 22 year paperboy wipes out dysfunctional family….ala mcNeish”.
The crown can also counter the defences weak “scientific” case with direct cross examination for the first time.
Dempster the pathologist also Im sure will be rock solid in his assertions and his mana as a forensic pathologist has only increased since the murders.
The crown can still paint the fantastical and highly illogical train of events that robin undertook in the killings of the family as NOT a reasonable possibility.
Also….any new evidence from the crown?????
This aint over
May 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Maybe he just didn’t like Mondays
May 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Insider,based on the evidence presented at the trial I was like you and thought that David Bain was guilty.But with the revelations now coming out about the police involved in gathering this evidence,there is to much doubt to convict.
As soon as the defence can cast aspersions on the police,the case falls over.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Towaka, exactly what revelations are you talking about. Surely not those in Investigate? Is that the level of proof we are descending to? It’s odd that people can throw reason out the window, put more faith in conspiracies than direct evidence and expect to be taken seriously.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I agree with Scott Optican’s assesment of this whole messy business. There MUST be a retrial, or the allegations will hang over Bain’s head for the rest of his days. Likewise, the Crown needs to be given the opportunity to replay what was at the time a very strong case against Bain. If he is found not guilty, he can walk from the court an innocent man – in the meantime he is still the accused in one of New Zealand’s worst-ever mass-murders, and the media who are fawning all over him would do well to remember that!
May 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Retrial please. I am willing to offer myself up as a person willing to assess the evidence presented in a court. There are tens of thousands of people like me who can form a judgement based on evidence, in court.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Let’s imagine a Cleudo like scenario : a number of people have been killed in a single location and there are a range of suspects
1 blood from one or more of them is found only on a single suspect
2 there are bloody fingerprints on the murder weapon and smeared around the house all belonging to one suspect
3 The murder weapon belongs to a suspect who has a key to unlock it.
4 Evidence has been destroyed by a suspect.
5 In the course of the murders, there was a fight and the blood of one victim is found on another suspect and that victim had that same suspect’s clothing traces under his/her fingernails
6 One part of a clothing item presumably damaged in a fight is found in a suspect’s bedroom, the other beside the victim
7 Bloody clothing samples belonging to a suspect are found beside a victim
8 There is evidence of only one suspect having been in the same room as more than one victim at the time of their deaths.
Who did it? Suspect 1 or 8?
Now imagine there is in fact only one suspect and each and every element of the list above relates to that single person. In the real world, that would be considered a fairly strong case I would say.
In today’s world it seems that a rumour your dad may have been doing your sister is reasonable doubt….
May 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Adding to the bad taste jokes above, I will make this filthy observation based on this headline from today’s Herald.
“David Bain – sun on his face and fish on his mind”
Well, been inside he probably hasn’t had a girl in years!
May 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Insider,Investigate has witness statements from different women that independently corroborates.These women claim that Milton Weir(the main officer who worked on the Bain case) was involved in under age prostitution,protection rackets,rape etc.
And in any trial they would be used as witnesses to discredit the police`s evidence.I know the fact that they used to be sex workers will count against there testimony but I can not see how when the Crown has no problems using there secret witness who often are serving crims when it suits them.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
When it suits them !!~!
Amen to that .
May 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Its good to see that plenty of the population still reason that David is guilty. With all the bias of the media coverage I was convinced the whole country had gone stupid.
Like I said earlier……1 years of “free David Bain” “David Bain is innocent” with no oppositional statements, and the country has started to believe it.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Its good to see that plenty of the population still reason that David is guilty. With all the bias of the media coverage I was convinced the whole country had gone stupid.
Like I said earlier……11 years of “free David Bain” “David Bain is innocent” with no oppositional statements, and the country has started to believe it.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Towaka
People say a lot of things but when tested often become a bit vague. The whole incest meme in the Bain case is an example. When put on the spot, the claimant Cottle was found to be unreliable and Laniet in retro was a fantasist.
Ian’s method seems to revolve around getting one person to make a claim and then draw inferences to build a story, without always strongly testing their credibility, or at least being vague about sources. The DBP bondage claims are one recent example. Rather like a scatter gun, one of his pellets may hit a target in a minor way but in the current case I’m not sure if his reliance on pros and convicts is adding much credibility.
As an aside, interestingly Idour worked (as a PI) on the Bain case as he served a warrant on Cottle who made the incest claims.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
> unless his guilt can be confrimed in a new trial, he has lost 13 years of his life due to faults in the judicial system, for that any of us would expect some compensation.
Well, that’s true up to a point. But it may be that even if the new evidence had been presented at his trial, he may still have been found guilty. That, of course, is the Court of Appeal’s position. However, the Privy Council has said that it’s not up to the COA to decide on guilt and innocence in this case; that’s the job of 12 of David’s peers.
The problem for David is that he essentially has to prove that Robin is the killer, since it’s never been suggested that someone else did it. So if Robin is the killer, there should be available evidence that he’s the killer, right? Where is it?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
> unless his guilt can be confrimed in a new trial, he has lost 13 years of his life due to faults in the judicial system, for that any of us would expect some compensation.
Well, that’s true up to a point. But it may be that even if the new evidence had been presented at his trial, he may still have been found guilty. That, of course, is the Court of Appeal’s position. However, the Privy Council has said that it’s not up to the COA to decide on guilt and innocence in this case; that’s the job of 12 of David’s peers.
The problem for David is that he essentially has to prove that Robin is the killer, since it’s never been suggested that someone else did it. So if Robin is the killer, there should be available evidence that he’s the killer, right? Where is it?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I have a fundamental issue here, for me anyway.
I can’t remember EVER hearing of a child killing the whole family (except in ancient Royal power struggles maybe) whereas fathers killing the whole family are sadly way too common.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
> In today’s world it seems that a rumour your dad may have been doing your sister is reasonable doubt….
I agree. What’s interesting is that some see this as a motive for Robin being the killer but not David. Why not David? I don’t think he would have been delighted for his friends and the rest of his family to learn that his father was shagging his sister, whether it was just a rumour or true. Indeed, David may have known more about this rumour/truth than his father, giving David (and not Robin) a reason to kill the family.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
> whereas fathers killing the whole family are sadly way too common.
I agree but there’s one little problem; the whole family weren’t killed. If Robin is the killer and a deranged one at that – or so are are told – why did David deserve “to stay”?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
> whereas fathers killing the whole family are sadly way too common.
I agree but there’s one little problem; the whole family weren’t killed. If Robin is the killer and a deranged one at that – or so are are told – why did David deserve “to stay”?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Insider,you can`t have read the investigate article, as like I said Ian has independent witnesses that corroborate with each other.He is not just relying on one version of events.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Privy Council has said that it’s not up to the COA to decide on guilt and innocence in this case; that’s the job of 12 of David’s peers.
There has to be a retrial. It is no more the job of the Crown to nake the decision than the Court of Appeal.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Lance, just cos you haven;t heard of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
It is probably as rare as someone killing themselves with a shot to the rear side of the head after balancing the gun precariously on a chair and not leaving any prints on a bloodstained gun despite needing two hands on it to do the deed.
Here’s an example Ronald DeFeo Junior did it 1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_DeFeo%2C_Jr.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Problem with a retrial is finding an untainted jury. There is clearly reasonable doubt, he walks.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
And the guy that the lost in front of the Judical Committee is the same guy that will decide if Bain is retried. Sounds to me like asking the losing captain at the World Cup if he would like a rematch. Bizzare
May 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Can’t agree sonic. We have had plenty of cases where there are high profile trials/retrials. This last year has seen some.
The original trial would have had the same issues and it wasn’t considered an issue.
The research done on juries show they take their role very seriously and follow judges intstructions on evidence and publicity issues.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
DOSNT david look more stately than helen c , his voice is higher than hers and he sounds more honest, warts or the lack of them,That make me think that David Bain is a more plausable person than good old half truth helen clark, educated liar, not a poor railroaded suspect. and he sounds more honest than the living god, i wonder if he will vote labour,not
May 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Towaka, why would the cops fit up David Bain for murder x5 when all they had to do was say it was murder/suicide and close the file? Why go to the bother of fitting him up, as you imply they did? Doesn’t make any sense at all.
Insider – like your style with the cluedo scenario.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Since dead men dont tell tales, I’ll be sitting on the fence on David’s guilt until the day I die (unless of course, he confesses). At this point in time, the Crown appears to be in a no-win situation. Since David (by legal definition) is currently innocent of the crime, he should be compensated. Moreover, it is my strong view that a salutory lesson needs to be learn’t that a significant part of the legal system, is in dire need of an overhaul. If these defecencies are not immediately addressed, we may well have another ‘David Bain’ tomorrow. Under the current system, once an innoncent man is found guilty, then the genie is out of the bottle and the chances of jurisudence impartiality is proportionately lessened. Personally, I have no faith in the system (as it currently operates), to correct itself when it has erred.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Paul
Compensated for what? He was found guilty at trial. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the verdict, and the PC is not saying there was. The PC also said that the Appeal Court reached their decision on well settled legal principles, but what they did was take on too much of the role of the jury in assessing the value of the ‘new’ evidence, even though they are allowed to, to some extent.
The miscarriage they are referring to relates to the appeal process not the original trial. If the appeals had been granted he would likely still have been in prison awaiting trial, just like most murder accused are. If you go to trial for any crime and found not guilty there is no compensation for time held in remand.
Remember also that much of the appeal argument was either over items that were agreed in the original trial, were never used in the trial perhaps due to strategy or the original defence team believing they were of no value even though they were known, or were found/re-analysed subsequent to the trial. There is no implication by the PC that the original trial judge got anything wrong or that the trial was flawed.