Should Bain be retried?
Two key issues loom for David Bain. Will the Crown seek a new trial, and if so will he get bail before it? What are the pros and cons of a new trial? We discussed this briefly on Agenda. Chris Baldock (Sunday News Editor) thought they should not, and Lisa Owen made the point that it would be very hard to get a jury who have not formed some conclusions based on media reporting of the case (unless you found 12 hermits). I lean a bit more towards a new trial, on the grounds that if they do not retry him, then the Crown is morally bound to pay millions of compensation to Bain, and that should only happen if he has been actually acquitted.
Anyway here are some pros and cons of a new trial:
Pros
* If acquitted in a new trial, Bain clears his name
* If found guilty in a new trial, gives finality to the issue
* Compensation should not be paid unless he is acquitted
* Unfair to Robin Bain to leave the killer allegation upon him untested
* If convicted, ensures Bain serves full sentence
* If convicted again, Bain less able to profit from his crime through books etc.
Cons
* Difficult to find a neutral jury
* Expert testimony less reliable 13 years on
* Bain has already served over 75% of his non parole period
* Bain is not a danger to the community – even if he did do it
* Prosecution will look vindictive
Any others?
Incidentally one of the original Jurors has come out saying that they placed little reliance on the stuff dealt with by the Privy Council and what they found compellling was the fight with the other son, as they could not believe an old man like Robin Bain could have endured such a furious fight and also be unscathed from it.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:09 am
The cost of another trial. Economics has to factor into criminal justice. Especially since he has already served 3/4 and isn’t a real danger.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Lot of obfuscation of issues of late.
I agreed with you that he probably did it, read all judgments, Karam, McNeish et al.
Now I am starting to buckle under weight of public opinion. Can anyone provide me a link to this coroner’s report I’ve heard about that holds Robin’s death to be consistant with suicide? I would really appreciate it.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that most of the allegations against Robin are pure hearsay and there were good reasons to exclude them from trial. Now they seem to be accepted as fact by the majority of New Zealanders.
I am all in favour of a retrial in principle, I fear though, that the difficulties involved will preclude one.
Thats why I just want to read this report, review everything one more time, reach a conclusion I’m happy with, and live with it.
The fact is, on the balance of probabilities’, as it were, his time in jail is nearly finished.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
so david..this juror you cite..
found expert evidence ‘confusing’..
and despite having read neither karams’ nor mc neishs’ book..
is sure both ‘cancel each other out..’
dosen’t this juror come across as a bit glib..about his role in this ‘serious miscarriage of justice’..(just to quote the privy councilfor a mo’..)
mm..!!..compelling..!..
there i was.thinking that ‘juror-piece’ was a classic example of crap-journalism..saying little..and signifying nothing..and muddying/not clearing the waters..
and then along you come..citing it as support for your “i can just feel it in my bones..” call on bains’ guilt…
between you both you present a ‘stinker’ of a case in support of the jury system..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 13th, 2007 at 10:22 am
He should not be retried as there is little reason to believe he can receive the fair trial that is his right.
The issues exposed by the privy council show us a justice system that is dangerously self serving.
The only arguments against retaining the privy council I’ve seen are emotional. All practical considerations lead to the conclusion that we NEED an outside body to check our justice system. Why would we deny ourselves access to some of the most experienced legal expertise and impartial bodies available to us?
The Bain case if nothing else has demonstrated that New Zealanders are a people who do not let a partial or even total ignorance of the facts prevent them from forming strong opinions about someone elses guilt or innocence.
As others will now demonstrate…
May 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Yeah, thats right Phil.
Indicative of the whole approach at the moment, no-one seems willing to publish anything explicitly against Bain, thats as good as you’re gonna get.
FYI: Karams book is somewhat disingenuous on key points of evidence.
McNeish takes a more sociological road to his conclusion of guilt, against an evidentiary backdrop, rather than vice versa.
Rather than cancel eachother out, the books cannot really be valuably compared, each must be taken in its own right.
Not having read Karams book for some years, I cant remember how much faith was placed on this ‘new’ evidence back when he wrote it? I’m asking a lot this morning, but does anyone recall?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Yeah, thats right Phil.
Indicative of the whole approach at the moment, no-one seems willing to publish anything explicitly against Bain, thats as good as you’re gonna get.
FYI: Karams book is somewhat disingenuous on key points of evidence.
McNeish takes a more sociological road to his conclusion of guilt, against an evidentiary backdrop, rather than vice versa.
Rather than cancel eachother out, the books cannot really be valuably compared, each must be taken in its own right.
Not having read Karams book for some years, I cant remember how much faith was placed on this ‘new’ evidence back when he wrote it? I’m asking a lot this morning, but does anyone recall?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I think you’re a bit of an optimist if you think everyone is suddenly going to agree with whatever the verdict from another trial.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I notice TVNZ last night said Aurther Alan Thomas had his conviction quashed.
No he didint. Muldoon gave Thomas a Pardon since the legal system allways found Thomas guilty
May 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Ten Cents
I remember McNeish’s book as being pretty weak. It’s been a while since I read it but from memory he seemed to be a bit confused about whether he was writing fiction or not. What I mean by that is that McNeish seemed to think he knew a lot about what was going on inside the heads of the various people he was writing about. A lot of religious woo and amature pschoanalysis based on not very much.
He was telling a story about the dark recesses of the human psyche and the hoohaa corners of a troubled young man in the cold cold Otago man alone blah blah, with deep magic from the PNG missionary days marching in to the climatic scene like baba yaga’s hut.
The witnesses re the incest suff can testify about what they knew first hand. ie that there were allegationsbeing made to a number of people and a confrontation about to be had. That’s not hearsay.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:52 am
One consideration that I’ve yet to hear any mention of (although I might have missed it because I’ve been avoiding the Bain case on telly and in the papers) is that if convicted again, David Bain might not have the time served taken into account for his new life sentence, effectively meaning that he serves 22 years non-parole.
This consideration was a key factor in the staying of any retrial against Rex Haig (in which there was a good possibility that somebody else was responsible).
May 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am
There won’t be a retrial if what’s in the latest Investigate mag is true.
I’d expect a massive pay-out.
What an interesting place Dunedin is turning out to be.
From the end of the last bain thread:
“sg5:
“Sexual Perversity in Otago” or
“The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy”?
Seems Ian Wishart is claiming in his latest magazine (yes it’s going into print)
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/breaking_news_s.html
that while digging up the political basement of Dunedin investigating David Benson-Pope’s “activities” he discovered a veritable serial killer’s liar of skeletons.
Having seen a summary of the allegations, this will be either the end of Wishart OR the end of Labour.
It is claimed that David Bain was not merely the victim of police zealotry and incompetence.
No wonder Pope said nothing when Wishart said if Benson-Pope denied the story he would release more!
BRING BACK BRASH
Posted by sg5 | May 13, 2007 1:33 AM “
May 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Fair comment Pascal, in relation to McNeish’s book. Know what you mean about the drums beating and so forth. But um, from PNG jungle to Dunners, what can it all mean?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
The man who led the failed prosecution case at the Privy Council, solicitor-general David Collins QC, will decide on the retrial.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4058090a10.html
I wonder if Collins should not is some way recuse himself from this matter. Regardless of how professional he is, this puts him in an invidious position.
Can anyone here give us an informed idea of what the normal practise should be in when this sort of “conflict of interest” arises in legal matters?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
How exactly is it a conflict of interest? It is his job to both respond to the appeal and to decide on prosecutions. Whether he appears or not, both are in his name and under his authority.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Well I accept that it is not a conflict of interest in the normal context of pecuniary gain; but for Collins to on one hand to lead a prosecution case one moment, and then to appear totally objective in deciding a retrial the next, is a bit of a dead rat for the public to swallow.
If for instance an engineer designed a bridge that fell down, that same engineer would not sit on the “review committee”; instead the task would be typically undertaken by independent peers from another firm. I guess I am just asking for some idea on how this kind of thing is handled in the legal profession.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
How exactly is it a conflict of interest? It is his job to both respond to the appeal and to decide on prosecutions. Whether he appears or not, both are in his name and under his authority.
Posted by james cairney | May 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Oh for heaven’s sake James Cairney. This man has taken a huge hit to his ego. Do you think he is any position to make an impartial decision? What planet are you on?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“I want to pass on to Joe and to Michael Reed and Paul Morten, the two (lawyers) who went to the Privy Council, my heartfelt thanks,” Bain, 35, said in a message to Sunday News.
“It is staggering that two people I have never met, Michael and Paul, have put in the amount of work they have.
Lawyers you have not met their client?
Et Tu Joe
May 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Have a look over here NOW
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
May 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
…It’ll be interesting to see how long Rod Pope lasts as the new Commissioner, won’t it???
May 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“Oh for heaven’s sake James Cairney. This man has taken a huge hit to his ego. Do you think he is any position to make an impartial decision? What planet are you on?”
Ah, planet earth. He has to make the same decision regarding re-trials all the time (or by delegation), who do you think makes the call when the Court of Appeal sends one back?
It is an adversarial system, he needs to decide what is in the public interest in his professional opinion. The high profile of this case makes no difference to his job. The decision to prosecute and the prosecution itself is his bloody job description, it is the very thing we employ him to do.
and Redrag, as for the ‘bridge falling down’ analogy, do you believe it was his ‘fault’ the appeal was allowed? If so, that is a strange position. Of all the potential systemic failures you could blame (or the multitude of things that can wrong beyond the prosecutors control), why blame the crown solicitor? and even more pertinent, why the solicitor -for the appeal-? (and this is if one accepts there was a systemic problem, which is itself uncertain).
Redrag and Paul, just one more thing, do you believe this ‘conflict’ (or the ‘hit to his ego’) would make him more or less likely to prosecute?
May 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
> then the Crown is morally bound to pay millions of compensation to Bain.
Maybe. But given the probability that David is the killer – and that appears more likely than Robin being the killer – I don’t think you’ll find Cabinet rushing to award him a fat compo payout. David’s legal team will have to prove that on the balance of probabilities Robin was the killer. Remember OJ Simpson – who was acquitted of murder but later found responsible for two murders? The same situation applies here. David Bain may be not be guilty in a strict legal sense but will be deemed to be responsible.
When David Dougherty and Arthur Thomas were awarded compo payouts, there was no doubt that they were wrongly convicted. But David? That’s not so clear cut.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
> Bain is not a danger to the community – even if he did do it.
Riiight. So he might have murdered his family and tried to implicate his father in a calculating and cold-blooded manner, but he’s not a danger to the community? I can only assume you’d be happy to give him a gun licence, you know, so he can go hunting for rabbits.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Ross – I think Bain killed his family but I don’t think he is likely to go around beating up strangers. His family was seriously dysfunctional and must have been a living hell for him – hence he cracked.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
The issue here is not whether Bain is guilty or not. It is how the Court has conducted itself. An independent body has found it to be wanting.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“The issue here is not whether Bain is guilty or not. It is how the Court has conducted itself. An independent body has found it to be wanting.”
This comment naturally ignores the fact the PC was a part of our heirarchy of courts as opposed ‘an independent body’. It would also seem to imply that the court now in its place is not independent and would not turn over a Court of Appeal decision because of that fact. Which is total nonsense.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
The Solicitor-General holds office as an official of government and is also the Chief Executive of the Crown Law Office
This is the same Crown Law Office that assisted and approved the comprehensive investigation by police of the Electoral Commission & Chief Electoral Officer’s complaint’s of overspending etc during the 2005 election. Remember no prosecutions followed?
Remember the Auditor–General’s findings in his report on Parliamentary Services advertising expenditure in the 3 months prior to the last election. Basically guilty as hell! He was ably supported by the then Solicitor-General Terence Arnold.
So in my view Terence Arnold disagreed with Crown Law Office’s support of the Police in the Electoral Commission complaint.
Now we have this same Crown Law Office, along with Solicitor-General David Collins QC considering the Bain case?
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I think the ‘Juror” summed it up well, and is the salt of the earth type of person we need on juries. He also pointed out the impact on him from visiting the scene. Any new Jury will not have the ability to assess the actual scene.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Having read the privy council decision I still believe in Davids guilt but accept that the flaws in our appeal process and some sloppy initial investigations warrant a retrial.
I find it incredulous (though entirely consistent) that Bains “team” are now rejecting a retrial. They seem to selectively champion and celebrate only the parts of the decision that suit them. The PC does order a retrial. It does not say we should have a think about it!
For Bain to be innocent a jury of his peers need to agree that there is a reasonable possibility that a 58 year old man, sluaghtered his family in a very “sanguine” manner undoubtedly gettting blood on himself and socks in particular, then proceeded to clean and redress himself immaculately and wash his clothes (no evidence for this) in a short space of time and then kill himself. Leaving a computer written note that David deserved to stay………
May 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Just assume for a moment that David Bain is innocent. How would you feel if you found yourself in a similar position and a Judge ordered information withheld from the jury that may sway the verdict? I am vigourously opposed to Judges censoring any evidence, background or otherwise, regarding any defendant or plaintiff in a Court of law. If I was on a jury I would go out of my way to find out as much background as I could on the individual I was sitting in judgement on. Everyday, the courts are suckered by fabricated and perjured evidence. Once I’ve researched any available background information, I’ll make up my own mind, thank you very much.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Paul: “I am vigourously opposed to Judges censoring any evidence, background or otherwise, regarding any defendant or plaintiff in a Court of law.”
And you would be equally happy for a Judge to allow a ‘jailhouse snitch’ with a sweet deal from the prosecution to say you confessed in full to a crime you had nothing to do with? What a load of crap to put yourself in that situation and make conclusions, most evidence that does not get admitted is prejudicial to the accused, not the other way around, and often that evidence is really dodgy. Maybe you are unaware of the amount of utterly dishonest people we have in society, because if we allow more crap in, we are going to have more wrongful convictions, not less. Plain and simple.
Fredirico “The PC does order a retrial. It does not say we should have a think about it!”
“The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest.”
May 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
JC said: And you would be equally happy for a Judge to allow a ‘jailhouse snitch’ with a sweet deal from the prosecution to say you confessed in full to a crime you had nothing to do with? What a load of crap to put yourself in that situation and make conclusions, most evidence that does not get admitted is prejudicial to the accused, not the other way around, and often that evidence is really dodgy. Maybe you are unaware of the amount of utterly dishonest people we have in society, because if we allow more crap in, we are going to have more wrongful convictions, not less. Plain and simple”
So what life experieneces makes a judge better equipped than I, to determine fact from fiction?
May 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Paul, the Judge does not ‘determine fact from fiction’.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
So who does?
May 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
the jury
May 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Well, then. Let me see ALL the background information and evidence, then fuck-off to your chambers until we’ve made a decision.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Paul, you stated:
“Just assume for a moment that David Bain is innocent. How would you feel if you found yourself in a similar position and a Judge ordered information withheld from the jury that may sway the verdict?”
Now it is crystal clear you premised your argument on concern for the liberty of the individual. Now, my point is that allowing all and sundry in terms of evidence makes wrongful convictions more likely, rather than less likely.
If you want all and sundry admitted, then it is for reasons other than concern about wrongful convictions.
Would you allow evidence against you obtained in breach of the law and your basic rights? If you were actually concerned for the liberty of the individual then the answer is of course not. But my guess is you don’t give a shit, and that you merely hadn’t thought about what you were writing when you posted the above garbage.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
In fact, you’d be surprised and what I know. You lose. I win. Fuck off.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
There go all the toys out the cot!
You alright there big boy?
May 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
There’s only one piece of evidence you need to establish to determine if Robin did it. Did he kill himself? I have it on good authority it was virtually impossible for him to have shot himself considering the entry position and angle of trajectory of the bullet that killed him.
Game over.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Gooner, what good authority?
May 13th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
There seems to be a widespread misconception that the Prviy Council found him innocent, or that’s teh way a lot of the reports read – I think he needs to be re-tried, even though it’s a horrible orderal for him to go through if he is innocent, but if h’s guilty, he should be punished
May 13th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Gooner,
I think you are right, and he apparenty left the silencer on…..even if the angle was possible, why would anyone try to shoot themselves at an awkard angle when they could just take the silencer off and then put the gun in there mouth?
May 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
astonishing how people ‘read’ the mind of a man..who has (allegedly) been sleeping with his daughter…
and is about to be ‘unmasked’..
has just killed his famiy..
and is about to kill himself..
(much like the full-bladder theory..eh..?..as if stress wouldn’t tighten his bladder/sphincter and every other ‘er’..)
and gooner..what was/is that ‘good authority’…?
police-bar gossip..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
astonishing how people ‘read’ the mind of a man..who has (allegedly) been sleeping with his daughter…
and is about to be ‘unmasked’..
has just killed his famiy..
and is about to kill himself..
(much like the full-bladder theory..eh..?..as if stress wouldn’t tighten his bladder/sphincter and every other ‘er’..)
and gooner..what was/is that ‘good authority’…?
police-bar gossip..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 14th, 2007 at 8:12 am
The “good authority” was the forensic analysis of the size of the gun, the length of the arms, the angle of the bullet, etc. It’s part of what I think is compelling, and the forensic scientists, while not infallible, are capable and compentent people who have no vested interest in the cases to which they are assigned.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
James Cairney – sorry for the late reply.
You asked what good authority. I was in a CIB induction course at Police College in the mid 90′s with a cop who worked on the investigation. We each had to give a talk on any issue we liked and this guy spoke on the Bain homicide. He relayed that information. Biased? Probably. Factual? Absolutely.
Nick
May 14th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Anyone care to comment why the the crime scence was not’secured’ until around 6 hours, after the first police arrived. Perhaps to fudge evidence for ‘some reason’? Who knows?
May 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
No-one knows how long Robin’s arms were because they weren’t measured before he was buried. The defence demonstrated at the trial that a man shorter than Robin was able to hold the rifle at the required angle. The Court of Appeal judgment (CA98/03) states :
“We accept that this evidence demonstrates a case for saying that it would not have been as physically difficult for Robin to have committed suicide as the evidence at trial might have suggested.Indeed Dr Gwynne considers the case was one of suicide … It is sufficient to say that we are satisfied that Robin could physically have inflicted the gunshot wound to his own head, albeit the wound inflicted was by no means the most straightforward way for a person intending to shoot themselves in the head with the rifle in question to do so”
So much for “virtually impossible”.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Could have, might have, should have.
Didn’t.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
News just in Bains out on bail Mind you Justice Fogarty didnt have much option given the publics contempt for the judiciary. David Collins QC getting to decide if Bain is retried strikes me the same as if the losing captain of the World Cup final gets to decide if theres a rematch. Talk about conflicted.;Still in good ole NZ conflicts of interest dont really matter Shrug of the shoulder and all that. Pathetic.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Just to set the record straight, despite the fact I think he did it I don’t think there should be a retrial. Time 2 move on.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
So gooner, before you said it would have been virtually impossible for Robin to kill himself, now you say that he “could have”? Which is it?
May 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
cheers gooner
May 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Pingu, I was referring to suicide by Robin.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
So was I. Would it have been virtually impossible for Robin to kill himself (ie commit suicide) or not?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:39 am
The evidence of David Bain’s guilt is so compelling the case is open and shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.
In no particular order:
- Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres from David’s jersey were under Stephen’s fingernails. David had unexplainable bruises and scratches consistent with being in a fight. Robin did not and no fibres from Robin’s clothes were under
Stephen’s fingernails.
- It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process, without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able
to overcome the strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself around 7pm.
- David’s bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin’s bloody prints were nowhere.
- David’s gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer’s prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris
of the fight in Stephen’s room. Why would Robin use David’s gloves when he had his own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?
- Bloody footprints made by a sock found in the washing machine were found throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him (other than his fatal head wound) or his clothes or socks, nor was the room-to-room pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin
would have entered the house from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer having come from inside the house.
- While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his clothes, David’s clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his under-wear, which had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and which he did not notice.
- Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him having just come into the house from the caravan to pray as he
normally did at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one’s head with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and more definite ways to do it, eg put the barrel into one’s mouth aimed at the roof of the mouth. Robin’s fatal wound is consistent with being shot by David standing over him and not with suicide.
- Robin’s prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used it to kill himself.
- David’s prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of prints in the blood splattered all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun). Karam claims David’s prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.
Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the murders.
The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the subsequent “evidence” put forward by Karam about Robin’s mental state, his alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have
altered the jury’s verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords
expressely made no findings of guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.
This decision has major significant for Peter Ellis because in the Civic case, the trial judge made more than 200 orders preventing the
defence putting to the jury solid evidence that cast convincing doubt on the Crown case. The defence was not able to mount a defence at all
because the judge ruled all its extensive evidence of parental and social-worker coaching as irrelevant. Under the Privy Council’s ruling, Ellis would be entitled to a new trial in which all the evidence was put before a jury, not just the 10pc of highly sanitised material the Crown used.
In the Bain case, the only “evidence” the trial judge stopped the jury hearing was that of Dean Cottle who wanted to recount a conversation
with Laniet about incest, but the judge ruled him unreliable. All the other Karam “evidence” cited by the Privy Council was put forward in
later years and was heard, but rejected, by the Court of Appeal in 2005.
However, it is of some interest that the judge in the Bain case, Justice Williamson, was the very same judge in the Ellis case.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Anyone care to comment why the the crime scence was not’secured’ until around 6 hours, after the first police arrived. Perhaps to fudge evidence for ‘some reason’? Who knows?
The police believed from Bain’s 111 call they were dealing with a murder-suicide. They did not suspect David Bain of committing any crime when they arrived at the house.
It was the methodical forensic work they did at what they believed was a murder-suicide that led them to the evidence it was not a murder-suicide. Which of course it wasn’t.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Dave’s post of May 18 is excellent. Very good points.
Next question: If Bain is guilty, is he dangerous?
May 19th, 2007 at 6:48 am
I am more concerned about the criminal reporting being carried out by the media. we hear so much about “sound bites” and why information must be compressed for the viewing public, to fit a 30 min time slot.
But I beleive the press is happy to omit any discussion of the Privy Council’s decision to overturn being based purely on the need for a retrial, and not on Bain’s “innocence”, which, to me, he isn’t.
Because only controversy sells. Much better for the Press to say, “Bain is free” than “Bain may still have shot his entire family, but the trial was carried out unfairly”.
I wish the media would take responsibility for their influence on the vast majority of people who absorb infromation without question. How simple to present the fuller facts?
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Dave’s comments are relevant. There have been too many ‘red herrings’ throughout this protracted saga. We have only 2 ‘possible’ perpetrators.I believe that insufficient attention has been (publicly) given to providing the crime scene surrounding Robin Bain’s death/body. Did he or din’t he do it?? The trajectory of a bullet invariably shows the position from where it was fired. Suicide (using a standard length barrelled rifle especially one fitted with a silencer) is difficult to achieve using one’s arms as they are not long enough to reach the trigger. To physically pull the trigger involves the use of say one’s toes, or a device (string around say a fitting or a piece of wood held against the trigger.) Also after the shot – assuming that it is fatal – the rifle will fall close to the victim along with any mechanism used to pull the trigger. As mentioned above this is the most important and compelling part of this saga. There cannot be two diametrically oppossed viewpoints. it is brutally factual and cannot be ‘fudged’ You can’t move blood splatter from carpet to change a crime scene!! I urge both sides to seriously push for greater forensic information to be made available(this can now be enhanced using computer technology) which will dispel any other ‘theories’. This should be easy – why isn’t it? This should be done first – now – rather than getting continually sidetracked on lesser issues like whether someone had time for a piss or could change a computer clock.
Forensics are usually irrefutable facts – please can someone use them????
June 12th, 2007 at 8:31 am
iqblcf iftgzsryx cepk dgnicprtq jytb ztwuigmd ypwt
June 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am
iqblcf iftgzsryx cepk dgnicprtq jytb ztwuigmd ypwt