Bain to be retried
The Solictor-General has decided to retry David Bain.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New ZealandBain to be retried
51 Responses to “Bain to be retried”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Enough has been said on this issue. This is a huge case with great legal significance and as the SG correctly states, is one of NZs worst crimes. Lets leave it alone and let the jury decide. We have heard all the arguments from guilty and not guilty protaganists. Whether there should be a retrial or not (financial cost or otherwise) is irrelevant, its going to happen. This is a widely read forum in NZ, it should be silent till after the trial
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Frederico, please don’t try to shut down debate.
Yeah, a retrial was inevitable. Given that the Privy Council’s decision that Bain suffered a miscarriage of justice, and that Kiwi judges have seriously stuffed up by not acknowledging this, has wounded a lot of Wgtn VIEs (very important egos). Especially since Margaret Wilson had earlier told us that we don’t need the Privy Council!
How the dear leaders hate being shown up as liars & corrupt to the core. What lengths they’ll go to to protect their precious images. The sheeple MUST be persuaded our justice system is some kind of genuine justice.
Manufactured evidence, bent Dunedin cops, & a stacked jury, anyone? Pardon my cynicism.
I feel so bloody sorry for David Bain. (And yes, before anyone asks, for Robin Bain’s other victims too.)
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
Alice your public biased rant has just reduced the chance of the accused having a fair trial. Let the defence and the prosecution do their job. I agree with Scott Optician that this is such a big deal all possible legal aid should be given to the accused, even if a record amount is to be awarded. I also agree with the police that the trial should be televised so that all NZers can see the totality of the evidence rather than selected snapshots. But the only reason I can surmise for extensive pro accused coverage is to attempt to bias the judgement of any potential juror. If you stand by your beliefs, let the jury decide. You are not judge or jury….you may be in wonderland though?
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Alice said…
Manufactured evidence
The physical evidence against David is overwhelming. It is great to see a retrial, so that David can prove once and for all that he didn’t do it.
Alice, if you believe what you said, then you’ve just overthrown the laws of physics, which deserves a Physics Nobel Prize. Facts are facts, David’s prints found on the gun , Fibre from David’s jersey was found under the fingernail of Stephen, Scratch marks on David’s face (none found on Robin’s body) , etc,… These are not one’s words against another, they are real physical tangible evidence. Mr Karam’s evidence are based on hearsay and not physical evidence. Physical evidence must take precedence or weigh more heavily in the minds of the jury over hearsays. Peter Ellis was convicted on hearsay and not on physical evidence.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 am
Falafulu Fisi,
Mate lets leave this alone. Im sure the trial will prove who killed the Bain family…lets let it happen…dont comprimise a thing. I really do hope to see it on telly!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 am
Frederico, this blogg debates ??,the trial is 12 monthes away minimun, why should we shut up , chill out a bit, calm down and it wont be on the telly(what channel),plusyou will get a ulcer if you are this fired up a year out.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 am
Actually Federico has a point that people would be best to only discuss the merits of a retrial rather than actual guilt or innocence. The Solictor-General has said he is now going to clamp down on such stuff. His target is the mainstream media with their idiotic is he innocent polls, but still best to be safe here.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 am
Fantastic news.
Agree with the police association – televise it.
Then hopefully the people will base their opinion on evidence rather than hearsay.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am
Yes I agree, who need a jury as TVNZ is the judge, jury and executer on most things these days . Sui juris .
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
And yes..
Lots of lawyers will make a shit load of money from this!
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Good decision. There are to many dead people not to retry this matter and bring some finality to it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 am
I am thinking that this will drag on for many years. Surely it will take an age for the parties to fight over what evidence is to be allowed, what will be supressed, grilling of any “new witnesses” (where the hell will they come from?) , the defenses inevitable attacks on the credibility of the police officers involved….
hell, I am sure even Wishart will come into this somewhere, given his expose on the Dunedin police…..
anyone thinking that we will get to see/hear all the facts is dreaming.
This case is going to be around for a long time…NZ’s own live soap opera.
I do find the police associations call for televising the trial on the grounds of transparency, to be a little strange, given the amount of evidence that the police were able to have withheld last time, which got us to where we are now….
I won’t be commenting on guilt or innocence as I believe it to be unfair, but the decision yesterday and the events surrounding the trial itself, those will be interesting to discuss.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
The fingernail fibres are about to be explained.
Or not……..
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
> Lets leave it alone and let the jury decide.
Except the jury might not decide. There is a strong possibility that the jury will be divided, just as the community is. So do we keep having trial after trial until jurors agree?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
> Lets leave it alone and let the jury decide.
Except the jury might not decide. There is a strong possibility that the jury will be divided, just as the community is. So do we keep having trial after trial until jurors agree?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
> Lets leave it alone and let the jury decide.
Except the jury might not decide. There is a strong possibility that the jury will be divided, just as the community is. So do we keep having trial after trial until jurors agree?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am
What are the odds on a deal? Guilty plea for a sentence equal to time served. Everybody wins.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
David, I’d suggest you immediately delete all the comments from various idiots who don’t understand the clear message delivered by the SG yesterday.
Mid you, he left his run a bit late – he should have banned the media before Bain was released on bail.
A televised trial? What a lot of nonsense. That’s for the Yanks. The last thing I want to see is David Bain turned into a Dick Hubbard look alike O J Simpson.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Adolf,
you do realise that you called us idiots and then went on to post a comment, don’t you?
Guilt or innocence = out of bounds. Opinion on the decision to hold a new trial = fair game.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
> What are the odds on a deal.
Zero. If you were innocent – and I’m not suggesting Bain is – would you want a deal where you admit to your guilt? Besides, I imagine Bain wants compensation – which is impossible if he admits that he killed his family!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
This matter is already becoming a circus and has the potential to turn the whole judicial system, inside-out (which in itself, would not be a bad thing) The SG is lying to the public in stating that PC ordered a new trial. It did not. Now, we have the police publicing soliciting for new evidence. WTF! Did they not present all of THEIR evidence at the orginal trial??? My view is to scoff at the threats of contempt of court from the SG and let them eat cake. This whole matter is already becoming just utter bullshit and a disgrace.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
So the SG wants to shut down debate on the issue This is the same SG who got his arse well and truly whipped by the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The same Committee who over the past decade has slammed dunked the NZ judiciary time and again.How can anyone with a brain think Bain can get an unbaised hearing inside NZ. The case should go to an international court or tribunal where the evidence is presented to people who have no prejudged views.Otherwise regardless of the outcome there will still be those who question the decision.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Ross,
And if he is not innocent, it is a good deal to make. Or if he is innocent & does not trust the Courts of New Zealand to deliver justice, it is a good deal to make. I reckon he falls into one of these categories.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
The police have strong forensic evidence and 5 people who died who’s family need closure.
If David Bain is truly innocent he will welcome the upcoming trial.
For innocent men who lose the chance to strongly defend their cases in a court of law because the complainant fails to want to testify under oath, the prosecutor stays the charges as they realise they have been played and manipulated in a case they’ll lose so they need to save face, or a judge decides the allegations are simply bizarre, the emotional and financial scars of bearing the slander for the rest of their lives is hideous.
Truth is the most important thing no matter the length of time or the personal cost.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Craigm – NCEA failed comprehension grades, I see. Can you recall exactly what the SG actually said? What what was it he told people NOT to do?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Nothing wrong with my comprehension Adolf, perhaps with your writing?
No need to get so defensive, it was you who abused others, which I did not return.
As for the SG, any shred of credibililty he had went west when the PC ruling came out.
And I thank you immensely for the consideration that I am of the NCEA age. Best smile on my face all day.
In all reality it is more likey to be dementia that effects my comprehension, more than anything else.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Perhaps, David Bain’s legal team may be keen to look at the following publications and explore if they could be adopted in their defense in court, since they probably have none (physical evidence) at all to rely on. The documents describe the use of Belief Network theory & Possibility theory in the legal field as an alternative or as a supplement to logics. The scientists who authored these papers, think that should be admissible in court in the same way DNA as of today.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Oops, the links for these documents are shown below:
“The jury observation fallacy and the use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) to present probabilistic legal arguments”
http://www.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/~norman/papers/jury_fallacy.pdf
“Use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) in legal reasoning”
http://cli.vu/pubdirectory/67/manuscript.pdf
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
frederico said…
Mate lets leave this alone.
Ok frederico, my final post as an addition to my recent previous message
The BBN algorithm is available in this Java open source software from Waikato University, WEKA. WEKA is capable of building upto 10,000 or more belief nodes or causal possibilities, but I assume that perhaps the Bain’s case wouldn’t reach a possibility or belief scenario of more than 2,000 nodes in order to make credible inferences. Seek advice from Prof. Ian Witten of Waikato University, who lead the group that designed this software or hire one of their team members to do it.
I could help out, but I have already made up my mind about David’s guilty of this crime, so I am biased.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
FF. Determining guilt or otherwise, is not rocket science. All one needs is an open and analytical mind and, for all of the evidence, both central and peripheral, to be presented unsanitised and unabridged. For the SG to threatened contempt of court in openely discussing this matter is just ridiculous. He can go F#&k himself. If I was sitting on a jury I would go out of my way to find out as much information as I could, as to the background of any case I sat in judgement on. I believe I have enough life experiences and intelligence to determine fact from fiction. And most likely, far more than any judge would ever have.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
It would be most refreshing if this trial is televised. The Defence is already fighting that, except surprisingly Peter Williams. Those who are against televising it can always turn to another channel. By the time the trial comes along TVNZ will have their 24 hours news channel availiable and Sky could use their news channel as Joe Karam said,” bring it on.”
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
If David Bain is innocent he will be saying “bring it on” and loving the media attention.
Peter Williams is an amazingly good lawyer and a very strong advocate for the falsely accused. He has common sense and good judgement on his side. If he thinks televising is a good prospect then I would go with that.
I wish we had been allowed to force the accuser who made the false rape allegations to court, but she was deemed too mentally unwell to face her lies by surprisingly the SG, but the Crown were trying to save face after the police screwed up their investigation landing them with a litany of lies to try and cobble into some semblance of honest allegations which they knew was impossible! We would have loved the case televised and splashed accross the media the DNA and evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the accuser having got away with a series of lies and delusions.
5 murders ocurred in Dunedin and someone needs to be punished for them, the onus now rests on the Crown to ensure justice and truth prevail.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I just rung the police 0800 number and asked them if they wanted a list of cops that were visiting the whorehouse preceding the murders ? Needless to say Sandra was not a happy girl and I hope she enjoys Washington .
Tom Lewis was right about those bastards !
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Except the jury might not decide. There is a strong possibility that the jury will be divided, just as the community is. So do we keep having trial after trial until jurors agree?
Ross, once the jury is presented with the real tangible evidence from the container load of material still remaining and the 88 withnesses still available, then they will have quite a different picture to that presented by the media since Bain was released on bail.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Will police provide new evidence that is forwarded to them by public on the 0800 phone number to the defence ?
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Frederico has got a good point, tho, about not discussing the issue. Media reports will be suppressed to avoid contempt of court, and if Kiwiblog counts as ‘media’ then it applies here too.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Mr Parker – will the defence get legal aid ?
What drugs are police on with the 0800 dial a Bain ?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
The bizzare and seemingly desperate actions of the police in attempting to publicly solicit further evidence against Bain, speaks volumes about the quality of the investagative skills of the NZ police. The setting-up and framing of Scott Watson by Rod Pope, immediately comes to mind.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Paul – What about the Kirsty Bentley unsolved murder ?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
How many of the exhibits are still around? As I recall there was some debate as to whether the blood on the gun was human or animal. If the gun is still around it would presumably be possible to examine it and resolve this question.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
It was interesting that the exhibits (as I understand it), where all about to be destroyed until Joe Karam appeared on the scene.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 am
When the Police turned up at the crime scene they had at their finger tips the “murdered” the “murderer” and the “murder weapon”. If they had swabbed both David and Robin for “gun shot residue” this case would not have become so complicated. The trouble is they didn’t so “all” of the false evidence produced by the Police to make it appear that David was the killer has infact been the reason for the complications.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 am
> Ross, once the jury is presented with the real tangible evidence from the container load of material still remaining and the 88 withnesses still available, then they will have quite a different picture to that presented by the media since Bain was released on bail.
Really? So you’ve seen this container load of material?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
The point I was trying to make is that the Police botched the investigation from the second they entered on to the property. It took the detectives on site four days to achieve nothing. They only charged David after being instructed to by someone higher up. Quote Greg O’Connor. It was the simplest case to solve. Swab Robin Bain and if there was no residue on his left arm, right hand or face then David was the shooter. Even if David was clean Robin could not have cleaned himself up after he died. I am not saying that one or the other is guilty or innocent the Police were negligent from the outset. However, I do think David is innocent.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
The point I was trying to make is that the Police botched the investigation from the second they entered on to the property. It took the detectives on site four days to achieve nothing. They only charged David after being instructed to by someone higher up. Quote Greg O’Connor. It was the simplest case to solve. Swab Robin Bain and if there was no residue on his left arm, right hand or face then David was the shooter. Even if David was clean Robin could not have cleaned himself up after he died. I am not saying that one or the other is guilty or innocent the Police were negligent from the outset. However, I do think David is innocent.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
The point I was trying to make is that the Police botched the investigation from the second they entered on to the property. It took the detectives on site four days to achieve nothing. They only charged David after being instructed to by someone higher up. Quote Greg O’Connor. It was the simplest case to solve. Swab Robin Bain and if there was no residue on his left arm, right hand or face then David was the shooter. Even if David was clean Robin could not have cleaned himself up after he died. I am not saying that one or the other is guilty or innocent the Police were negligent from the outset. However, I do think David is innocent.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
For god sake, dont say Davids innocent,,frederico,will get a ulcer.Dont debate the merits of the trial.PS i think this roman circus will be near the elections,as a sideshow event to divert attention, from future helen/labour policies.ie we stand for law and order,ps the cops never found the tossiers who robbed our house,maybe we should have a dial up hotline for hints as the cops have against David ,so i can visit the thief with my trusty bullmoose softball bat.I can hit balls a good distance
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Post your particulars about the “tossiers” and I will help you find them. Don’t hit your balls or you won’t be able to P at all. I to thought Helen would use the sideshow as a diversion.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Quite a few posts since yesterday.
Frederico, kindly go easy on the argumentum ad hominem. Your insinuation that the only voices of objective reason are those who agree with you, is rubbish. And dishonest.
To indulge in some ad hominem myself, have you links to the police, the SG’s office, or any other tax-funded outfit with an interest in encouraging the public to just shut up & accept wise officialdom knows best?
Public debate when added to evidence admitted to the court is the best way to ensure jurors will be inspired to use their heads, consider all relevant aspects of the case against Bain in the jury room, then reach a just decision. The reason debate shouldn’t be shut down is the public do have a stake. Any one of us could be accused of a serious crime we didn’t do. Remember Arthur Allen Thomas, who was nowhere near Jeanette & Harvey Crewe when they were murdered, and what lengths the cops went to to make his conviction stick. Remember Lindy Chamberlain, ditto. Justice was belatedly done only after years of imprisonment, & only because of public support for heat on those responsible for the miscarriages of justice.
Officials hate admitting they’ve made a mistake. So, far from reducing the chance of David Bain having a fair trial, what you call my ‘rant’ (& apparently similar rants from others on talkback, not that I have time to listen to talkback) may, in a very small way, help discourage abuse of power.
Given Dunedin cops are clearly prepared to go to expensive lengths (the 0800 number) to rustle up ‘proof’ they did get the Bain case right, some counterbalance from the rest of us seems essential to ensure David Bain’s trial is fair.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Police casting about for new evidence on a nearly unprecedented 0800 number must give Bain great hope…..as in, what’s wrong with the probity/rigor of the evidence they convicted him on last time?
June 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Detective Liz Williams who worked on the Lundy murders has written a book about the murders and in an interview promoting the book (Dom Post) she has stated that “there is nothing I wouldn’t do for a colleague”. I believe that would include lies and deception. Unfortunately this attitude is ingrained in Police culture and it is something that David Bain has had to suffer.