Bain found not guilty

June 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pm by David Farrar

The jury has found not guilty.

Regardless of my personal views on who did it, he has won his day in court and the jury’s verdict stands. Joe Karam will feel a strong sense of vindication.

Ironically I believe Bain should thank the Police. If they had not stuffed up aspects of the original investigation, a different verdict might have occurred – but they did, and there was reasonable doubt

It will be interesting if he applies for compensation, as that required convincing a QC on the balance of probabilities you were innocent.

Finally as this saga comes to an end, let us remember the dead – brave Stephen, Laniet, Arawa, Margaret and Robin.

And again regardless of my personal views on who did it, let us hope David has a quiet future, where he can finally move on.

I wonder how many pages the newspapes tomorrow will devote to the story? Half a dozen?

UPDATE: You can vote in the blog poll in the side bar on whether or not you agree with the verdict.

Tags:

172 Responses to “Bain found not guilty”

  1. Razork (375 comments) says:

    So who did it then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Thank god its over, and common sense won out.

    I hope he gets some compensation out of it is all I can say. Hope heads will role in the NZ Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Grizz (244 comments) says:

    I would like to see him try for compensation. In my opinion, he can thank the police for botching the investigation rather than people believing he is truly innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    The jury asks in the morning
    “What does reasonable doubt mean”
    A belief of innocence doesnt require this question

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. infused (636 comments) says:

    What is a QC?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    I agree with your comments David, let us remember the people who were sadly and tragically killed. Stephen, Laniet, Arawa, Margaret and Robin.

    In the words of the old Maori proverb:

    Taku tiki pounamu ko te huanga ake; taku koko tangiwai ka motu i te taringa; taku rake ti hauora nau i tamo.

    May they rest in peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    The guy spent 12 years in prison for nothing. You better believe compensation is coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. virtualmark (1,474 comments) says:

    The papers may well have 6 pages of Bain stories tomorrow. And I for one won’t read any of them. I’m heartily sick of the whole saga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    QC = Queen’s Counsel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    Too many of the crowns own witnesses disagreed with each other. You can’t expect a guilty vedict if some of your own witnesses are doing the job for the defence.

    As I have already mentioned on the other Bain thread, the judge directed the jury to the pathologist (a crown witness) who actually investigated the body. This witness virtually confirmed the suicide theory, especially when the defence witnesses demonstrated that suicide was possible.

    It was really a case of Occams Razor. You can’t prove all sheep are white by finding more and more examples of white sheep. What you need to look for is a black sheep to disconfirm the theory.

    This is effectively what happened here I think. Once the possibility of suicide was accepted (which I think was quite a reasonable position to take given the facts) the rest of the crown case necessarilly fell over.

    So I think it is a bit unfair to call the jury stupid etc. Despite all the other evidence I think this critical factor was very telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    Watson or Ellis next. Both convicted on unsafe evidence put together by our two top policemen. Now it gets interesting. Yey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Your poll doesn’t have slot for me: I don’t know who killed them so of course there was reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Michaels (1,317 comments) says:

    THe judges comment to the jury of “beyond reasonable doubt” I believe swung it for Bain.
    There are many questions and I believe the jury did the right thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. andrei (2,500 comments) says:

    The Final Judgment awaits for us all – with no exceptions and with no “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” escape clause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. virtualmark (1,474 comments) says:

    Kingi … I think the original poster was alluding to Labour dropping the title of QC. Any new appointments are known as Senior Counsels, which doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. The Nats are proposing to bring back the QC title, which the legal fraternity are all very happy chappies about.

    Well. Maybe Margaret Wilson isn’t a happy chappy. But we don’t care what she thinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,795 comments) says:

    David, your poll questions are a fucking disgrace. You should hang your head in shame.

    [DPF: Why don't you explain rather than abuse me? How are they a disgrace?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    “The jury asks in the morning
    “What does reasonable doubt mean”
    A belief of innocence doesnt require this question”
    A jury is never required to believe in innocence. Their task is to determine whether there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, and anything short of that must result in an acquittal.

    OECD, a conviction overturned does not always result in compensation – Ask Rex Haig who spent ten years in prison before having his conviction overturned

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    You must be better attuned to the subtle nuances that such a question as “what is a QC?” poses Virtual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    As I’ve said many times before, there is something systemically wrong with our judicial system (and those that sit on it), when it takes a layman to expose them when they get it oh so wrong. Absolutely appalling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dave (985 comments) says:

    It’s a pity you didnt comment on whether Bain should get justice.

    The fact that the Government had already said David Bain would not get compensation for wrongful imprisonment (as was a possibility then – a reality now – is the real miscarriage of justice. Why should he have to prove his innocence to the Government when the courts have found him not guilty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    IMHO this is an excellent result. As DPF indicated yesterday the trial has really been about how bad the police investigation was, as much as about David Bain.

    (1) If David Bain did it, then he knows “not guilty” is just words so will mean little to him, and he has served most of his sentence so by rights society’s need for revenge should be satisfied.

    (2) If David Bain didn’t do it, at least he now has the moral vindication of being found not guilty. The 13 years following the murders must have been pretty hellish for him irrespective of whether he was in jail or not.

    (3) NZ Police receive an embarassingly public reminder that their work needs to be exemplary, as it is constantly up for public scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Richard (29 comments) says:

    let us hope David has a quiet future, where he can finally move on.

    He can’t move on while he’s still in denial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Yes – DPF – he can thank the police – for a dishonest, immoral and incompetant (and biased) investigation.

    Of course that shouldnt be the case but unfortunately we have a police force which is besotted with statistics and playing the politics. We need a public prosecutors office (and Margaret Wilson and her mates should give some serious thought to their hasty removal of the Privy Council. Maybe the connection should be cut but there is no doubt that our judiciary suffers from inbreeding and does need external input.)

    A good verdict – in that the previous legal processes were unbalanced and legally dangerous – a state of affairs we really shouldnt have and we deserve better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    Many people I know believe Davd Bain was guilty, but not one of those people think Scott Watson is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nookin (3,035 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2477005/
    Interesting. Wonder what evidence was supressed by the Supreme Court

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Irrespective of Government compensation law, Bain should be able to sue the police for damages arising from gross malpractice in this case.

    There is plenty of supporting evidence for that, some of which clearly caused him to be convicted originally whereas it is only supposition that a competent investigation would have proven the case against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Viking2 said: Watson or Ellis next.

    I’d suggest David Tamihere should be the next cab off the rank. That is a seriously unsound conviction, given the Police evidence about where the bodies shouls have been (and where Urban Hoglan’s was eventually discovered) and that Hoglan’s watch that was alleged to have been given by Tamihere to his son was on the body when it was recovered.

    I hope Joe Karam now has a look into that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,795 comments) says:

    David, you asked me to vote in a poll as to whether I agreed with the verdict. You then proceeded to advance a list of heavily loaded alternatives, none of which allowed me to simply say I agree or I don’t agree. Disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Monty (964 comments) says:

    Bain has literally got away with Murder – Oh well I suppose he will be looking for some flatmates – any takers????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    On second thoughts, the NZ taxpayer should also be able to sue the police.

    That incompetent, even corrupt, investigation has cost the NZ taxpayer many millions of dollars.

    And Adolf is right, David. As I noted above.

    [DPF: And within seconds of your original comment, and before Adolf explained what he was on about, I added a 5th option]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    ‘Not Guilty’ is so definitive when it was only ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    woohoo!! bain got off. Not that he is innocent or guilty, only Bain will ever know that. But the police manipulated evidence and that was disgraceful!!

    Very embarrassing for the police involved.

    And, makes you wonder, would the same result have been achieved with the privy council replacement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nookin (3,035 comments) says:

    As far as compensation is concerned, Bain is between a rock and a hard place. The onus is on him to establish on balance of probabilities that he was innocent. Acquittal is insufficient. If he does not apply for compensation, the public will ask why. If he does apply for compensation there is a very serious risk of a “Haig” finding i.e. a statement that he probably did it. My concern is that we now have a justice system which puts an almost impossible burden on juries. This was very much a battle between the expert witnesses of varying degrees of expertise and experience and varying degrees of involvement in the case (from being an on-site at the time to engagement 15 years later). I can only hope that it does not become common practice for criminal trials to consume resources to the extent that this one has done. The system cannot cope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    The Government should definitely look at reinstating the Privy Council. It will end up saving the Government money and embarrassment in the long run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Why should he have to prove his innocence to the Government when the courts have found him not guilty?

    Because compensation has a lower legal threshold than criminal guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    Nookin,

    Apparently Bain can be heard muttering, ‘I killed them, I killed them’ at the start of the 111 call. This was not able to be presented in court for some reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    The way things are going between in our courts I can now expect that Pumpkin will probably get the blame in the Anan Liu case

    We seem to have a lot of murders and a lot of not guilty verdicts in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    bain needs compensation . Because the police trumped up the evidence and that was despicable regardless on innocence or guilt. The cops were corrupt really. They decided bain was guilty early on and gathered evidence to prove that. Evidence that may have supported Bain was discarded or ignored.

    I say, give the man $2 million. That can be funded by the cancellation of labours ‘how to pat a dog’ campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. coolas (105 comments) says:

    ‘Reasonable doubt’ & David Bain is a free man. Fair enough. He’s spent 14 years in prison. The Police made a mess of the crime scene. Mass murder in Dunedin. Outa the blue. Give em a break. I’ve always thought he was guilty but if I was on that jury I would have voted ‘reasonable doubt’. Prefer the Scottish ‘unproven’ which allows further prosecution with new evidence. Thank God its all over. Bain’s death bed confession will be worth outliving him for!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Swampash (114 comments) says:

    Since I was not on the jury, and thus did not see the evidence that the jury saw, the only answer I can give is that I do not have adequate information to form an opinion as to whether or not Bain did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    This is a black day for New Zealand justice.

    This should put paid to any argument that juries can come up with better decisions than judges.

    There is no reasonable doubt here, because the alternative – that Robin did it – is simply not credible.

    Bain may be “not guilty” but he is still a murderer. If he doesn’t like that, he should sue and we will soon find out the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Razork (375 comments) says:

    Coolas; I honestly think David Bain doesn’t think he did it!

    So while I think he did, doubt very much there will be any confession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    At least David Bain is now free to travel the world. He’ll be able to witness first hand that not everywhere is as backward as the South Island with their bible carrying coppers, praying to Jesus to deliver a guilt party, any guilty party will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Bain is NZ’s OJ Simpson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tuija (220 comments) says:

    In the spirit of the kiwiblog right I think Phil Goff did it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. backster (2,077 comments) says:

    NOOKIN:;;;;;;;;;;;The evidence ruled inadmissible by the court was that of two schoolfriends of David who told of him planning to RAPE a early morning jogger and establishing an Alibi by using his NEWSPSAPER round. He intended to deliver papers early to those client who he knew were never awake and at the usual time to those he saw every morning. He had it all planned in a notebook. One of the friends some time later became worried when his wife went to university at the same time as David and warned her,…….Larry WILLIAMS mentioned this on his drivetime show but the following new broadcast did not find it newsworthy……..Does anyone still believe Not Guilty.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    The jury are just not upto it. We need jury with PhDs in Physics/Mathematics, so that they understand the process of reasoning with uncertainty. It is time that softwares with inference mechanism based on evidence should be introduced to our courts, exactly as DNA has been accepted & introduced into courts over the last decade or so.

    This type of reasoning mechanism/inference on prior probability is introduced in the following paper:

    Use of Bayesian Belief Networks in legal reasoning

    This inference engine is as revolutionary as the DNA. I urge any trial lawyers who is reading this to read the above document, and if you have any question of how its use, then drop me an email, so I can explain in detail of how belief inference mechanism works.

    It is a sad day for New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Perhaps one of the legal fraternity lurking here could explain why such a “dream team” of lawyers (including two QC’s can be assembled by a defendant on legal aid. Is there no limit to what the long-suffering taxpayer has to stump up with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Who was his first lawyer?

    They were negligent, whether he is guilty or not (of course he is but who cares now?)

    Why wasn’t that stuff about his dad called as evidence in his first trial?

    It’s like criminal law 102.

    Oh well, perhaps he was from Otago? Tuataperi maybe, or Gorrrre!!!

    They call it the most expensive case in NZ history.

    Hello, tax payers!! get out your cheque books!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :(

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    wreck1080 – what evidence did Police trump up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dave (985 comments) says:

    I2
    just because you believe he was guilty….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi: good call.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The cops did not mess the case up. The defence merely exploited a few inconsistencies to make it appear as if they did. The summing up and the appeal to the jury’s sentiment was appallingly gross.

    This is a complete travesty of justice carried out by knuckle dragging jurors too stupid to judge a cake show.

    David Bain is in my humble opinion a liar, a coward and a murderer. He slandered the dead, his own kin who died at his hands, to save his useless skin. My disgust at the brain dead jury finding is only exceeded by the disgust I feel towards the odious creep Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    ben (438) 3 2 Says:
    June 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
    “Why should he have to prove his innocence to the Government when the courts have found him not guilty?

    Because compensation has a lower legal threshold than criminal guilt.”

    I don’t think that’s an answer. Why should it be different. If the state can’t convict you. it ought to be liable to compensate you for everything it put you through. In this forum which has as its unspoken mantra, minimal state intervention in our lives, surely that should be obvious?

    If I had my way, the state should meet 100% of the accused’s legal costs in every unsuccessful prosecution. If you can’t prove it, don’t bring it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    As has been said many times the jury verdict is only an judgment of not guilty based on evidence. It is not an judgment of innocence. Imagine what it was like for the jury to make a choice between two options: guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or not guilty with no middle ground such as: ‘We are not convinced he didn’t do it but he has done his time so let’s just move on’.

    If he did kill his family then he would have had to have done it in an altered state, like in one of the blackouts we heard about him suffering prior to the event. Something like this might explain why, if he had done it, he protests his innocence. Such an occurrence would potentially put his actions in a different legal category and bring a reduced term anyway. Given the nature of his family, it is certainly not unimaginable and there was a lot of physical evidence linking him to the murder scene.

    I seem to remember the police originally reported a murder-suicide, but it was only as a result of the David’s dysfunctional behaviour surrounding the incident that they went for a murder conviction. By that time they had made many of the mistakes that have now seen the case fall apart. If you beam a magnifying glass on a case long enough and with enough intensity and get enough expert witnesses from around the world, you can eventually riddle it through with holes and make it fall apart. The police may have made lots of mistakes in their investigation but that was eclipsed by the mistakes that David Bain made in establishing his innocence right from the moment he supposedly discovered the bodies.

    Whatever our opinions now we have to accept that David Bain is not guilty. He is certainly not a criminal who is a risk to society now that he is free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    I do Dave – the summary of evidence that DPF put up yesterday was pretty damning. But the fact of the matter is this – the jury only has to have doubt over one element of the evidence for the whole case to fall over.

    But that was not my point. Sure, the Bain retrial will probably be unique in New Zealand’s judicial history. But are there no guideline as to the level at which a defence on legal aid is funded? I accept that this was a one-off. But there seems to be a trend in high-profile cases for a team of lawyers to be assembled at the taxpayer’s expense. Is this a matter which Simon Power should be lloking at?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    If Bain didn’t do it he would have taken the stand in his own defence. He was afraid a cross examination would blow his denial wide open, and it would have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    “He’ll be able to witness first hand that not everywhere is as backward as the South Island with their bible carrying coppers”
    What the……? Have you been to Dunedin? Its not like the Southern states of America you know

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “He is certainly not a criminal who is a risk to society now that he is free.”

    What crap. You don’t know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    Whether he did it or not is a moot point. The longstanding principle underpinning our justice system are innocence until proven guilty and guilt must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Should these principles be undermined or diminished NZ will become a scary place.

    No-one can argue that there wasn’t reasonable doubt in this case.

    The biggest issue in NZ is a lack of an independent prosecutor to provide an emotionally detached oversight of the police case. The current system allows the police to force through prosecutions with poor/incomplete evidence and pride/laziness prevents them from properly pursuing alternative scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    Redbaiter you are an utter fool. Of course the police stuffed up. That is one reason David Bain was found not guilty. There evidence was petty and the detectives who worked on the Bain trial have no credibility whatsoever. Milton Weir in particular didn’t even gather evidence properly and worked the evidence completely around David Bain and did not acknowledge in any way that someone else could have done it.

    Next I presume you’ll come up with some explanation of all the jurors and the court officials being socialist or something stupid like that.

    I’d also say this is why I can not and will not trust the decisions of The Supreme Court. In my mind it is no Privy Council. It is merely a Court of Appeal in disguise. In years to come as certain cases become highly questionable. The lawyers and teams working for those people won’t be able to use the Privy Council but instead will have to rely on the Supreme Court. Instead of applying the law, the new Supreme Court will merely agree with the Court of Appeal. This I am certain will have huge consequences for those criminals unfair incarcerated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dave (985 comments) says:

    So who did it then?

    If we knew the answer to that question beyond reasonable doubt, and it wasn’t David Bain, the Government will have to award David Bain compensation. The Government really don’t want to know if someone other than David Bain did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    Adolf is right too. Your poll is pathetic DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dave (985 comments) says:

    @Inventory2
    I do Dave – the summary of evidence that DPF put up yesterday was pretty damning

    I suspect you believed Bain was guilty weeks before DPF put up that summary. The matter Simon Power should be looking at is compensation for wrongful imprisonment as determined by a court of law – would you agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mara (726 comments) says:

    Psycopathy is an interesting mental state but not one that I would expect a jury to know much about. David Bain’s possible motive for killing his family was not, as far as I could see, much explored. Most people cannot see beyond their belief that a “nice” young man could not possibly be capable of such horror. And the deaths were horrible. You wouldn’t know it to see the news tonight. Hardly anyone I know thinks that Robin Bain killed the family. So who the fuck did?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. MrTips (144 comments) says:

    Bain can’t get compensation as you have to prove innocence. Not reasonable doubt, INNOCENCE.

    We now have our very own OJ trial. Yahoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. AG (1,778 comments) says:

    reddy
    “This is a complete travesty of justice carried out by knuckle dragging jurors too stupid to judge a cake show.”

    Good to see such trust in the common person. You right wingers and your elitist, overweening contempt for the ordinary citizen. Sickening, really.

    Now – where are all those kiwiblog supporters of the death penalty. C’mon, let’s be having you. Or are you just a bit, you know, fucked by this decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “Whatever our opinions now we have to accept that David Bain is not guilty. He is certainly not a criminal who is a risk to society now that he is free.”

    well, after hearing about his entire family and their background over the past decade or so I can only say I would probably be satisfied if David is now sterilised and that gene pool is at an end

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “I would probably be satisfied if David is now sterilised and that gene pool is at an end…”

    You’re tuned to Kiwiblog…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. AG (1,778 comments) says:

    MrTips,

    He can’t get compensation at all under the current rules, as he was found not guilty at a retrial (cf having his conviction quashed, like happened with Rex Haig and David Doherty).

    Now we wait and see if, under the pressure of the Bain machine, those rules get changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Dave – I believe there are conditions which must be met in order before compensation can be awarded, as Rex Haig found out. A finding of “not guilty” in a retrial is not necessarily one of them.

    And “wrongful imprisonment”? No way. He was properly convicted and sentenced in 1995. That the Privy Council subsequently overturned the conviction does not make the procedure by which Bain was originally imprisoned “wrongful”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    I’m with virtualmark. Completely sick of the whole saga.

    Now will someone please publish a laudable caricature of Bain & his ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Michaels (1,317 comments) says:

    Wonder how much Campbell paid to be in the room when Close-Up is in the cold??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Yep, I agree with the not proven route.
    Here is a legal question, since Bain was first convicted he could not share in the Bain estate.
    So that now he was not guilty does the estate go to him ?
    If it has been spent what then ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. V (668 comments) says:

    I think the deeper implications here are that this retrial would not have happened if it were not for the appeal to the Privy Council in the UK.

    Regardless of one’s views on the guilt or innocence of people in this trial, can we honestly have faith that the Supreme Court of NZ would have reviewed the evidence and legal case in the same way the Privy Council did?

    Perhaps in matters such as these it is better to have a group of legal expertise outside the country to make clear decisions on points of law.
    In some ways NZ is still a small community which has made handling cases such as this especially difficult for all concerned, especially where there is high emotion and personal reputations can be at stake.

    As much as there were likely some errors and omissions in the police investigation, this sorry affair raises as many questions about the NZ justice system as a whole in my view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,811 comments) says:

    Looks like Simon Power has been landed with the next tough decision. Will he do the right thing or continue the legacy of abuse by the State?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. DMS (51 comments) says:

    You guys got it wrong with Helen; you got in wrong with Cullen; you got it wrong with Key; you got it wrong with Bain.
    Will you ever get it right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. lilman (891 comments) says:

    WHAT a load of shit.
    Made me puke to see that murdering bastard smurking on the news.
    Fancy justice coming at the expense of 5 dead people ,one of them blamed and not there to defend himself.
    What complete shit, New Zealand justice,what a joke

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    After an exhausting trial, a jury found David Bain to be ‘Not Guilty’ on all counts. In just 6 hours.

    Good enough for me. All the barrack room lawyers, and hypothethists can swivel.

    There needs to be a large purge of the Police systems, and individuals who wanted to be judge, jury and executioners.

    Shame on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Friend on the Board (30 comments) says:

    Time now to consider:

    Which police witness had links to licensing of the Ladies of the night in Dunedin?

    If rumours that the original Police Inspector in charge of the first case had links to the Upstairs massage parlour where Laniet worked are true? Yes the one that retired immediately after the first trial.

    Whose cheques help pay the builder when the facility was built?

    Did police get favours for the boys from the upstairs massage parlour?

    Did laniett’s ellectronic dairy have police clients numbers?

    Did her cellphone records have police numbers on it?

    Which police witness visited the house where the cellphone records were kept.
    How soon after did they go missing from that house?

    Is a judicial complaint being laid against the Judge who issued an arrest warrant for Dean Robert Cottle when he was never issued with a witness summons?

    Who mislead the trial by saying that the police had visited his place of employment to look for him?
    That was a false as no such contact was made. Similarly neither did anyone visit his home while anyone was there.

    Why was the arrest warrant later recinded by the judge?

    Were all the bullets found?

    Why not?

    Were the different calibres?

    What did Weir do in the house when he was securing the scene other than laying plastic?

    How long did that take?

    What happened to the fabric item shot through?

    More questions than witnesses.
    We look forward to the movie for answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Don the Kiwi (1,593 comments) says:

    Getstaffed.

    Now will someone please publish a laudable caricature of Bain and his ears?

    How about Alfred E. Newman, Prince Charles and/or Barack Obama? 8-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Whats the bet the Prime Minister John Key steps in and allows a compensation deal for Bain..
    Reason.. because the public will expect it… and dam the him and his Government if he doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Bob (479 comments) says:

    I felt sure he would get off not because of proved innocence but because of the doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Funny how all the compassionate liberals don’t seem to give a damn for the people who died such a horrible death at the hands of a snivelling self absorbed coward and psychopath who shoots unarmed people and then slanders them as guilty of incest.

    Does everybody agree the dead have had their justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    Psychopathy is an interesting mental state but not one that I would expect a jury to know much about. David Bain’s possible motive for killing his family was not, as far as I could see, much explored.

    I believe this is why the judge advised the jury prior to their decision that motive was not a necessary prerequisite. In other words sometimes people do things without explanation. With the Bain family we are looking at a household whose residents had a variety of dysfunctions, misfortunes and mystical beliefs, all wrapped up in an environment of extreme untidiness and disorder. How any motivations can be reasoned and predictable in such an environment is beyond conception.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – you’re damn right about “If Bain didn’t do it he would have taken the stand in his own defence”

    I must say in the jury trials I’ve served on I’m entirely suspicious when the defendant will not take the stand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. turni698 (2 comments) says:

    To say that Bain should be happy with the police for their incompetence is sickening and shows just what the defence were up against…cross crooked cops, with fabricated crown evidence, with talented crown prosecutors with full state funding, with destroyed evidence that could possibly exonerate David, with a general public who want to believe the police (why shouldn’t they) and you have a shitstorm.

    As for the police, it goes way past incompetence, nor negligence. Travelling to Melbourne to destroy evidence, planting evidence and roughing up potential witnesses and people connected to the defence isn’t incompetence. For some reason, people were out to pin this guy. Probably not for anything he’d actually done.

    There are some events surrounding this case, known only to a few people, that will blow peoples minds if they are prepared to consider it. By the end of the year a whole lot more people will know. There are intelligent and dedicated people on to it.

    Remember if David Bain had anything other than a muppet defence lawyer back in 1995 there is no way a jury would have convicted him then either. That is the tragedy.

    Also how sad is it when people log into a site and blog that they’ve lost interest…next

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. reid (15,947 comments) says:

    If Bain didn’t do it he would have taken the stand in his own defence

    It’s not really up to Bain, it’s a strategic decision taken by counsel.

    Sure, Bain could insist, in the same way a patient undergoing surgery can insist they do it themselves.

    Which option would you take, in Bain’s position?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. bilevel (3 comments) says:

    I watched close up tonight, and they said that as the son of Bain was leaving the courthouse, around the corner mark sainsbury saw 4 jurors hug David.

    Does sympathy play a part – nice liberian looking white boy with spectacles, how could he.

    The father died , never got to defend himself regarding allegations of incest, now labelled by your average joe in the street to have committed the murders. I think people have to ask themselves what they truely believe is justice. Wheres the justice in a dead person being accused of incest by a diary owner, or labelled as clinnically depressed by the guy who come and reads your meter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. turni698 (2 comments) says:

    People going on about the cost! If it was your son, brother, nephew would you give a f*&ck about the cost? Exactly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    if I was a guilty defendant – I’d take Bains, but of course I’m looking at it from a juror position (albeit not that important with the last lot)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    “How any motivations can be reasoned and predictable in such an environment is beyond conception.”

    This cuts both ways. Arguments such as “Why would the killer wear gloves, wash clothes, wait for computer to turn on, etc.” also become meaningless if the candidates are irrational and unpredictable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    Who benefited from the Bain Family Estate? Why was it burnt to the ground with such undue haste?
    Did any beneficiary have any motive?
    Did any beneficiary have any common interest with above said retired detective?

    Lots of unanswered questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. big bruv (13,292 comments) says:

    What today proved is that twelve of New Zealand’s fourteen most mind numbingly stupid people in live in Christchurch (the other two being Sonic and Mickey)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    This is how the evidence reads:

    Before 5pm I get an update from Prime News that that homocidal maniac Davie Boy is acquitted.

    Messages originate from my brain (that have been bombarded by two glasses off cheap sav blonc) that transfer to my mouth and say:

    “I told you say!” to my elderly Mum who thinks David is just lovely and is busily baking him some cakes in the kitchen.

    All is quiet, Deal or No Deal, as usual is exciting and as always, by that stage my elderly Mum has consumed her three quarters glass of Banrock Station, Crimson Canernet 2008 (well, at least it looks like wine) the guy gets $21,000, nice.

    OK, 6pm TV1, it’s all on David Bain, david Bain and David bain.

    Hmmm, I endure it all until an article by Jack about the cost of the David Bain trial to the country.

    And I shout at my elderly wine high Mum, “Jesus, how long are they gonna spend on this!?”

    The clock shows 6:40.

    And then the irony struck me!

    And I know I am very clever and wise (winning my first 2 jury trials helped that ego).

    And I am like, OK, who can see the irony here?

    Journalists complaining about the cost of a trial to the tax-payers but spending 40+ minutes on it on the national news programme?

    Like, OK, who is the boss of TV1?

    And then, I saw that blonde sea-gull, that cheered me up a bit, let us face it, even if she does look like an ageing sea-gull/Cherry 2000/a brainless blonde robot that acts like she is on speed but we know she doesn’t take any.

    That cheered me up. Let’s face it, we would all do her, even with my age preferences and even if she is in love with Simon (yeah, just don’t try to be funny or show a personality and you will do fine Simon, as with Cherry). At least she doesn’t stutter like other presenters especially in the sports area like every night.

    Then that fat ugly hairy bottom comes on and launches into the David issue too but we would expect that on that show OK even in a sane country.

    Anyway, I digress, but oh yes, I lived in China in 8 years and we all complain about media dictatorship.

    Right, that doesn’t exist in New Zealand at all.

    Oh why don’t I just throw an idea around like, if the journalistis approach to the first Bain trial had been a little more two sided, maybe, just maybe the tax payers would have been saved millions of dollars.

    Because, in the end it doesn’t matter at all whether he is guilty or not, it is the journalistic power that won.

    I hope people will start to realize this in New Zealand.

    Because, I just sit here and go……..oh, New Zealand, yeah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. nickle (28 comments) says:

    I’m most concerned by the short time it took the jury to all agree – after listening to 3 months worth of trial. Summing up took longer than their deliberation. By all accounts, it wasn’t that clear a case and should have been debated a bit longer do you not think??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    Robind Bain is INNOCENT!

    Maybe that could be Joe Karam’s next campaign…….he has fuck all else to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    Robin Bain is INNOCENT!

    Maybe that could be Joe Karam’s next campaign…….he has fuck all else to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “and should have been debated a bit longer do you not think??”

    ……………….the weekend approaches

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. big bruv (13,292 comments) says:

    Patrick

    As one who has sat on three jury trials I can assure you that the up coming weekend plays a huge part in some peoples decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    The jurors always hug the accused after a trial, it is just weird…as are juries weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    The cops did not mess the case up. The defence merely exploited a few inconsistencies to make it appear as if they did. The summing up and the appeal to the jury’s sentiment was appallingly gross.

    Jesus H Christ. They forgot to bag Robin’s hands. Could have proved Robin never fired a shot that morning. Traipsed through the house for two hours before securing the scene. Needlessly destroyed evidence in 1996. Couldn’t tell the difference betweeen the lens and a reflection in a photo. Allowed the house to be burned two weeks after the killings. Didn’t bother testing the blood on the washer or the gun, handing the defence wriggle room.

    They thought they had it and they got lazy. In a mass murder.

    Heads should roll. They won’t. And a mass murderer may be in line for compensation. Utter, total, complete incompetence by New Zealand’s finest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. badmac (139 comments) says:

    Heres a thought, I know its been argued around 100′s of times, but the fact still remains the truth is flexible for policitcal outcomes.

    In NZ, you are innocent until PROVEN guility.
    If you are found Not Guilty. You REMAIN INNOCENT fullstop.
    There is no middle ground of not proven, or beyond a reasonable doubt. You are Innocent.
    You are only found Guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”
    Why then does Bain have to prove himself innocent for compensation. He is Innocent as defined under our laws.

    As for did he do it. I don’t know, the Police certainly didn’t do a good job of investigating. They decided it was David and set about proving it, rather than finding the evidence, sorting through it and seeing what it told them. I have been on a Jury for a similar case and its pretty easy to find reasonable doubt, especially when the police cause it (we returned Guilty!). Only one person now alive knows the truth, he now has to live with it for the rest of his life. The police will have learnt (or reaffirmed) a lot of how not to do things from this case. Take away from it the knowledge that they won’t make the same mistakes again and next time it maybe a serial killer or child killer that gets nailed because the police do it right.

    Why didn’t the Post Mortum examine Laniet to she if she had had a baby or miscarried. Why didn’t the police take better photos, why didn’t they keep DNA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    badmac
    to present the Westminster system as credible is like trying to justify MMP.
    With the evidence presented against David, compared to a defence based on compassion and implanted doubt – only tells me a smart mouthed lawyer will get you off anything except a smoking gun

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    “In NZ, you are innocent until PROVEN guility.
    If you are found Not Guilty. You REMAIN INNOCENT fullstop.”
    So on that logic David was guilty from the time of his conviction until today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. noskire (832 comments) says:

    Apparently David Bain is going to pursue a career in photography, specialising in family shots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    And the bad taste jokes begin. Just received a text that “David Bain has been found not guilty and is off to KFC to celebrate. He said that he could just murder a family pack”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. reid (15,947 comments) says:

    Utter, total, complete incompetence by New Zealand’s finest.

    Look, the rules of evidence and presentation thereof in a jury trial are heavily weighted in favour of a defendant, deliberately.

    The Westminster justice system allows a thousand guilty people to go free lest one innocent be convicted.

    In Soviet Russia it was vice-versa.

    Which way do we want it?

    This current way apparently encourages the police (who see ALL the evidence whether or not it’s admissible and who are, let us remember, the only law enforcement professionals exposed to the cutting edge as opposed to the prosecuting counsel who view everything through a long range lens), to sometimes conclude that someone should be brought to justice regardless of whether or not a conviction would be obtained if the evidence were presented according to the strict rules of law.

    Many times they’re probably right. Maybe they’re also right in this case. Question is, which way do we want it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. macdee (29 comments) says:

    How many of you David Bain apologists really belive Robin murdered his family and what is your evidence – who ever killed brave Stephen and got his DNA all over them, killed the rest of the family and that wasn’t Robin, sadly this jury was always going to kick for touch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    reid – something has to give. As I said earlier We seem to have a lot of murders and a lot of not guilty verdicts in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. shaun (8 comments) says:

    Rumour has it that TVNZ are wanting to offer Bain his own afternoon tv chat show

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    I always believed David was not guilty.
    I am pleased that he can now proceed with the rest of his life a free man.

    These were the key points of the trial that I feel reinforced my original viewpoint.

    1. David never had a motive for murdering his entire family
    2. Robin Bain however was clinically depressed and having sex with his own daughter(s)
    2. Robin Bain organised for a substitute teacher to look after his school from the day of the murders
    3. Margaret Bain was reported to have been so worried about the psychological state of Robin Bain that she is said to have thought that he “may take his gun and shoot the whole family”

    I have the greatest respect for David and Joe Karam and his entire group of supportersl, who have accorded themselves with dignity and courage throughout the entire saga.

    I would like to see David receive at least $1.5 million dollars
    ($100,000 per year for each year he spent in jail and $200,000 for his share of the family estate)

    I would like to see Joe Karam’s name on next year’s honours list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. reid (15,947 comments) says:

    Yeah Patrick, I personally think we should ditch adversarial in favour of inquisitorial and I hope Finlayson turns his attention toward this because he’s the only man in the Cabinet that could process this change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. minimiz (1 comment) says:

    Am respecting this forum. The majority of you all seem to concur that the police stuffed things up to the point where this outcome became inevitable. I would just like to say, that even if he did do it, it was such an effed up family that who could really blame him.

    I expect him to be a very good citizen from here on in.

    Go well David, and I hope you manage some great things.

    XOX kez

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    I second democracymum.

    No matter the feeling of Davids guilt or innocence, Joe Karam should be recognised for his

    incredible impact in this case.

    What ever equals a VC in civilian life is what Mr Karam is entitled to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    There’s a new drinking game called the Bain: you race round the block with a load of newspapers and then have a shot in each room when you get home. all this case proved is that christchurch is populated by bleeding heart mental deficients.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    Patrick said “reid – something has to give. As I said earlier We seem to have a lot of murders and a lot of not guilty verdicts in this country.”

    Lots of murders. That is an urban myth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

    Countries with worse stats than NZ – England, Scotland and US have not moved away from this basic right of defendants

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    “2. Robin Bain however was clinically depressed and having sex with his own daughter(s)”
    Democracymum
    since you believe hearsay to be fact…….. what do you think of David’s plans to rape a morning jogger and use his paper run as an alibi 4 years before the murders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    oh yes SSASTTL – there’s a few more wee tidbits that were deemed inadmissable that might change quite a few people’s views about the ” shy and retiring” Mr. Bain…watch this space…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left

    I do not believe that the evidence regarding Robin’s incest was hearsay for severalreasons

    Robin’s depression was noted by a number of different people on different occasions
    The meter reader stumbled across Robin having sex in his caravan (who with if not Laniet?)
    The prostitute said she felt Laniet’s body looked as though she had had a baby
    (her assessment would be pretty reliable)
    The doctor noticed a discernible change in Laniet’s demeanor when she told she had a STD
    Laniet had turned to prostitution – which is often the case in women who are sexually abused

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    This cuts both ways. Arguments such as “Why would the killer wear gloves, wash clothes, wait for computer to turn on, etc.” also become meaningless if the candidates are irrational and unpredictable.

    In some dysfunctional environments anything goes. Like I said, you can’t reason and predict. There are dysfunctions that involve meticulous intricate behaviours. Human behaviour is infinitely diverse. By preventing David from taking the stand the Defence ensured that they avoided the risk of having him reflecting an impression of the dysfunctional environment that he was brought up in.

    In a dysfunctional environment such as the Bain family, Robin Bain’s supposed mental decline could be a motive for anyone in the family to act in a destructive manner and the fact still remains that the balance of the physical evidence, the empirical scientific evidence puts David at the scene of the murders and not his father.

    I sure hope Democracymum has not just illustrated the kind of reasoning that went into his not guilty verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    yes it is hearsay because there is no physical evidence, just words…………hearsay

    “The meter reader stumbled across Robin having sex in his caravan (who with if not Laniet?)”
    the meter reader heard noises and Robin answered in a towel….. doesnt mean sex
    and if it was sex, why cant it be someone else and not Laniet?

    “Robin Bain however was clinically depressed and having sex with his own daughter(s)”
    pretty sure you have to be diagnosed as being ‘clinically’ depressed

    “Robin Bain organised for a substitute teacher to look after his school from the day of the murders”
    so? David had organised for all his family to be home….. does that mean anything

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. garman7 (6 comments) says:

    I cant wait for the movie to come out, David is such a good actor that he can play himself, but they will have to make it an R18 I would think, Of course his mother won’t be in it because she is dead but no doubt Karam will get an appropriate women to play the part of Davids mother and I hope she has a nice body cos I just love watching nude massages, probably will be the winner of several academy awards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    democracymum, you’re right. What you’ve stated is not hearsay, (it’s not that reliable) – it’s pure speculation and innuendo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    Kent Parker

    “I sure hope Democracymum has not just illustrated the kind of reasoning that went into his not guilty verdict.”

    …The verdict was from a jury of 12 well informed individuals who listened to all of the evidence unlike you or I

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled – hearsay is just words – but passed on, hence: “Hear…say” (unofficial information gained or acquired from another )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    oh and this one
    “The doctor noticed a discernible change in Laniet’s demeanor when she told she had a STD”
    What, was she suppose to celebrate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Indeed as a second year law student at the University of Auckland my initial reaction to this case was GUILTY for David Bain – based on the evidence and not on mere fiction or media speculation.
    Now I don’t mean to sound like a high court judge here but based on the evidence on both sides I think it is very likely that David was guilty and the legal system in this country just simply wasn’t able to conclude with this because of the legal theory of beyond reasonable doubt.
    There were many flaws that I believe juror’s failed to identify with when making their final decision (personal opinion), such as – the eye witness accounts from local’s who claim that David’s paper run (also David’s alibi) was much earlier than usual and David appeared differently than he did on most days, the 111 call and the mysterious clarity, confidence and coherency of David’s voice when describing what he saw and who exactly was dead (unusual for people in such circumstances), the exact time that the family computer was turned on with the message “Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay”, etc.
    What should also be pointed out is that not guilty does not equal innocence and there is a valid difference between the two verdicts based on the legal equation of “reasonable doubt”.
    This case is very well the most interesting in the history of NZ but I won’t rest assured until the day David is specifically given a verdict of innocence or guilt.

    Enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Poliwatch
    don’t be so convenient as to lose the context of what I said. Try Homicides Vs. Convictions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    So at this time 77% of Kiwiblog believe David is guilty of murder.
    Given the average IQ of this blog I would have picked higher than that

    (a lot of left trolls these days DPF?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    “Indeed as a second year law student at the University of Auckland my initial reaction to this case was GUILTY”

    Change your law lecturer. Anyone who could not pick this verdict is as to law as a chilli is to a non-spicy pizza.

    Ie, fucking useless, and if anyone doubts my predict just ask DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Fairly obvious that some folks had made their minds up very early.

    Either with a ‘hang him high’ view, or ‘no way did he do that’ view.

    We all know what opinions are like, 73 days of tortuous revisiting of terrible circumstances.

    Video, still pictures, many exhibits with a deathly knowledge.

    Not Guilty, means Innocent in the Olde English system. The Scottish third way of ‘Not Proven’ has now been

    matched by double jeopardy being brought into play.

    It is entirely possible that new evidence may cause the file to be re-opened at some later stage.

    David Bain, may in fact be the best actor in the World. Frankly all the deniers are full of shit!!

    Why don’t you all wind your necks in, as you know sweet fuck all compared to what the jury was allowed to

    hear and witness. You are all collective plonkers.

    More important is the Police Investigation, perhaps compromised by many other salacious details.

    A bit like the Rotorua Pack. Dunedin has had its fair share of bent Police.

    David Bain didn’t react ‘normally’ when he found the rest of his family butchered.

    What a bag of shit. WTF was he supposed to react like? Especially from a dysfunctional family.

    So for all the smart arses that know so much more than the assembled QC’s, back room researchers, and

    learned Judge. And for those that questioned the overall cost. Just wait till one of your family get stitched up

    like an Arbroath Smokie by the Police, and see then how you feel about some dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. BlueDevil (92 comments) says:

    I find it hard to believe that Robin Bain was so depressed he couldn’t organise himself to dress properly and carry out basic personal hygiene but could organise 4 murders change his clothes and put them out for a wash then kill himself!
    Why didnt he wash the beanie? Why didnt it come off when he was fighting with Steven? Why shoot yourself with a hat on?

    I think David’s motivation was the thought that by killing them he was ‘saving’ them. Its hard to understand but when your world is collapsing some people can see this as a rational solution.

    The Robins bladder is the clincher for me. Young (under 50) people just don’t understand the absolute need to go when you get up in the morning.

    I think that David was guilty but the case presented left reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Farmer Baby Boomer (12 comments) says:

    Friend on the Board, your post suggests not just police incompitance but police corruption. Your question re what Weir was doing in the house other than laying plastic is one one I have heard or read before – where I’m not sure but the implication was a lot of his time was unaccounted for. I’m guessing there are limits to what you are prepared to say but would you elaborate what is behind you asking if different caliber bullets were found? My Boomer brain is a bit stretched considering the implcations of another gun being involved. Just one more question – How would you vote in DPF’s poll?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Dazzaman (1,123 comments) says:

    Total bullshit verdict, but at least the cops will get the bullet they so well deserve for botching this case. You didn’t have to follow this case very closely, I followed it as closely as anyone, to see that this prick was guilty as.

    That’s Dunedin for you, I guess!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. heisenbug (7 comments) says:

    Perhaps yet another example where the third verdict – not proven – in the Scottish system would be useful. We think you did it, the prosecution just failed to remove any reasonable doubt.

    What bugs me is the way it’s been reported that the whole family were fucked up. I met David, Stephen, and Laniet not long before Stephen and Laniet were murdered. Stephen seemed, to me, to be a nice, happy, talented kid – I met them in a musical context. Laniet was friendly and cheerful every time I saw her. A good friend of mine was very interested in Arawa, and I trust his taste. David, on the other hand, seemed stand-offish and a bit strange. Maybe the family’s circumstances were comment-worthy, but the three younger children, as far as I can see, were normal teenagers..

    Someone tell me what Kelly Gillan had to do with all this? I didn’t know he was involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    David Bain told a school friend that he could rape a woman and use his paper round as a false alibi…..
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    Patrick
    “don’t be so convenient as to lose the context of what I said. Try Homicides Vs. Convictions”

    Your first comment was “that we seem to have a lot of murders”. My point is that in context with any other similar societies we don’t. I don’t have the stats on how many defendants plead not guilty and how many are found not guilty. Perhaps you can provide this for me.

    Since we are using “seem to” conclusions, I seem to think that in most murders the killer is quickly caught – most are known to the victim (particularly multiple murders) – the Bain case is an example. Random stranger murders are the most difficult but are also often solved.

    But your evidence might prove otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    The verdict was from a jury of 12 well informed individuals who listened to all of the evidence unlike you or I

    Firstly, then you are being hypocritical in proclaiming that you believe he is innocent. Secondly if there was any evidence worth hearing I am sure that the media has reported it. Any new evidence brought up since the first trial has been purely circumstantial, focused on Robin Bain’s personal failings and linked to the murders by way of motive. There has been no new physical evidence, because as we all know it was destroyed when the house was burnt down.

    There are many psychological games that take place in a courtroom with a jury, and lawyers take advantage of those as much as possible. At the end of the day, more time and energy was put into securing Bain’s acquittal than was put into securing his conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    poliwatch. you see you’re doing it again. The complete sentence provides the context, not just the first few words.
    …….and as you asked according to the eighth United Nations Survey on Crime (2002) NZ had the 27th highest number of acquittals in the world.
    If you study the list I believe perhaps only Cyprus has a lower population
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_acq-crime-acquitted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    The dingo did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Just got to this thread – been overseas and unable to blog.

    I have long been an advocate for David’s guilt and this doesn’t change things one iota for me. But I will say this: we have a system in this country which sometimes gives results that some might deem odd. Innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty people are either acquitted or there are hung juries. No system is perfect and cannot be. I trust the system to produce the correct result just about all the time. When a result is given that might go against the grain, as this one does for me, my belief is that those who are affronted, like me, should act like gracious losers and say the defence team did a superb job. Well done to them. On to the next one now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    democracymum – is that all you’ve got?

    Here’s a rarely mentioned factoid from the McNeish book. The day before the murders, Stephen told a friend he had woken up the night before, seen David in his room who said “Bang, you’re dead”. Stephen told his friend he couldn’t tell if it was a dream or not.

    Hell of a coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Gooner, if this was sport, I’d agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. trb52 (1 comment) says:

    It is the job of defence lawyers to gain aquittance of their client, whatever their own beliefs; it is a profitable industry, with huge rewards, and the blessed gift to this industry is ‘reasonable doubt’. All you need to do is throw resources at the case; ‘experts’, phoney science, vaguely associated witnesses, pity, it all serves to unsettle the certainty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    I am intrigued that the poll of Kiwiblog readers indicates that 49% of you believe he did it. while over at Stuff, 60.1% of the presumably less well informed general population believe the verdict was correct.

    Does anyone have an explanation that does not suggest the other group are all “knuckledragging lefties”(TM)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Should just be able to challenge the chap to a duel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    bharmer
    Interesting the early polls (first 2000) on both Stuff and the Herald showed a very strong agreement with the verdict, but both have come back considerably. Herald is now running at 51/49 and Stuff has now come back to 60/40

    “49% of Kiwiblog readers believe he did it”? You mean 79% think David is guilty of murder to some degree

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. big bruv (13,292 comments) says:

    democracymum

    “I would like to see David receive at least $1.5 million dollars
    ($100,000 per year for each year he spent in jail and $200,000 for his share of the family estate)”

    Would you really, well then, by your reasoning we should be dishing out around $100,000 to Chris Kahui as well, after all, the jury found him to be not guilty as well.

    “I would like to see Joe Karam’s name on next year’s honours list”

    What on earth for?, services to his own ego perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Does anyone have an explanation that does not suggest the other group are all “knuckledragging lefties”(TM)?”

    Suprised you need it explained. Their information sources are the mainstream media- TV One Newsroom, TV3, the NYT Times style Herald, The Dominion and other gatherings of the most corrupt and despicable group of charlatans and low life scumbags in New Zealand.

    Anyone who relies upon the utterings of these contemptible washed up past their use by date losers doesn’t ever have a clue what’s really going down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    Bharmer
    heres a fun game that I have been playing for years: when someone says words to the effect of “I think David Bain’s innocent”, ask them why. Out of the many many times I have asked this only 1 person was able to give any reason why they think the evidence points to Robin. Most answers are “I just think he is”. “Why?” “I because the father did it”……..
    you get the point (this is people in person, ie work, uni, out drinking etc…… a large mixture of people)
    Since he was released 2 years ago, think David was innocent has been the ‘in’ thing.

    As for the difference in the kiwiblog poll being different than the news websites……. Most Kiwiblog commentators are smart people. I differ in opinion most of the time with most people here but they are mostly very smart and informed people.
    Its likely that Kiwiblog commentators have done, on average, a lot more homework on the Bain case than the average Stuff poll voter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    You’re right SSSL, I have a woman working for me who made the same “David’s innocent” statement at the outset. When I put it to her to make a choice, Robin or David? she said she couldn’t, she didn’t think either of them were capable…………

    I’m also intrigued by the comment made by the juror interviewed by the herald
    “You are left in no doubt about anything. It’s a massive amount of information but it is reiterated so many times”

    If she is saying she has no doubt that Robin murdered his family I’d love to see and understand that evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (6404) Vote: 0 1 Says:
    June 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
    ““Does anyone have an explanation that does not suggest the other group are all “knuckledragging lefties”(TM)?”

    Suprised you need it explained. Their information sources are the mainstream media- TV One Newsroom, TV3, the NYT Times style Herald, The Dominion and other gatherings of the most corrupt and despicable group of charlatans and low life scumbags in New Zealand.

    Anyone who relies upon the utterings of these contemptible washed up past their use by date losers doesn’t ever have a clue what’s really going down.”

    That’s fine Red, but whereas you have obvious alternate sources that allow you to part company with the MSM in respect of issues such as Obama and Afghanistan, what credible alternate sources do the readers have in respect of the court case that justifies such a significant difference among the members of Kiwiblog.

    Fox news didn’t report on the Bain case as far as I know. Who really knew “what was going down”, and to whom was it disclosed? I am genuinely mystified by the visceral certainty expressed by the 49%.

    My own vote was “I have no idea who did it, so not guilty was the correct verdict”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “My own vote was “I have no idea who did it, so not guilty was the correct verdict”

    Well if you’re really so blind as to think that Brian, then I rest my case. In the mean time, go on relying on sources like Wendy Petrie and the like. Fonts of deep and objective wisdom the lot of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    An interesting article in the Herald today on the juror interview – seems to have been an unusually professionally-qualified jury. My take is they correctly decided “not proven” on the available evidence.

    As a scientist that is also my view. To reach a different conclusion requires supposition and choosing one probability amongst many possible choices. Simply, the police failed to produce and preserve the evidence that would have been conclusive.

    There is a lot of ranting here. I accord it zero weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    “Well if you’re really so blind as to think that Brian, then I rest my case. In the mean time, go on relying on sources like Wendy Petrie and the like. Fonts of deep and objective wisdom the lot of them.”

    That doesn’t answer my question … what other sources were there?
    As to my vote, it reflects my understanding of what the law is … if you can’t prove guilt, you must acquit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Brian. You believe Bain innocent. Anybody with even a moderate grip upon reason would not be able to come to such a conclusion. It suggests that whatever I respond to you, it will sink into the deep dark mire of your illogical brain processes and be gone forever. In other words, I’d be wasting my time. Never mind, as it happens, I’ve got some time to waste at the moment, given I’m sitting in the Qantas lounge at Sydney airport and my plane doesn’t depart for another couple of hours.

    You ask me if there are other sources outside of the mainstream media. Why do you think they’re referred to as “mainstream” Brian?? Try the Police Gazette. Try books. Try publications that are not mainstream. Journalists that are not mainstream. (Ian Wishart).

    I don’t know why anyone would still give the mainstream media the time of day. They are the ones who brought you global warming, seas rising 20 metres, Bush and Palin are figures of hate and derision whilst Obama is a living God. The war in Iraq was lost and lost and lost again. If terrorists wanted to get a message out, the MM were always there for them. The Maori race have a case to rape steal and commit violence because they were wronged by the European settlers. NZ’s education standards are equal to the best in the world when most students can’t spell, do elementary maths or find well known places on maps. I could go on Brian, but I think you get the picture. Their code is deceit.

    They MM are merely the mouthpiece of a corrupt and self serving elitist class that is at war with NZ’s middle class. These so called journalists will be hung from lamp posts when the revolution comes, as partners in crime to corrupt governments, and that time is getting closer every day. I can’t wait to see their corpses swinging in the wind, with every two lamp posts supporting a twirling politician separated by one mainstream media “journalist” with their neck stretched to the maximum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson – you surprise me. First you conclude on the strength of a single jurors word passed third hand through the media that it was a “unusually professionally-qualified jury”

    Then however you go on to state “As a scientist that is also my view. To reach a different conclusion requires supposition and choosing one probability amongst many possible choices”. It’s a simple question Alan – David or Robin?, one or the other – no one else

    Is the evident beyond reasonable doubt stronger against David than Robin?
    Id be interested in a scientists answer to this question

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    How do you calculate third-hand, Patrick? The interview was taped by the Herald and the juror checked the text. The juror has a BSc and is studying for a law degree. Seems a reasonable source and made intelligent comments.

    Your question is simple and so is a scientist’s answer. There is no defensible proof of either option. I could never submit a scientific paper to referees that reached any other conclusion based on that evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “These so called journalists will be hung from lamp posts when the revolution comes… I can’t wait to see their corpses swinging in the wind, with every two lamp posts supporting a twirling politician separated by one mainstream media “journalist” with their neck stretched to the maximum.”

    You’ve just crossed the line from deranged to seriously mentally ill, get help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Yes but Alan, The standard of their verdict did not require them to submit a scientific paper, Its only beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence against David was stronger then the evidence against Robin.

    Can you tell me what evidence against Robin over David would make you uncomfortable to decide one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Patrick, I think there are two different approaches operating in this case.

    Feminine intuition says Robin had the motive, the personality disorder and 95% of family massacres are committed by the rejected husband/male partner. It says you can’t conclude anything from anything bizarre or illogical Robin might have done because he was off his head anyway. And David seems a nice gentle guy with no sign of being a mass murderer.

    Male rationality says what about the clothing, the silencer, the computer message, the washing machine, the fight with Stephen?

    The scientist says, sorry, there is just no definitive proof either way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. sup (3 comments) says:

    Yeah, sure David should thank the police, afterall, 13 years in jail convicted of the murders of his family. What a gift.

    Glad that the right verdict was finally heard. It is too late to make things okay, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    “Brian. You believe Bain innocent.”
    That’s not what I said at all. I said I don’t know who did it. Since I am not certain who did it, that amounts to reasonable doubt and results in mandatory acquittal. I didn’t mention innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    No matter how much we all beg to differ, this was a fair trial, fair and square. Both sides (literally)had carte blanche to argue their case. Overall, I thought Panckhurst presided fairly (apart from some aspects of his summing up). The barbs should be out for the NZ judicary, who have refused Bain a retrial on two previous occasions, and who have now been exposed as incompetent fools by a layman.

    It is their incompetence alone, that not only has cost us taxpayers millions of dollars, but brought the entire NZ justice system into disrepute.

    This matter could, and should have been sorted many, many years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Deep Thinker (5 comments) says:

    This is my first time on here and great to see a few who think a bit like me!

    I know this is a bit off center but I just had a few things that I have pondered on the Bain trial regarding Evidence

    1) I would like to bring up Davids injuries especially to his chest area. I would imagine that David would have been carrying the gun around at “chest height” and if his brother tried to grab the gun off him you would expect that a scratch/injury would appear at “chest height” which is where Davids injuries were. I dont understand why things like this weren’t verbalised by the crown

    2) The foot print sizes quite possibly could still have been Davids, he very likely would have been sneaking around as not to awake others while he carried out the mission, try this, walk in a creeping position slightly tip toeing putting the soles of your feet down last gently “as you would” and note how much narrower your foot looks and also note that your footprint is shortened by doing this. That to me blows the evidence of the footprints away.

    3)Take a look at the pictures on TV 1 and note where the blood is left on Davids tshirt, it is mainly around the bottom back (where his Tshirt would have hung below the Jersey if pulled up in a fight with Steven), which would make sense that a jersey would have been above that. I believe that it is very probable that in the stuggle the blood got on the back of the Tshirt and the other smaller blood patches (which were hardly noticable) would have have been transferred through the jersey. (most likely with the stuggle with stephen) David would have taken his jersey off believing that he had all the bloodied clothing taken care of in the washing machine but neglected to see the blood on his Tshirt because most of it was at the back! Others have said to me that he could have had it transferred from leaning against things but I would expect that most of the blood would be on the front of him if he were trying to help.

    And lastly, I promise not too ramble on like this all the time, just wanted to have my say.

    4)I have tried and tried to make Robin Bain the killer and have fabricated an alibi for him for example ( that he was unaware of all the killings and was asleep in the caravan) Even if he went and shot the whole family and it fell apart when the fight broke out with Stephen and he changed his mind and had a change of heart and didn’t want to kill anyone else it still doesn’t make sense that he would change his clothes and put the message on the computer which takes up precious time, only to kill himself???? No matter how hard I try I can’t make it all fit???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. M8 (1 comment) says:

    deep thinker wrote
    “4)I have tried and tried to make Robin Bain the killer and have fabricated an alibi for him for example ( that he was unaware of all the killings and was asleep in the caravan) Even if he went and shot the whole family and it fell apart when the fight broke out with Stephen and he changed his mind and had a change of heart and didn’t want to kill anyone else it still doesn’t make sense that he would change his clothes and put the message on the computer which takes up precious time, only to kill himself???? No matter how hard I try I can’t make it all fit???”

    How about this little theory
    What if Robin left David alive as a sort of revenge?
    Robin’s life seemed to be a disaster yet he prays everyday at the same time. A highly “religious” man and yet his life is a shambles a bit like Jim Jones but with a smaller congragation.
    He is praying for his wife and children to change. His work life is a mess.
    He is able to organise not to be there when ERO arrive. He is a person who makes plans. His praying and doing it at the same time would indicate a discipline and yet from the outside his life looks very undisciplined.
    He intended to take his family to “heaven”, cleaned himself up and then typed the note on the computer ie not on paper because he doesn’t want proof that it is him. He wanted to leave David behind because he saw him as a threat. Robin refused to sign over Laniet’s independant youth allowance, refused to release money for the building of the new house. A passive aggressor who felt backed into a corner. David was increasing taking authority and command of the situation and therefore Robin felt backed into a corner. Robin waited until David left the house, killed his wife and the other children. Cleaned himself up: no one can tell who has done the murdering ( after all he has used David’s key and his gloves) Waits until David is almost home, turns on the computer and then dispatches himself in his usual praying position to further cast doubt on who has done it.
    Sorry, you are the only who deserves to stay ie sorry, you will cop it now, you are the only one who deserves to live on in this hell on earth.
    That would be a motive to wait for the computer and to use an unusual angle and not remove the silencer he wants it to look like David did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. happy-jacko (64 comments) says:

    The crown and the defense used expert witnesses -OR was it merely expert opinion? – so man experts yet such differing opionion – so what is an expert witness/opinion- someone who gives an opinion based on their own BELIEF??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. wolfjung (59 comments) says:

    DPF, what happened to the blog entry concerning THE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE?????
    Has tricky Joe been on your case and asked for it to be removed ?………..
    What was the story with the 111 call and parts of it being suppressed ?……….did David Bain actually say on the recording at the end “I’m glad I got rid of them” ?………….
    THE FOLLOWING FROM TVNZ:

    A QC would investigate Bain’s claim, probably over months, and would be able to look at evidence even the jury did not get to see.
    If it gets to the next stage, the QC can look at suppressed evidence and any other evidence that may emerge between now and when it gets to a compensation claim.

    Based on the above, David Bain will be deemed guilty by any QC with at least 2 braincells and 1 chromosome

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Deep Thinker (5 comments) says:

    Another observation I have made

    If Robin Bain committed the murders, how is it after discarding his blood soaked gloves in Stephens room, that he managed not to leave even one bloodied fingerprint either on the rifle, door, doorhandle, washing machine, taps, tubs etc!! after so called trying to clean up himself up. You would expect that he would leave even one tiny clue behind with bloodied hands like that! Also it is pretty clever of him to wipe his bloodied fingerprints off the gun to only leave Davids “old prints” on the gun………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Gavin James (179 comments) says:

    To those who think David Bain is not guilty.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm
    http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

    Read those documents and then stick them in your pipe! David is in the right demographic, had motive (the investments, properties and a looney family). 65% of murders are committed by males in the age group 17 to 34 and only 5.9% are committed by males over the age of 50. Robin was never diagnosed as being clinically depressed, let alone anything more major than that, and anyway, depressed people don’t murder anywhere near as often as angry young men. They are mostly the culprits. When you add up all of the evidence, you will find, on a balance of probability concerning demographics, that David was probably guilty, and then weigh in all of the other evidence. Read all of the statistics, including those about multiple murders, young males, and those over 50. Conclusion, if I were a betting man, I would go with the good odds!

    Why do I think that David is guilty? This is an opinion only. David told lots of porkies. Every time more evidence was presented, he changed his story. There are the bloody clothes. When first interviewed, he stated that he had only been into Margaret’s room and seen his father. By the time of the trial, when faced with the fact that blood had been found on his clothes, he now changes his story to include the fact that he went into Stephen’s and Laniet’s rooms. And his story doesn’t fit, even now. Also, see my information about the defence witnesses.

    On points surrounding the computer evidence. I am a computer consultant, in case you were wondering, of some years standing, back to the days before the murder in fact. It is my contention that, if Robin were the killer, then the events happen as follows:
    6.39 (the earliest the computer could have been started, as agreed by the defense.) It takes a least a minute to boot and probably more, from my experience of such computers, and then loads MS Word. So, at least two minutes. Then think of a message and type it in. Remember, Robin isn’t in any hurry, he is going to kill himself, so what if David arrives home, he has the gun right? Then he is probably a two finger typist. Why do I deduce this? Because most men of Robin’s age at the time used to get people to do their typing for them, as they hadn’t learnt to type. So, hunt and peck out a message. Then walk to the middle of the room. Then place the gun at his head. Remember, he’s not in any hurry here, as he is going to kill himself, and then shoot himself. And conveniently fall and release the weapon so that it neatly lies beside him. So, if Robin did kill himself, then David must feel absolutely terrible about this all. Why? Because he was just minutes, if not moments away from saving his father from suiciding. How bloody covenient!

    6.45am David seen entering his house. This is the latest that David could conceivably have entered the house, as David was seen the the passing motorist according to her clock to have been 6.50am. So, all the above in six minutes or less.
    Regarding the weapon falling neatly beside him, try this. Get something resembling a rifle. Hold it to your head, and then release it several times and record each time where it falls. How many times does it fall neatly beside you as you collapse to the floor.

    By the way, I can also hit the targets almost without fail at the fairground sideshows. For David, reasonably experienced with weapons (remember, he used to shoot possums from the trees adjacent to the property). For him, shooting something at close range would be relatively easy.

    As well, considering the suicide theory. No one can really accepts that Robin committed suicide, if you take into account that fact that, as demonstrated by Phillip Boyce, to have reached the trigger, would have had to lean forward, meaning that he would have fallen forward. The rifle would have fallen any old way and the magazine was found standing on its edge, so close to his hand that it would almost certainly have fallen over with the rush of wind from his hand. And his hand was closed, so that if he were holding the magazine, as touted, it couldn’t have fallen that way. And my father, now dead from natural causes I might add, told me what happens when soldiers in the army faint when on parade. Guess which way the fall, and that is nearest I can give to this situation, because I haven’t heard of anything else like it in real life. They fall forward and hit their faces on the ground! Legs buckle, throwing the body forward!!! Interesting!. So, now Robin Bain is already leaning forward, in order to shoot himself, as explained by the

    Now, combine this with the fact that David himself testified the that he loaded the washing machine and put it on near to the Superwash cycle and that this takes, as by his own testimony and that of the washing machine repairman called to test this, it would have taken between 45 minutes to an hour to run, and the police turned up at precisely 7.28am. So, for that to have happened, David would have had to arrive home earlier, not later.
    Ipso facto. You work it out. All this is in the Privy Council decision overturning the conviction and the Court of Appeal 3 (Tipping et al).

    Regarding the lens and the glasses. David was seen wearing glasses on Sunday (evidence presented at the first trial), but they couldn’t have been his own, as they were being repaired. The only other glasses he had access to were his mother’s ones, the ones found damaged in his own room. He had no explanation as to how they could have been broken.

    So, either David was lying about things, or suffering delusions, or what?

    So, for the Crown, the possibility exists that they could appeal based on the evidence that was excluded, not the 111 call, as that would be shredded, but on the basis of the two friends who could testify that David had at least entertained the idea of committing a crime in the past by using his paper run as an alibi. Much more credible.

    Paul Marsden: The police and experts didn’t test the keyboard, as they found no distinguishable fingerprint evidence on it. As well, at this stage, DNA testing was not as reliable as it is now. It was a relatively new science at the time.

    Defence witness cockups in favour of the Crown.
    1. Philip Boyce claimed that he could have shot himself from as far away as 24cm. When asked to demonstrate this, he had to revise this claim down to something of the order of 10cm.
    2. The defense witness whose chief claim to fame was that he the Pathologist who had examined Princess Diana and had performed 20,000 post mortems, stated that the person in the best position to make a judgement on whether Robin had committed suicide or not was the original examining pathologist, in this case, the Crown pathologist, who stated that in his opinion, Robin had not committed suicide. Ipso facto. Also the Crown pathologist had examined over 1400 gunshot wounds, and thus is easily as capable as the defense witness as making a judgement as the defense witness, who had to rely on photos that the defense were discrediting in any case.

    It is my view that there are several reasons why David was found not guilty:

    1. Many witnesses were missing – dead or otherwise unavailable.
    2. Key evidence had been disposed of in the meantime. After all, the Crown had won many appeals against the case, and even an earlier one to the Privy Council.
    3. Michael Reed QC is the best available QC in the country and made mince meat of many of the Crown witnesses, and was clearly superiour in arguing the case compared with Kieran Raftery.
    4. The defence very cunningly took the argument away from the facts in the case and placed it on the mental state of Robin.
    5. They also painted David as a person who was unlikely to commit such a crime.
    6. They also made Laniet look as if the statements that she made to witnesses could have been reliable.
    So, the Defence made it about the credibility of Robin and not about David.

    So, they won the case, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    Something that I would have hammered if I were the Prosecution in the case was the David has been a stage actor and was apparently quite good at it. I would have to question the supposed hysteria in his voice. It reminds me of someone from Monty Python putting on a voice, albeit a pretty good one.

    Other items of interest are that he stated initially that he hadn’t been into any rooms except the laundry, his mother’s room and the lounge. By the time of the trial, he then stated that he had been into Stephen and Laniet’s rooms, which explained the blood on his clothes. But then, having seen them, and got blood on him, he washed his clothes, including the green jersey.

    As to the possibility of the Robin having murdered the other four and David then murdering Robin, that has not been entertained as a possibility by either the Crown or the Defense.

    So, I could go on. What I would say, without wanting to cast aspersions on them is that the Jury made up their minds based on the facts that were presented to them and the way the case was argued. They are the only ones entitled by our justice system to decide the verdict. However, we are all entitled to our opinion, so long was we don’t say they were wrong in their decision.

    On the lack of a motive question. David had 60,009 reasons. $60,000 in investments. 3 properties, a house, and wait for it, 5 members of his family. Without his family around, David’s life would have been much different. David would have had a house, properties, and money and wouldn’t have to explain his family all the time and also, all the sympathy in the world about having had his family murdered.

    There seem to be a lot of people who think that the police were picking on poor David. Well, why is it then they when they first began investigating this case, they believed Robin committed murder and then suicided (which is what it is now, as it no longer a crime to commit suicide).

    So, when you string it all together, work out the probability of it being Robin (less likely than winning Powerball in Lotto), and then balance it against the probability of it being David, you would bet on the side of David. The whole defense effort was spent on defaming and slandering Robin, and not one piece of evidence they gave could demontrate that Robin did it.

    An example of this was the evidence about the sock prints. David’s foot was measured to be 300mm, and the sock prints were 280mm. That is 10mm more than Robins foot prints. But Robin was wearing shoes when he died (and a beanie and an jacket, no less!). So, that’s neat, but noone said that the blood coated the entire length of David’s foot, did they? And did they measure David’s foot at the time? No, they did not. So, at 22, perhaps they grew a bit after the murders?

    If I were putting together a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle and there was one piece missing, it would still be a recognisable face, in this case, David, I would still be able to see his face.

    There are many apologists for David, but not any of the people who seem to have known him before he learnt how to act seem to be. I have recently met two people who knew the family before the murders. They both believe that David did it. One knew the family when they were in Papua New Guinea, and the other person’s son had a relationship with Arawa. They both think he was quite odd.

    And now there is evidence that David had previously planned to commit a crime using his paper-run as an alibi. I’m stunned. And Joe Karam is dismissing it as unreliable as it happened so long before the crime – yes, about 4 years before the crime, which was how many years ago? 15! And all the defense witnesses were surmising things, such as oh, Robin looked like a walking Cadaver. Boy, that’s a scientific assessment! Would you remember if someone told you that they were planning to commit a major crime ( a sex crime). That puts David in a completely different light! The women on the jury would have had a completely different picture of him, now wouldn’t they? And so, now we know that David was at least capable of planning such a crime.

    So, the crown 1, David 1, and David wins on the away goal rule.

    Methinks that there is a lot more to come on this matter. I can’t wait for the Coroner’s enquiry! And for those people who have had enough, good, imagine if 5 people in your immediate family were murdered: What lengths would you go to for justice? And people are talking about compensation for David? He will never proof his innocence, just as, apparently, the Crown can’t prove his guilt.

    I’m also writing a little satire on all of this. It is called Nightmare on Every Street, about a little white choir boy from south Dunedin… you can guess the rest.

    Finally, there is only one thing worse than someone guilty getting off – an innocent person being convicted. In this case, an inoccent man, Robin Bain, has been wrongfully convicted, without the opportunity to defend himself. I believe that the immediate Bain relatives should take a defamation case against Joe Karam and all of the people associated with this, and see what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Deep Thinker (5 comments) says:

    After last nights Sunday programme I think it gives an enlightening insight as to the character of David. It really leaves you questioning knowing that he was terrorising his whole family with a gun; it seems the girls expecially were afraid of him………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.