I find it interesting that so many people assume David Bain was innocent.
Did he do it?
I don’t know and based on what I saw of the trial, it would be hard not to have some “reasonable doubt” but, on the other hand, some of the prosecution’s evidence was compelling and not easily dismissed.
The good thing is that whether he did it or not no longer really matters.
Even if he did commit the murders, he has served the best part of his adult life behind bars and I strongly doubt that he poses *any* threat to the safety of the public — so why keep him locked up?
It now remains an issue of compensation — which is *much* harder to decide on.
Perhaps the best solution would be for those who inherited the Bain Family’s estate to pay back that money (with interest at the rates which have prevailed in the 15 years since they received it). This would be a useful sum of money and get David on his feet at no cost to the taxpayer.
It’s also fair because he was the sole beneficiary of the estate and the only reason he didn’t receive the inheritance was because he was found guilty of the murder — a verdict since rescinded.
I’ve spoken with a number of people (including some in the legal profession) who hold a sneaking suspicion that Bain did commit the murders — but as I say, it’s all academic now.
Of course hes innocent,and he didnt brag to his mates he could pull off raping a woman in his nieghbourhood before the murders were committed and using his paper round as an aliby.There are some sick puppies out there and thank god for joe karam, david and his lawyer,they are truly great new zealanders.
I love you all!!!!!!!!!!
I noticed in the Herald on Sunday that one of the jurors said she has a science degree and is training to be a lawyer, and another I think is a lawyer. She indicated that this was a smart jury. It is amazing how little respect the public seems to have for the validity of the whole jury process.
Hell, I know its a wild card, but I hope I live to see the day when all you nay-sayers have the smile wiped off your face’s. If your want to point the finger, point the finger at the farcical judical system we have in this country, and some of the incompetents that sit in judgement upon us. Its their collective incompetence that cost you and I the taxpayer, $millions to shore- up their collective egos, only to have their so-called wisdom, undermined by a layman.
I believe that the position of the State not to automatically provide compensation for an individual who is in a similar position to Bain, undermines the State’s confidence in its own judicary and is an afront to, and contemptous of its own citizens.
“D Bain will not get any compensation unless he proves his innocence.”
One of the criteria for compensation is that the “wronged person” must demonstrate their innocence on the balance of probabilities. rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has had a second trial rather than a pardon would also count against compensation. As for the relatives paying back the inheritance back they took it in good faith. I doubt if a count would rule they had to pay it back.
I agree, Paul. If someone serves a sentence and is subsequently found not guilty because of errors in the original court prosecution there should be automatic compensation.
It is entirely unreasonable to have someone else then second guess the verdict to determine whether innocence was proved. That is what juries are for, not politically or bureaucratically selected professionals who neither heard nor saw the evidence as it was given.
However, in Bain’s circumstances I believe he would have a strong case for suing the police for damages given that they have already lost the court case against Karam for libel and that many serious concessions were made by prosecution witnesses in this hearing.
If everybody who is held in custody before trial and found not guilty going to be eligable for compensation??? That must be a socialist idea, cause I don’t feel like paying for that.
Billy, you’ve got blinkers on. Davids own lawyer from the first trial has come out and said that he didn’t belive Robin Bain was committing incest. Guess which trial is likely to be swayed by incorrect evidence. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, I belive he did commit murder, but it doesn’t matter what I think, 12 people have made their decision, and only their opinions count.
Anyway last I heard David Bain has been picked to replace Dan Carter in the All Blacks. Sure he’s not that fast, but he’ll murder their first five.
Bloody hell,so 5 people are murdered,and your pissed at the police,what a moron.
Judging the police who operated under antiquated rules to have to defend their actions and proceedures in the year 2009 is a farce,like this crap about being innocent.
Yes he was found not guilty, but he was definately found not innocent by any legal definition.
As for not liking the truth,well I will live with what he did and what he didnt do,pity the rest of his family dont have that chioce.
Mr Guest yesterday said he was not surprised by yesterday’s five “not guilty” verdicts. “I think there was doubt in the first trial. That makes me feel sorry for David and what he’s gone through. I think for any person to be convicted 14 years ago, and then 14 years later it is found that the Crown have not proved it beyond reasonable doubt, borders on a tragedy.”
Furthermore, Guest was struck off in 2001 for overcharging and misleading a client. His failure to fully identify the extent of Laniet’s allegations and have them heard at all in court was almost certainly the crucial factor in the original conviction. Little wonder he now resorts to saying he doesn’t really believe them.
Don’t be a dickhead Alan. I heard him say that on National Radio the other day. He Professed to beliving David to be innocent, and thought it should have been heard in the first trial, but did not belive it to be true.
One papers quote does not change what he said.
And the usual knuckle dragging myopic cycle of the Kiwi public proceeds, gossip like school girls, make ill informed judgments based on what the media has told them, and then move on to the crass tastless jokes.
Its like the middle ages but without the manners.
Billy Dickhead, not guilty DOES mean innocent as our entire judical system is based on the premise that a person is innocent untill they are proven guilty. The only country to have a not proven verdict is Scotland. Feel free to piss off there with your illinformed bullshit.
Take that other fuckwith chronic back while you’re at it.
Do you agree with jackp’s comment that this is “Bad taste in advertising”?
# No – This is definitely a photoshop (49.0%, 578 Votes)
# No – Probably a photoshop (24.0%, 281 Votes)
# Yes – I have no idea, but it’s in bad taste anyway (13.0%, 150 Votes)
# Yes – OMG! I cant bileeve Tui did thus!! Wat were they thinkun? (9.0%, 105 Votes)
# Yes and No – I think Tui made this ad, but David killed Robin (6.0%, 66 Votes)
@tevita “I noticed in the Herald on Sunday that one of the jurors said she has a science degree and is training to be a lawyer, and another I think is a lawyer. She indicated that this was a smart jury. It is amazing how little respect the public seems to have for the validity of the whole jury process.”
Aardvark said: “It’s also fair [for the family to pay Bain the proceeds of the estate] because he was the sole beneficiary of the estate”.
It seems like you’re suggesting that that was a possible motive for murder, assuming of course he comitted the crime. It’s interesting that the Crown couldn’t come up with a motive. Financial reasons are often behind murders.
Paul Marsden wrote: “No one but Karam, has examined the evidence in as much detail, as he has”. Yes, but the problem is that Karam was declaring Bain’s innocence long before he’d examined the evidence. If Bain was to confess to the murders tomorrow, Karam probably wouldn’t believe him.
The verdict shows that the jury’s view was somewhere on a continuum between “Robin did it” and the notion that Robin may have done it was not a fanciful possibility. The 12 jurors may have been at different points on that continuum individually. Anyone who wants to narrow that range can bay his guilt on the rooftops and litigate the matter in a civil jurisdiction where there is a different burden (balance of probabilities). In the meantime he has no convictions against his name and anyone who asserts guilt is at risk of being sued.
Milton Weir and a colleague, not the police, sued Karam for Defamation . They lost not necessarily because Karam was wrong but because he held an honest belief in an opinion expressed. Subtle difference.
See the following quote from a subsequent decision in the same proceedings.
“. . . one may express an honest opinion and not be liable in defamation, even if one is wrong, provided that it is an opinion in the sense that it is an expression of belief or conclusion or deduction from facts which are stated in the context of that opinion . . .
Oh fine: in my honestly held opinion, David Bain killed all five members of his family that morning. Robin Bain couldn’t have done it as he had no blood on his hands, and yet had grease and dirt on them indicating they had not been washed.
Oh wait, I need to express that so the pro-Bain camp can understand: I can tell by Robin’s eyes that he didn’t do it.
“I’ll take an unbiased layman’s asessment of (all) the evidence over any police or, judge(s) asessment, anytime. No one but Karam, has examined the evidence in as much detail, as he has.”
And yet when he asked for independent analysis of the evidence, and that analysis concluded that Robin did not shoot himself, he ignored the expert(s) in question. How’s that for bias and intellectual dishonesty? Read James McNeish if want an impartial and researched view.
So Allan you believe the decision is correct.That being the case, what about the first decision,was that wrong.
If you follow your logic,Karam and Co were wrong to dispute the first ruling,because a verdict was passed,he was found guilty so by YOUR reckoning it should be final and stop there.
But history has shown it didnt.Therefore now you want no conjecture ,no comment ,no dispute about this final ruling.
Sorry Allan you dont get to father the child and breastfeed it too.
I think that a miscarrage of justice based on tecnicalities is unfair as justice must be seen to be fair as well as based on facts.
To deny evidence on the basis that it is”to prejudicial to the defence” is not just.
If its evidence then it should be presented,just as Banes defense were able to present their evidence the victims and the jury had the right to hear all evidence presented in court.