About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

June 9, 2009 2:44pm by David Farrar

Doing the e-mail rounds

Heh.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment42

Humour
billboards
David Bain
Humour
Tui

Comments (42)

Login to comment or vote

aardvark

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and the only reason he didn’t receive the inheritance was because he was found guilty of the murder — a verdict since rescinded.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.

Do *you* think he did it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 4:18pm
side show bob

Well I guess Bain will be a Spieghts man now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 4:51pm
lilman

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!!!!!!!!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 5:28pm
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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 5:48pm
Inventory2

lilman shows what is possible after nine years of education under a Labour government!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 6:21pm
Whafe

There has and will be loads of jokes and funnies going around about this topic….

I say again, “not guilty” does not mean innocent….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 6:22pm
billyborker

I say again, “not guilty” does not mean innocent….

Then what does it mean, since under (most) law in our system, there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven,

and,

in this case the crown failed to prove guilt,

and,

David Bain cannot be retried on these charges.

ergo, David Bain is innocent, according to our law.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 7:23pm
Christopher

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.

My understanding is that lawyers are ineligible for jury service, and law students are strongly discouraged.,

That was my impression anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 7:27pm
Christopher

David Bain is clearly innocent in the legal sense – he has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

David Bain is also beyond all doubt the man who shot the other members of the Bain family with intent to kill them.

Both these facts are abundantly clear.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 7:28pm
billyborker

Your first sentence is correct, your second clearly fallacious. Did you not hear the verdict?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 7:29pm
Paul Marsden

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 7:53pm
Shunda barunda

“Your first sentence is correct, your second clearly fallacious. Did you not hear the verdict?”

Borker, you are confusing a legal system with a justice system, justice requires the truth to be upheld and lawyers don’t give a rats razinga about truth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 8:07pm
Whafe

big Billy, am coming from a point of view in regards to the topic at hand, D Bain will not get any compensation unless he proves his innocence. Which I doubt he will not be able in my opinion..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 8:32pm
Paul Marsden

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 8:56pm
Chuck Bird

“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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 9:08pm
Alan Wilkinson

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 9:15pm
Brian Marshall

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 9:57pm
Brian Smaller

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.

that is the best Bain joke I have heard so far.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:16pm
Patrick Starr

it was funny – (the first time I heard it on this blog)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:20pm
lilman

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:34pm
Alan Wilkinson

Brian Marshall, if you are going to quote Michael Guest do it honestly:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576800

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:35pm
Alan Wilkinson

lilman, the police were judged in 2000, not 2009, when they took a defamation case against Karam and lost.

I don’t whether you are a moron, but you are certainly ignorant and seem happy to show it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:42pm
jackp

Bad taste in advertising, now I am going to stop drinking tui.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:53pm
sonic

I’ve got a billboard

“I couldn’t take the call I was on a plane at the time!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:57pm
Brian Marshall

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 10:58pm
valeriusterminus

You cannot have an empty comment
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 11:01pm
Jim

Borker: “I say again, “not guilty” does not mean innocent….

Then what does it mean, […?]”

It means that the defense was able to raise a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

It could be 50/50, 90/10, 10/90… whatever. It just means that there was not a watertight case [close enough to 100% certainty] that the defendant was guilty.

Innocence is not proven, just assumed. There’s a big difference.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 9, 2009 11:58pm
Murray

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 8:21am
Paul Marsden

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 8:42am
Fletch

jackp, it’s not an actual Tui billboard. It’s something someone has Photoshopped up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 11:14am
Ratbiter

And again – please note this billboard is potentially defamatory:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2488437/Facebook-users-claiming-Bain-is-guilty-could-be-sued
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 12:30pm
Redbaiter

Oh fuck off and get a life moron.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 12:35pm
Ratbiter

Someone got out of bed on the wrong side today…

# Redbaiter (6449) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Oh fuck off and get a life moron.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 12:38pm
Raskolnikov

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)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 1:14pm
KiwiGreg

@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.”

I doubt it – lawyers can’t serve on juries.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 1:24pm
ross

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 1:37pm
ross

> please note this billboard is potentially defamatory.

Well, yes, but I suspect that David Bain has had enough of courts and lawyers.:) I also suspect that Legal Aid would not be giving him any money to fight such a battle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 1:40pm
Nookin

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 . . .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 2:03pm
Raskolnikov

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 2:25pm
Raskolnikov

“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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 2:32pm
lilman

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.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 5:42pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

The Privy Council ruled the decision of the first court case invalid. i.e. it has no standing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 10, 2009 11:14pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Rich on Food Safety

Young on Key/Goff »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Open mike 20/04/2024
The Standard
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Marxist Economics Is Dumb
Utopia
Can taxpayers be confident PIJF cash was spent wisely?
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Scottish Skullduggery
No Minister
Te Papa gutlessly cower to Chief Culture Censor Paul Goldsmith
The Daily Blog
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: