Has Bain become NZ’s OJ Simpson?

June 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports on another piece of suppressed evidence:

Ms Koch told the TVNZ Sunday programme that the conversation with Arawa Bain happened in the Every St home a few months before the family were found dead.

“She [Arawa] said the family was scared because David was intimidating them with the gun,” said Ms Koch.

Who thinks David is going to get compensation if he applies?

Tags:

90 Responses to “Has Bain become NZ’s OJ Simpson?”

  1. Auberon (779 comments) says:

    I’m surprised it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the nation’s media to ask Joe Karam what deal he has struck with David for splitting future earnings from any publishing, broadcast or film deals related to the case. I understand it’s 50/50. Many would say that’s fair enough, given Karam’s incredible sacrifice for David. I’m just surprised it hasn’t been asked. After all, on the one hand Karam wants to keep David out of the media and let him settle down after the ordeal of the trial, and on the other hand he’s plugging the suggestion of Nic Cage and Danny de Vito appearing in a film of David’s life in the Sunday papers. So, my journalist friends, why would he be doing this? Ask him. As I say, I’m told Joe and David have a deal for future earnings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    Yes David, Bain is NZ’s OJ.

    With your help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MyNameIsJack (2,414 comments) says:

    I was about to say the same, Murray.

    Why can’t people a) accept the verdict, b) understand that no evidence was suppressed, because to suppress evidence is illegal and c) let bain get on with his life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    In answer to (b), we seem to have a lot of evidence coming to light now that can’t be called anything other than ‘suppressed’, if the jury didn’t know about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Neil (577 comments) says:

    The decision has been made – verdict given one that says “get on with life David Bain” and to the public “examine more important matters”
    There is in NZ a real conspiracy theory group of people who are looking for an angle to every story. If it’s not there they will make it up and run with it. A bit like the extreme right in the USA who look under their beds every night.
    Our country has a struggling economy, child abuse,an immigration mess and other problems. Relitigating the David Bain case is a waste of time and mental energy.
    A bit surprised that DPF highlighted this fact. Forget about the Bain murders !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MyNameIsJack (2,414 comments) says:

    no, what we have is a lot of information that was deemed inadmissable. This is part of the legal system, if you don’t like it, work to get the system changed, don’t take it out on an innocent man.

    In any case, it is easy to say “the jury didn’t know” but is what they didn’t know admissable?

    Too many amateurs here who cannot accept the jury heard ALL the evidence and reached their verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. 3-coil (1,199 comments) says:

    …and is Karam NZ’s new Heather Simpson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MyNameIsJack (2,414 comments) says:

    A bit surprised that DPF highlighted this fact.

    I’m not, gossip and rumour is a mainstay here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nookin (3,569 comments) says:

    Because:
    1. David Bain, through Joe Karam, used the media extensively in order to engender support for his cause — advocating a flawed investigation and a flawed system. Some suggest that without the momentum generated by this publicity, the matter would have died long ago.
    2. Having done so, it is difficult for him to expect all debate to be stifled simply because of a yes/no option put to the jury. Had the verdict gone the other way, would they be saying that the system worked and that David should simply accept his fate?
    3. Inevitably, there will be those who do not necessarily agree with the accusations levelled against the prosecution and the judicial system and who wish to debate the processes, including suppression of evidence.
    4. This was a hugely expensive and cumbersome prosecution when one takes into account its entire history. If this is the start of a trend then it needs to be carefully analysed and debated because, frankly, we do not need another one.
    5. There are a number of convictions/acquittals in controversial cases involving circumstantial evidence (Ellis, Watson, Haig, Tamihere…) and it is clear that there will be more in the future.
    6. While the argument that David has been acquitted and should be allowed to get on with his life has some validity, the counter argument is that at least four and possibly/probably five members of the Bain family have not seen justice done. This is inevitably going to be a motivating factor for debate.
    7. I agree that personal abuse of the jury, those in the Bain camp and in the prosecutorial sector is hardly constructive and seems to be based on polarised viewpoints. I have no time for those who denounce the jury’s IQ level because, in the denouncer’s view, Bain was patently guilty. Equally, I find it difficult to accept Karam’s emphatic assertions of fact (i.e. events narrated by witnesses whose evidence was suppressed was sheer fantasy) when he simply is not in a position to make those comments.
    Argument over issues arising out of the Bain trial will not go away for some time and nor should they.

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

    “Why can’t people a) accept the verdict, b) understand that no evidence was suppressed, because to suppress evidence is illegal and c) let bain get on with his life?”

    Like everyone did with the Rodney King verdict? Like everyone did with OJ? It’s just the NZ version.

    “Can’t we all get along?”

    Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. GPT1 (2,021 comments) says:

    Good luck on compensation although I would have to say that evidence (as presented to the Court – not necessarily as on Sunday) was pretty weak and without context. Even as someone completely convinced that the jury was wrong I do not think that evidence was relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    The way Key’s performing — Melissa Lee, the Brash emails, the Auckland wharf spend-up, declaring he’s likely to ignore a referendum result — he’s likely to award Bain a pile of dough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. GPT1 (2,021 comments) says:

    And yes, he is NZ’s OJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Auberon, heard a panel discussion on the radio last week, if there could be a possible film or book coming out about the case. It was felt that given the rescission going on at the moment a film would not be viable. A book would also probably be only salable in New Zealand as generally criminal cases generate interest only in the country they take place in. The rest of the world has it’s share of high profile cases without having to read about one in far flung NZ. I don’t think David and Joe are going to “rake it in”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    Why can’t people a) accept the verdict, b) understand that no evidence was suppressed, because to suppress evidence is illegal and c) let bain get on with his life?

    Because five people are dead, David Bain killed them, and justice is yet to be done.

    For my part, getting justice for the dead takes priority over anything else. If you can’t get justice in this country, you’ve no hope of fixing any of the other problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Buggerlugs (1,241 comments) says:

    A film? Fuck me, after the first five minutes everyone would be bored shitless and the only highlight thereafter would be Karam and Bain arguing over a) money and b) why it’s not a good idea to wear multi-coloured woolly jerseys to court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    Has David Farrar become NZ’s Jerry Springer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. MyNameIsJack (2,414 comments) says:

    YES!

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

    I know, why doesn’t TV1 news/Close-up/Sunday make a movie about it.

    What a fantastic idea, I better patent that.

    Better spice it up a bit, in true journalistic magic, add a lot of scary music and do a paper-girl rape fantasy scene.

    Now that would be good for your ratings TV1 and not so far away from what your masterpieces so far on the bain situation.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nigel (493 comments) says:

    BlairM what is justice ?, Bain was not able to be proven guilty & even the suppressed evidence would not have changed that ( I believe ).

    Maybe we should consider Not Guilty/Not Proven/Guilty verdicts.

    I don’t think they will go after compensation, heck if they are smart the Bain camp will totally shut up & get on with the rest of their lives, to be fair I think apart from debating what the Bain trail means for the Justice system in NZ ( eg. do we want such long winded, very expensive trials, what should the admisable evidence rules be, should we have a Not Proven verdict ) I think it’s time to forget about it, he had his months in court, it was not a proven charge, nobody came out of the trail smelling of roses, let’s move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    I just think that hearsay evidence that Bain threatened family with firearm and that he fantasized about commiting crimes using his paper round as an alibi was disallowed, but hearsay evidence about an incestuous relationship between sister/father was allowed? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    If you haven’t seen the interviews check them out here: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video.

    This evidence was omitted not because the witnesses were unreliable or because their evidence considered irrelevant. They were omitted because they were considered “prejudicial to David Bain”. Essentially we got trial by judge and not by jury. The jury is supposed to be presented with all relevant facts. This is not hearsay evidence because Kirsten Koch is a primary witness and primary witnesses are fundamental in securing prosecutions. If all evidence that was “prejudical to the defendant” was omitted from trials then we would never succeed in prosecuting anyone for anything.

    Whoever fought to have this evidence suppressed was not interested in the truth but simply in pressing their own agenda. These witnesses are more credible than the witness who claimed that Laniet said that she was having an incestuous relationship with her father. That witness, Dean Cottle, could not even be obtained to present himself in court but instead fled. His evidence was one of the prime arguments for the retrial.

    If David Bain was truly innocent then his case should have been able to withstand this evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. MyNameIsJack (2,414 comments) says:

    Is Melissa Lee NZ’s Sarah Palin? Selected on looks, rejected on (lack of) ability.

    Is Jerry Springer gay?

    Will David Bain apply for compensation, or will get rich suing the stupid?

    BlairM (534) Vote: 6 1 Says:

    June 16th, 2009 at 11:16 am
    Why can’t people a) accept the verdict, b) understand that no evidence was suppressed, because to suppress evidence is illegal and c) let bain get on with his life?

    Because five people are dead, David Bain killed them, and justice is yet to be done.

    I don’t see that comment meeting the public interest or fair comment tests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Captain Crab (336 comments) says:

    Is Bain NZ’s OJ?

    Yes, because the socks didnt fit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. backster (2,196 comments) says:

    Brian SMALLER….It is a long time since I studied a since reformed law of evidence, but I would suggest that the evidence of the now successful businessman of when he was at school with David and shown a notebook in which David had formulated a plan to use his paper-round to construct an alibi to commit a rape to be real and direct evidence, not hearsay. David went on to use that alibi 4 years later (still doing the paperround at 20). The evidence of the now School Principal (also suppressed) that he was also a schoolfriend and that David told him something similar is likewise evidence from David and direct not hearsay. The suppressed evidence of Ms. KOCH now a Schoolteacher and former best friend of Arawa (headgirl &Dux) who frequently stayed with Arawa at her house, that the family was terrified of David not Robin and they had to enter the house by the rear entrance so as not to disturb David and that Ms KOCH used to keep watch in the passage while Arawa went into her room so she could warn Arawa ifDavid emerged from his room where he played with his gun certainly painted a different picture from the straight out hearsay of the alleged without any proof at all of the incest between Laniet and Robin. The struck out evidence in my view was compelling, the hearsay from Laniet was not. I don’t blame the Jury. I don’t agree with them though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    This story will make excellent fodder for some young film/documentary maker who wants to tell the truth (in a manner that doesn’t attract defamation proceedings) and set the story straight.

    The truth finally caught up with OJ. There’s plenty of time left for the truth to catch up with Joe Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Father Ted (85 comments) says:

    OJ whitesocks and Bainy rainbowsocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nickle (30 comments) says:

    ipredict on where and when the armed robbery takes place that gets Bain a conviction?

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

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have a “Not Proven” result for a Jury as in Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

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

    The difference between Bain and OJ is that in NZ many people think Bain innocent (admittedly not many on this Blog) whereas in the US almost everyone thought OJ was guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. transmogrifier (523 comments) says:

    I wonder, if you removed all evidence that was prejudical to a particular defendant, how anyone ever gets convicted of anything in this country? I’d say, if the burden of proof is on the Crown (innocent until proven guilty and all that), they should have the freedom to present what they choose, and it is the defence’s job to poke holes in it if the Crown is obviously reaching in their argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    Not true Poliwatch, everyone who was white in the US thought OJ was guilty.

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

    Yes – in the sense that every armchair “expert” has his opinion, and can’t wait to share it with you.

    No – in that you would need to be a brave man to call Simpson a murderer if you bumped into him on the street.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    No – in that you would need to be a brave man to call Simpson a murderer if you bumped into him on the street.

    Probably not, because when you next bump into him on the street he will somewhere between 70 and 94, and even I would give me a 50-50 chance against a 94 year old ex-footballer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    As I posted when the saga about the disallowed evidence was revealed the real danger is that juries will now wonder what evidence they have been denied and if they think there is a gap they will fill it themselves.

    Now if they fill it incorrectly we will see unsafe( I love that word) verdicts and this is the fault of the dimbulbs in the system who think they know all and more than juries.

    Only if these legends in their own lunchtime butt out and leave it to a jury will we get a crack at a safe result.

    You either have a jury trial or you dont. A censored jury trial is a fair trial

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. llew (1,286 comments) says:

    and even I would give me a 50-50 chance against a 94 year old ex-footballer.

    My uncle, a well known league player in his time (St Helens & Wales), was in his 70s when he suffered a home invasion. The two young intruders were taken to hospital, one with a broken arm, the other unconscious. So I wouldn’t bet my life on it even with an OAP OJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    gd, we only have a trial by jury (and not by Ayatollah, King’s Counsel or whatever) because people in the past have protested at the way justice was carried out. If enough people take offence to the way this jury appears to have been hoodwinked then something might come of it.

    The issue here is that the jury appears to have had the evidence exposed to them seriously restricted on the basis of judgment by one person. Why not just get that one person to make the judgment on Bain’s guilt and save us all the million dollars of court time? Getting rid of trial by jury would certainly save us a lot of money now that we are in a recession. We can leave it up to people with superior judgmental skill such as Judge Panckhurst to do the job for us.

    I believe that too many rules enabling evidence to be disallowed from court undermines the jury system and that judicial guidance in this case has overstepped the mark. The three witnesses whose evidence was not allowed are not only credible, their evidence supportive of the Prosecution, they are primary witnesses to the behaviour of the defendant and their testimony is current, in that they are all prepared to come forward now and probably would do so again.

    I’ll say it again: Their testimony was omitted because it was “prejudicial to David Bain”.

    Unbelievable. Is this the kind of justice system we want?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. TCrwdb (242 comments) says:

    He is nothing like NZ’s OJ, what nonsense. This is Sunday tabloid type headlines DPF, you can do better. Why can’t we simply accept the jury’s verdict – they saw a hell of a lot more evidence than we ever have. Let’s get over it.

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

    Boring old tripe from the media again.

    I really doubt that any of the suppressed material, (at the direction of the Judge),

    would have made one iotas bit of difference to the outcome.

    The initial supression of the swirl of incest claims denied the defence a claim for motive against the father.

    The police handling of the case procedurally was abysmal, and apparently very skewed.

    David Bain, might possibly have done it. I actually doubt it.

    That is because of the inability to rely on family derived evidence by word of mouth, and that of friends and relatives.

    They would all be considered odd, and dysfunctional.

    The real evidence lay in the technical stuff.

    Not one jury in the Western World would convict on that presented or even suppressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (14,222 comments) says:

    It boils my blood to see and hear OJ Bain supporters telling us to “accept the verdict”, those idiots did not accept the first verdict did they.

    David Bain is a murder who got away with possibly the most evil crime ever committed in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Zapper (1,048 comments) says:

    I’d say first equal Bruv. Len Demler was as evil as they come.

    It is classic how Bain supporters spent years complaining and now expect those with any sort of critical thinking to now accept a murderer has been set free.

    GM – what technical stuff showed Robin to be the killer? And why are you willing to accept the hearsay incest claims but not the suppressed evidence (half of which isn’t even hearsay)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    “we only have a trial by jury (and not by Ayatollah, King’s Counsel or whatever) because people in the past have protested at the way justice was carried out.”

    Not so. The concept of a jury trial in its modern form goes back to the Magna Carta, although a form of jury goes back to Athenian and Roman times.

    Anyway, who were the people who protested in the past about the way justice was carried out?

    “The issue here is that the jury appears to have had the evidence exposed to them seriously restricted on the basis of judgment by one person.”

    Again, not so. The trial judge makes rulings which can be appealed by either side. There is, in theory at least, a check on the lower courts by this process.

    Justice Panckhurst is a judge. Over many centuries judges have shown themselves to be just as susceptible to political, governmental or public pressure. Or otherwise just plain bloodyminded. In this way, a jury actually protects our freedoms from an unhindered and unassailable judiciary.

    Nobody says that judges have superior judgment skill, anyway. What they are supposed to have is superior legal knowledge and skill. Judging the facts can be done just as well by a jury as it can by a judge. That is why the USA still has juries for civil trials.

    And don’t forget that a number of the judges you want to place your faith in were once the defence lawyers so many NZers rail against. Does the view of those defence lawyers as corrupt, a/immoral, fraudulent crime lovers suddenly change when they are elevated to the bench?

    “I believe that too many rules enabling evidence to be disallowed from court undermines the jury system and that judicial guidance in this case has overstepped the mark.”

    Well, I disagree with you. I am not commenting on the verdict but the evidence that has come to light today is, in my view, inadmissible.

    “The three witnesses whose evidence was not allowed are not only credible, their evidence supportive of the Prosecution, they are primary witnesses to the behaviour of the defendant and their testimony is current, in that they are all prepared to come forward now and probably would do so again.”

    If only those were the rules of evidence that decide admissibility. Other than the favouring the prosecution bit (which is totally irrelevant- are you saying that if they favoured the defence they would then be inadmissible?) I could really benefit from those sorts of rules in defending my clients!

    “Their testimony was omitted because it was “prejudicial to David Bain”.”

    Rubbish. The evidence (we don’t have testimony in NZ, we have evidence) was ruled inadmissible because it was decided by the Supreme Court that it was unreliable and irrelevant. I suggest you all go and read the Evidence Act 2006 and then come back to discuss the rules of evidence.

    And for those who think the Privy Council would have let this stuff in, think again. The Privy Council is actually tougher on this sort of thing than the Supreme Court and would undoubtedly have ruled it out.

    Backster: Are you a cop/ex-cop? The evidence from Laniet was made to multiple witnesses, the evidence to Ms Koch to only one. Cottle fleeing the country actually helps the defence as it seems to show he had a something to hide by not turning up. Don’t forget that what was read out were his statements given to the Police in 1994, not to the defence.

    Poliwatch at 12.35: Yes.

    TM:”I wonder, if you removed all evidence that was prejudical to a particular defendant, how anyone ever gets convicted of anything in this country? I’d say, if the burden of proof is on the Crown (innocent until proven guilty and all that), they should have the freedom to present what they choose, and it is the defence’s job to poke holes in it if the Crown is obviously reaching in their argument.”

    All of the evidence presented by the Crown is prejudicial to the accused. The Crown spent 3 months calling David Bain a killer and painting him as one. How is that not prejudicial to the accused. The Defence pointed the finger at Robin Bain, as is perfectly acceptable. I have accused third partys (i.e. neither crown nor accused) in cases that I have run. This is nothing new.

    What everybody needs to consider here is whether you want a justice system or a conviction system? Please don’t believe that the Crown plays fair, or doesn’t try to use the rules to their advantage. They do, and often with the assistance of the judges.

    And never ever think that by reading media reports that you have the same information as the jury. No media report can ever cover the totality of the evidence. Even then, any report given is through reporters own biases. And I have always considered the media to be anti-Bain, myself.

    At least until he won, then they of course jump ship. Just like the rats that the media are.

    But in answer to the original question from DPF: I don’t think he has a chance of getting compensation if the rules as they stand are applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    That is because of the inability to rely on family derived evidence by word of mouth, and that of friends and relatives. They would all be considered odd, and dysfunctional.

    Glutaemus, primary witnesses such as these, are standard features in any criminal trial. If you can find a witness to a crime who is reliable then you have a strong case.

    Not one jury in the Western World would convict on that presented or even suppressed.

    One jury in the Western world already has, back in 1995. Unfortunately now the physical evidence is not in as good condition as it was 15 years ago.

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

    Where the NZ courts failed miserably with their decisions on supressing evidence was in their failure to apply the Privy Council’s ruling – that a jury should now have the chance to hear all the evidence – to all new evidence, rather than to just the Dean Cottle evidence. This, I understand, was the primary reason for the retrial in the first place. The Courts have let the public down badly in this case. Ironically there is a suggestion doing the rounds in Dunedin that the defense were actually not looking too hard for Cottle, and were happier to have his earlier incest allegations simply read in court rather than expose a flaky witness to cross-examination.

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

    A Dingo stole my paper round?

    I can just see the movie. Brilliant!

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

    I am suprised that the evidence featured on Sunday wasn’t presented to the jury, I believe it should have been. What I am pleased about that those who were unable to give evidence at the trial at least had a chance to have their say. It has certainly given food for thought

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Don the Kiwi (1,820 comments) says:

    The real compelling evidence that was presented by the prosecution was the forensic evidence. If Bain was going to be proven guilty, that is the stuff that would have sunk him.

    The “I shot the prick” police evidence was pure bullshit.

    The other two items of evidence – not hearsay as someone said – but was subjective, and probably made inadmissable because of that.

    In any event, those three items, when stacked up against all the other evidence would not have made any difference, despite the expressed wishes of some here.

    FWIW, my son-in-law was at Otago Uni when this was going on at the first trial. He did not know David, but knew a couple of guys who did know him quite well. Their opinions were, that David was a “strange, scary” guy, and they all thought he did it. I think living with such a dysfunctional family like that, and some would certainly rub off, I’m not surprised they thought him “scary”.

    I think the defence put enough doubt in the mind of the jury to bring the not guilty verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    To F E Smith,

    It’s all very well playing within the rules and I respect that you have a good appreciation of the rules, but sometimes the rules have to change in order to better achieve the goals.

    I think the early Christians had a lot to say about how the Romans did justice before 300 AD, the Moors/Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, the Russians during Stalinism, and so on.

    Rubbish. The evidence (we don’t have testimony in NZ, we have evidence) was ruled inadmissible because it was decided by the Supreme Court that it was unreliable and irrelevant.

    It is being reported by the media as “prejudicial to the defendant”. Are you saying the media is wrong.

    When Galileo protested that the sun was at the center of the Solar System I am sure that many of his detractors sounded a lot like you: “It’s against the rules”.

    To me and many others on this thread, what passes as legal science appears to be contrary to natural justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Kent,

    if you want to change the rules of evidence that have been enacted by Parliament to try to ensure a fair trial, based on an evolving law over the centuries, so that the Crown/Police can achieve a higher conviction rate then just tell us what rules you would scrap and whether the defence can take advantage of the same new rules.

    And I most ceetainly think the media get things wrong. I think they frequently get things wrong. When it comes to reporting trials I know for a fact they get things wrong or leave things out. Media reports from criminal trials cannon, I repeat cannot, be thought to be truly representative of the evidence in a case. Nor can analysis by legally unskilled reporters be thought to be accurate. I have seen this first hand in trials I have been in.

    The early Christians said very little, if anything, publically about Roman Justice. Likewise, Most of the Spanish Inquisition was focussed on Catholic Spainards, not Jews and even less Moors. And pretty much nobody spoke up during the Stalin regime. At least, not for long.

    Actually, many of the protections we have today go back to the various Magna Cartas (Carti?), the Bill of Rights of 1688 and the work of defence lawyers over the years, both at the bar and in Parliament, along with political philosophy of the Victorian era, to get us where we are today.

    Of course, most of us are happy to live in a police state because it is always other people who suffer.

    Don’t forget that A A Thomas went through two trials and was found guilty twice. Perhaps he also had a media campaign that bullied the royal commission into finding that the police planted the evidence against him. Just think about that. The royal commission said that serving and high ranking NZ Police officers framed Thomas for murder. Do you really want to reduce the legal safeguards that are supposed to make it harder foe that to happen?

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

    David the women looked and acted like a idiot ie a media junkie ,WHATS YOUR PROBLEM with the jurys decision MR Farrar ME ,i dont give a fuck as in my life i have lost $200k of my retirment fund due to lifes problems and Westpac , im happy for David start your life again David , but Mr Farrars fruitcakes with HEARSAY or WOW THIS IS MY MOMENT in the sun statements WITH NO CREDIBLE BACK keeps popping up here MR Farrar, ps get over the decision of the jury , THEY ARE AVERAGE NZs probably brighter than you average kiwiblogg moon howler IQ75 theory by BIRDBRAIN ie poster(thehawk has landed)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    > David Bain is a murder who got away with possibly the most evil crime ever committed in this country.

    Well, not really – he spent nearly 13 years in prison. Some murderers never spend a day in prison.

    FE Smith said that “The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was decided by the Supreme Court that it was unreliable and irrelevant”. Yes, that is true but the last time I looked the Supreme Court is made up of mortal human beings, not demigods. In other words, the Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right. Justice Panckhurst believed that Mark Buckley’s evidence about the paper run alibi should be admitted. It’s possible that Panckhurst was correct. The Privy Council made it clear, when quashing Bain’s conviction in 2007, that all the evidence should be admitted.

    I have no doubt that if Buckley’s and Koch’s evidence had been admitted and Bain had been found guilty, Karam and Reed would be wanting another trial for their client.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Well F E Smith, you didn’t answer my question regarding the media reporting of the reasons for these interviews being omitted which is that they were “prejudicial to David Bain”. Downright incriminating in fact.

    I fully understand your need to appear publicly on a blog in defense of the rules for the sake of your reputation.

    The Bain trial is unusual for another reason and that is that one person has single mindedly over a protracted period of time sought to bend the rules as much as possible to achieve his singular goal. While there appears to have been evidence of a conspiracy in the AA Thomas trial that is not the case here. If anything, the police have simply been bereft in not keeping enough evidence locked away for the past 15 years.

    Within the ‘rules’, what was wrong with the first conviction in 1995?

    Regardless of what you think I bet the police are changing some of their procedures following this case (eg better evidential analysis, longer storage time). I also reckon there will be other changes as a result of this trial that will be part of this 2000 year development of justice practice that you belong to.

    I don’t think that allowing Kirsten Koch to testify in a trial is suddenly going to plunge us into a police state:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Ross, the Privy Council found that the actions of the Crown and the rulings of the Courts lead to a miscarriage of justice. It wasn’t the exclusion prosecution evidence when it said that a jury should see all of the evidence. It was talking about the evidence that allegedley supported the Defence position that the original trial judge ruled inadmissible, rulings supported twice by the Court of Appeal but overturned by the Privy Council when it said that they had lead to a miscarriage of justice.

    Anyway, if the Crown is all for all of the evidencw being presented, why did it fight to have so much evidence ‘suppressed’ at the first trial? Surely if Bain should have had to answer these new allegations in this trial, then the Crown should also accept into evidence whatever the Defence wants to throw at it? As I have said earlier, in any trial the Crown is just as keen on preventing a jury from hearing evidence detrimental to its case as the defence is.

    Don’t forget that this jury heard three months of evidence when the original jury got two weeks worth. Undoubtedly more and better evidence was presented this time around. Perhaps the publicity ensured an acquittal, although there is always a lot of negative publicity generally about a major crime, especially when someone is arrested for it. In this case I think it is hard for the Crown to complain about that element, when they usually benefit from it.

    Perhaps what we need is to have questioning of all juries after a verdict so that we can see why they arrived at it? Sort of like happened in the OJ case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nookin (3,569 comments) says:

    Ross
    As far as I am aware, the Supreme Court dealt only with the issue of the 111 call. The Court Of Appeal dealt with all other issues. The quotation below is an extract setting out the basis for its exclusion of the alibi evidence. Either the Crown accepted the position or was declined leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I rather suspect it was the former. There was no empirical measurement for determining whether a court is right or not except to this extent: putting aside statute law, the law in New Zealand is what the Supreme Court says it is and, to that extent, the Supreme Court is right.

    “The critical points to come out of all of this are that:

    (a) The paper round alibi in relation to what happened at Every Street
    (assuming that the appellant is the murderer) is not particularly
    similar to what was allegedly proposed by the appellant in his
    discussion with Mr Buckley; and

    (b) It is not an essential part of the Crown case that the appellant had and
    implemented a preconceived plan to use the paper round as an alibi.
    [206] Against that background, we see the probative value of the evidence as
    limited and not entirely easy to explain to a jury.

    The unfairly prejudicial effect of the evidence

    [207] If the jury learn that the appellant, while at school, was apparently planning
    the rape of a female jogger, there is a risk that the jury will place more weight on the
    proposed offending than the proposed use of the alibi.

    Perhaps the prejudicial
    impact might be lessened by requiring the evidence to be given in terms of a
    proposed but unspecified crime for which the appellant intended to use his paper
    round as an alibi. But if this happens, the jury will be left to speculate as to what the
    crime was.

    Further, if Mr Buckley’s evidence is reinforced by Mr Taylor’s account
    of what the appellant told him (which is what the Crown seeks), it will be necessary
    to allow both men to give specific evidence of what the appellant intended (because
    otherwise the jury will not be able to be sure that the offending the appellant
    proposed to Mr Buckley was the same as he discussed with Mr Taylor).

    [208] The reality is that at whatever level of generality the evidence of Mr Buckley
    is pitched, it will carry the risk of illegitimately prejudicing the appellant”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Well it seems to me that the dead cannot speak for themselves can have their names besmirched and their reputations dragged through the mud with impunity but the living who made them that way have must not on any account have their reputations sullied.

    Funny sort of justice, kind of ivory tower in a way, all good in theory but utterly useless to Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Kent,

    I am always happy to criticise they justice system if it is necessary. I fail to see how the protection of my reputation requires me to defend any decision, procedure or verdict in the justice system. After all, I did not design it, nor did I make any of the rules that I have to work worth. So I just don’t get your point there.

    If you want to see what was wrong with the first Bain case then read the Privy Council decision. Their Lordships weren’t overly impressed with what happened. (If you want a really good read then have a look at the minority decision from the Privy Council decision in Howse).

    The reason that I criticise the media is seen when you talk about the reporting of the decision on this matter. You say that the media report the evidence being ruled inadmissible due to it being ‘prejuducial to Bain.’ In fact the test, once you get past the ‘relevant and reliable’ test is whether it is more probative than prejuducial, not simply whether it is prejudicial. As I said earlier, all Crown evidence is prejudicial to an accused. If the criteria you say the media are reporting was actually then nothing would be admissible. This is either the media simplifying or otherwise just ignorance. Grab the decision and read it and you will get a good idea of why the Supreme Court redused to allow it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. voice of reason (490 comments) says:

    big bruv Says:

    June 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
    “…………`David Bain is a murder who got away with possibly the most evil crime ever committed in this country”

    No far from it, I think that “honour” goes to one David Gray of Aramoana

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    good spotting, Nookin. Can you get the Koch decision as well, if there is one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Well I think the jury got it right first time round, and a two week trial with all that solid empirical evidence is good enough. The evidence that Karam wanted included in the retrial is circumstantial and not directly related to the crime. All it did was provide a spurious motive for Robin to commit the murders.

    The 58 day retrial was too long and gave the jury members time to become acquainted with the gentle, congenial person who sat in the defendants box, to the point that they were hugging him and attending his celebratory party afterwards. A shorter trial would reduce the chance of familiarization and produce a safer result, in a trial like this where other parties to the crime are long since dead. I think that limits should be put on the length of trials. If the whole process is going to be beset with rules as it is, then a time limit should apply as well. You may be familiar with the law, but I am familiar with psychology and the effect of familiarization.

    I guess I’ll be happy so long as no compensation money is paid out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    It strikes me as perverse that a justice system can rule that evidence against the alleged murderer can be ruled out if that evidence just happens to involve possible volition of the alleged murderer in the past to commit some other disgusting crime as well.

    If he had been planning to say, steal some milk or something from his neighbours, that would perhaps have not resulted in the evidence being ruled out?

    Why should it work in his favour that he had a rape fantasy, instead of a petty theft fantasy?

    Indeed he could have told his mates about a plan to beat and maim perhaps even murder the jogger rather than “just” rape her – and that would still be ruled out?

    A jury team should not be such nincompoops that they wouldn’t be able to distinguish a teenage boy’s rape fantasy from the reality of 5 people with gunshot wounds to their heads.

    I do hope that at this stage the 13 years in prison learned him his lesson, if indeed he was the one pulling the trigger, as I believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    > in any trial the Crown is just as keen on preventing a jury from hearing evidence detrimental to its case as the defence is.

    Well, that might generally be true FE Smith. But in this latest trial, the Defence went overboard and tried to have a lot of evidence suppressed. The Defence wanted David’s testimony from the first trial excluded. I recall reading a judgment from one of the higher courts criticising Helen Cull because she wanted to exlcude so much testimony from one witness that the Court said there would be nothing left!

    Nookin, I respectfully disagree with the appeal court’s opinion, and let’s not forget it is opinion, not fact. It is up to jurors to decide what evidence they will accept and how much weight to give it. For the Court to say that evidence is prejudicial is a matter of speculation on the Court’s part – it doesn’t know if jurors will give the evidence any weight or whether they will think it’s relevant. (let’s not forget that there was evidence prejudicial to Robin but he could not defend himself; David could.) Panckhurst said that Buckley could testify but not Taylor. Panckhurst believed Buckley’s evidence was probative. I do too. Was it prejudicial? Possibly but not to the same extent that DNA evidence is prejudicial. I find use of the word prejudicial quite ineresting. Prejudicial evidence, in my mind, is evidence that is false or unreliable.

    What I find interesting in the appeal judgment is that there’s no reference to the interests of justice. I would’ve thought that the interests of justice were paramount. What if there are jurors who came close to saying ‘guilty’ and who now could be thinking, ‘If only I’d heard the suppressed evidence’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nookin (3,569 comments) says:

    Ross
    I entirely agree with you that the Court Of Appeal’s conclusion is simply the opinion of its members. As I said, there is no empirical means of measuring whether it is right or wrong. In our judicial system, the fact that Supreme Court may reverse a Court Of Appeal ruling means that it is wrong and the debate that we are having now is simply whether that position should be accepted (not the conclusive nature of the Supreme Court ruling but whether the law, as pronounced, should be changed.)
    I have some reading to do here. I have not quite caught up with the Crown’s argument on the use of the paper run as an alibi. The Buckley evidence, as I understand it, was to the effect that he would do that part of his paper run where he was unlikely to be seen as fast as possible, do the dirty deed and then make a song and dance of the rest of the paper run so that he would be noticed.

    I am not altogether certain whether the Crown was alleging the same sort of scenario or whether it was maintaining that he hurried through the latter part of his run to get home early or started late and hurried through the entire run making sure that he was noticed. Either way, I am inclined to agree that the probative value seems to me to be a little higher than the Court Of Appeal gave credit. The significant point is the alleged use of the paper run to ensure that he was noticed at a location away from a crime scene.

    On the other hand, that being the case, why did the Crown not appeal?

    FE: it seems that the Koch evidence was excluded by the High Court. I cannot find any reference to it in the Court Of Appeal or Supreme Court judgments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Ross, put simply prejudicial evidence is evidence that may show the accused in a bad light, not just guilty of the alleged crime. A great deal of prejudicial evidence is inadmissible because it is not probative, i.e. tending to prove guilt. Obviously all evidence that tends to prove guilt is prejudicial, but some prejudicial evidence is not probative.

    Also, Robin Bain had the Crown defending his reputation when they accused David Bain of being the killer.

    And a decision of a Court is not an opinion, it is a judgment. It has far more weight than an opinion.
    The Defence did not go overboard in this case at all. Last year a mate of mine had all of the evidence the Crown wanted to call ruled inadmissible, so there was no case as a result? Is that ‘going overboard’? It is the job of the Defence to try to reduce the evidence against the defendant, or even to get the defendant discharge before trial if they can. Nothing wring in that at all. The Defence has no obligation at all to allow the Crown the chance to present its entire case, or even any of its case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Ross, put simply prejudicial evidence is evidence that may show the accused in a bad light, not just guilty of the alleged crime. A great deal of prejudicial evidence is inadmissible because it is not probative, i.e. tending to prove guilt. Obviously all evidence that tends to prove guilt is prejudicial, but some prejudicial evidence is not probative.

    Also, Robin Bain had the Crown defending his reputation when they accused David Bain of being the killer.

    And a decision of a Court is not an opinion, it is a judgment. It has far more weight than an opinion.
    The Defence did not go overboard in this case at all. Last year a mate of mine had all of the evidence the Crown wanted to call ruled inadmissible, so there was no case as a result? Is that ‘going overboard’? It is the job of the Defence to try to reduce the evidence against the defendant, or even to get the defendant discharge before trial if they can. Nothing wrong in that at all. The Defence has no obligation at all to allow the Crown the chance to present its entire case, or even any of its case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    oops, pressed that twice! apologies for the double up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Father Ted (85 comments) says:

    We understand lawyers like posting shit. No offence intended Mr Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    > Robin Bain had the Crown defending his reputation when they accused David Bain of being the killer.

    And the Defence tarnished Robin’s reputation by making allegations about him that he couldn’t defend. As I’ve said, David was in a privileged position because he could – if he’d wanted to – defend the allegations made against him. His father wasn’t so lucky.

    You say that the Defence did not go overboard – I suspect you’ve not read the judgments of the courts. There was a lot of evidence that it wanted to exclude, not just the stuff that the media has highlighted.

    I would note that if David claims compensation, all of the admissible and inadmissible evidence will presumably be available. David will be expected to respond to that evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. lilman (973 comments) says:

    You lot of noddies we need people to believe.
    I have a brigde for sale in Auckland ,if you guys want it ,its for sale ,but I only take cash.
    I have a rocket ship to mars leaving sometime…………… after my paper round,any takers?

    What a joke,infact it would be totally halarious if it werent for the fact that one,Robin Bain is lying dead acused of Murder-suicide and unable to defend himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. racer1 (352 comments) says:

    Sorry lilman, what do you know that we don’t? you seem awfully sure of all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Having thought about what F E Smith has said on this thread I can see how Karam managed to outmanoevre the judicial process: Too many of them can’t see the wood for the trees. While it is true that in court it is all about pressing a case, this is not the courtroom, nor is it a legal dissertation, this is just a blog, and in all of Smith’s deliberations there appears to be no place for the truth or for any change to the current system. He has done nothing but defend the process.

    There are a lot of changes that could and possibly will come out of this trial. That is what discussion is all about. Maybe it is time for a third verdict: “Not Proven”. That would definitely have silenced both sides of the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    The real compelling evidence that was presented by the prosecution was the forensic evidence. If Bain was going to be proven guilty, that is the stuff that would have sunk him.

    Almost every bit of incriminating evidence that the Prosecution was allowed to present was dated, consisted of old and worn out evidence, and Karam had had 13 years to prepare counter evidence. The evidence (probative, prejudical or whatever) of these three witnesses whose evidence was not allowed is not dated. They are all alive and ready to kick. The Defence would not have anything to counter this evidence with save digging up some spurious character assassination as they did with Robin Bain and that would be likely to backfire, since these witnesses, unlike Robin Bain are able to defend themselves. I can see why the Defence fought so hard to have these omitted.

    Maybe we need a jury to decide what prejudicial evidence is probative and what is not:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. lilman (973 comments) says:

    100 percent pal, and believe me you would be stunned to know what I know.
    Plus what did I state that wasnt 100 percent correct.Let me know if you can?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Kent,

    not at all, rather I am defending the Defence teams use of the process that has been criticised by many on this site and in the media.

    Two points on that: Firstly, the process was put in place by Parliament and the Courts. There are many parts that I would change, but my focus would be on the preservation on human rights rather than the Sensible Sentencing Trust approach, which is to assume that anybody who gets off a criminal charge has somehow cheated or hoodwinked the jury or judge.

    Secondly, many of us at the defence bar are wanting change but we have no real voice in the processes of government because, after all, we defend criminals. The Crown Solicitors network, Crown Law and the Police have far more influence on law change than us. We opposed the removal of the Privy Council (although can I make the point that had this case gone to the Supreme Court instead, Bain would most likely still be in prison). We at the defence bar are about ensuring a fair trial for our clients. The judges just want to get rid of us and the Justice Department hates us. Cops in trouble with the law love us!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    By the way, I have said previously said that I am not commenting on the verdict itself, so I am purposely putting that to one side in my comments.

    But a criminal proceeding is not about truth, it is about evidence. Trust me, the Crown wants it to stay that way because that is the only way to justify the current attitude to criminal law. We have too many innocent people charged with offences because truth is not relevant to a case and we all know this. I want the Police to do a good job in their field, but they must do it by the book. That means no perjury, no fit-ups, no verballing, no beatings and so on. I would rather lose a case than breach the rules of ethics. Those who uphold the law must actually abide by it.

    If the Police do their job properly it is almost impossible to defend if the person is guilty. If they don’t do things properly then it opens a can of worms. Bain is an example of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Well, thanks for the discussion. It does help to have someone on board who knows the law and things you have said have helped me to understand what happened a little better. At the end of the day you win some and you lose some and life just goes on.

    Next week we will be more worried about how many days Swine flu is going to put us out of action, and the Week of Bain will be long gone and forgotten.

    So, cheers and thanks again for your input.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    No probs, Kent.

    You have made some fair points and show the frustration felt by the public when they don’t really know the system. I know the system fairly well, and I can tell you that frustration usually belongs to the Defence, who say that if only some wrongly obtained bit of evidence, or some bit of irrelevant hearsay wasn’t admitted then we might have won. Or if the Crown hadn’t sucked in the jury to speculate then our client (the one I am thinking of I am convinced is innocent but remains in prison today) might be free.

    I suppose if I try an imperfect analogy then we could say that the arguments over the inadmissible evidence is like saying that with McCaw and Carter we would have beaten the French on Saturday. Well, maybe or maybe not. But we didn’t have them and we did lose. In the same way the Courts made their rulings and the judges, although not all the finest minds in the country (you can earn more at the commercial bar than as a judge) they are considwred pretty good. Feel free to disagree with the result (I don’t like that the French won either) but if you want to cange the system then get elected etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. noskire (835 comments) says:

    The burning issues for me now are why

    a: Karam embarked on this crusade in the first place

    b: Bain has attracted so much public sympathy.

    Once, I questioned why Robin Bain would wear gloves to murder his family, but not shoot himself; boot up a crusty old 286 to type out a suicide note and then top himself with a silenced rifle at a really, really awkward angle.

    Must be the cynic in me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    Good points/counter-points between Kent & FE Smith, interesting. But noskire, you’ve hit the nail on the head. This really is a verdict that stinks like 5 day old fish in the fridge.

    To answer the question, yes Bain is our OJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    To answer David’s question, yes David Bain probably could have won Mt Albert for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. racer1 (352 comments) says:

    F E Smith,

    Wrongly obtained evidence must be an absolute pain in the but to deal with for a defense lawyer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    David Bain is a murder who got away with possibly the most evil crime ever committed in this country”

    No far from it, I think that “honour” goes to one David Gray of Aramoana

    Grey’s crime was possibily more evil but he definately didn’t get away with it. He was shot dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Father Ted (85 comments) says:

    All this talk of evil but NO mention of the antics of the Dunedin CIB who frequented a Bain family member for sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. wikiriwhis business (4,200 comments) says:

    Everyone forgets that Joe Karam was sued by two detectives from the case for defamation and beat them in court.

    They have never been heard of again. Joe Karam has been free to comment and has NEVER been threatened with civil action again…. and never will be.

    THis tells me Joe Karam is iron clad.

    Did he see a great ultimate pay off and sacrificed millions. Probably. But he had no doubts what so ever he would win.

    That two detectives heavily involved in the case are speechless today goes a long way to proving that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the David Bain is Guilty FaceBook site is running a brisk trade: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=85c5a31a9adb6dad0441a9c3b17c22ed&gid=75817491840&ref=search

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    But I’m not, and I have found Laniet’s best friend of the time. And guess what she says about the theory that Robin Bain was committing incest? That’s all I’m going to say right here. Robin was innocent, and all of the statistics indicate that David Bain fits the profile for perpetrator a multiple victim homicide, and statistical evidence shows that only 3.3% of people using rifles commit suicide by shooting themselves through the left temple. My contention is that most of those would be left handers. Also, blood on the left hand meant that Robin must have been holding the rifle against his head with his left hand. Try it and see how difficult that is. Also, if he was leaning forward as the defense contends, then he would have fallen forward, not backward. Combine all this with the witnesses whose evidence was ruled as inadmissable and then ally that with someone who states that she was Laniet’s best friend and that they were having a threesome at the time the defense witness, the Doctor who examined her and found that she had an STD, then you get the picture that a “substantial miscarriage of justice” has occurred, and therefore there are sufficient grounds for appeal. This isn’t conspiracy theory, these are facts, and they should therefore be presented before a jury, as the Privy Council ruled with the evidence that the defense presented to them, hence the retrial. I am still investigating this matter, and I have discovered all of this in just a few days. Give me a few months and we will have a rock solid case to put before the Supreme Court, who now have replaced the Privy Council as New Zealand’s highest level court. And pass on my compliments to David and Joe, and tell them we’ll be seeing them in court sometime soon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller: And there was no question about who did it in David Gray’s case.

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

    Glutaemus Maximus (1770), re: Robin Bain’s supposed incestuous relationship with Laniet: a motive is not evidence: as any Agatha Christie fan can tell you, motive is not a reliable indication of guilt… a hearsay motive is even less evidence, it is pure speculation. Motive does also not equal capacity to commit the crime concerned.

    re: the disallowed evidence:

    The defence summed up the crux of their case when they said that “David couldn’t be a psychopath: he was a nice young man” (or words to that effect): the evidence against David which was ruled inadmissable would have made that argument very hard to put and would have taken the stuffing out of the whole defence case.

    I also think the evidence was very relevant because it showed (1) David’s capacity to commit a crime using a paper run as an alibi and (2) that he wasn’t the nice young man he was painted as – were this evidence allowed the defence would have to had come up with another less compelling reason as to why David couldn’t have done it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    beautiful_music_freak(1)
    And the women on the jury in particular would have certainly taken a second look at him in light of this. You are almost right about the psychopath statement. Michael Reed QC phrased it as a question: Look at him, does he look like a psychopath. Here are some psychopaths and they all look like normal, everyday people. The defence used a very common ploy to confuse and confound the jury, and they blocked vital evidence, by having it ruled inadmissable. I say vital evidence, because there are any number of people out there who would be willing to testify that David was more than just scary, but the police didn’t call them as witnesses. The defence on the other hand were able to contend, using mostly hearsay evidence, that Laniet was having an incestuous relationship with her father. However, I now know that that this was not the case, and have at least one witness, and soon to be two who will make categoric statements to the contrary.

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

    People have to focus on Robin Bain, and give him a Trial , at least in their own heads. This case is different from many others as there can only have been two people that could have done it. Reasonable doubt is different in this case for that reason.
    Someone should set up a firm timeline for Robin Bains actions assuming for a second he was the killer. If it was clearly laid out people would see why it’s so hard for it to have been him.

    People that say let it go are ignoring not only Davids original crime but also his huge swindle on the New Zealand population , especially his close supporters.

    P.s did anyone else notice the huge surprise Davids defence showed at his aquital

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

    David Bain aint nothing like OJ Simpson. The verdict was right in OJ’s case.I believe he was an accessory after the fact but the only reason he was at the scene is because his son from his first marriage asked for his help!!!
    In fact OJ done what any loving father would do and that was to protect his son. Its the sort of thing a loving SON should do for his father that cant defend himself. Bigears will rot in hell for this crime but being whom he is he wont care.He has no feelings of guilt because he is incapable of feelings,good at pretending he does though. I feel sorry for Noddy because he can be classed as Big Ears 6th victim.

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