The supressed evidence

June 6th, 2009 at 5:35 am by David Farrar

The Herald reveals evidence that was supressed. Would it have made a difference if made known to the jury? Who knows?

told a school friend that he could rape a woman and use his paper round as a false alibi, according to secret evidence that was suppressed during his murder trial.

The jury in the 12-week trial never heard the witness statements of the former Bayfield High School students, as the Court of Appeal ruled that the Crown evidence was too prejudicial against Mr Bain.

Now that Mr Bain has been found not guilty of murder, the Herald can reveal the evidence of Mark Buckley and Gareth Taylor, who say Mr Bain planned a rape of a female jogger while at high school. …

The pair told police Mr Bain had a sexual interest in the young woman and told Mr Buckley in 1990 that he could use his paper round to “get away” with the proposed crime. …

“Mr Buckley’s evidence is that the appellant proposed to free up time for this offending by arriving at the usual times at houses where he would normally see the residents (thus suggesting a normal delivery round) but delivering papers at other houses much earlier than usual,” said the Court of Appeal judgment.

Another Herald story covers the reasons for the acquital.

Tags:

89 Responses to “The supressed evidence”

  1. lilman (883 comments) says:

    A good lawyer and a tall story and a dead and innocent man cant defend himself from his accuser.

    Bloody says it all this guy is a farce.
    Why wasnt it presented as evidence,as his defence could bring all and sundry to dispell the crown.
    A murderer in my books.
    Hang your head in shame Joe, your as guilty of this miscarrage of justice as anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Whafe (652 comments) says:

    Am sure all this type of information etc will come to the floor now possibly.

    As has been posted in many blogs etc, it seems the majority forget that “Not guilty” does not mean innocent…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    it seems the majority forget that “Not guilty” does not mean innocent…..whilst those who would undermine the rule of law seem to forget that not guilty does not mean guilty but we was robbed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Whafe (652 comments) says:

    D Bain really needs to pack his bags and head off shore and start again…..

    Is there anyway he can prove his innocence to claim some compensation? Very much doubt it…. He has not been able to on 2 other occasions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. petal (704 comments) says:

    Had the police done a better job, this wouldn’t be so hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    This “suppressed evidence” is nothing of the sort.It is supposition, with no bearing on the case.

    Had Bain followed this plan, what are the chances he would be seen at those addresses where he planned to deliver “much earlier than usual”? As he isn’t usually there, he knows nothing of thiose residents’ movements at that time of day and so risks being seen and thus found out. Had this been the case, surely the police would have known.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Marshall (187 comments) says:

    What Whafe and Billyborker said. He’s been found not guilty. He hasn’t been found innocent. I have sometimes wondered if it would be possible for the jury to declare someone charged as “innocent” or “case not proven” to differentiate someone who possibly did commit a crime.

    Also in NZ we can’t read into a defendant not appearing on the witness stand. I think the juries can overseas in some countries. That could also have changed the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Michael E (274 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the jury thought he probably did it, but weren’t sure enough to find a guilty verdict. Although I’m not sure I would want a jury panel made of people who can afford to have three months away from work.

    And I don’t think the supressed evidence was relevant to the case – so had to be left out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    David Bain told a school friend that he could rape a woman and use his paper round as a false alibi

    … and yet it turns out that this isn’t what he said at all. Probably why the evidence was suppressed, because it would be distorted in exactly this way. More ‘spooky’ claims from the Crown. The only thing missing from the Crown case was the dramatic music and the zooming close-ups.

    I wonder who told the Herald?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Inventory2 (10,088 comments) says:

    billyborker said “This “suppressed evidence” is nothing of the sort.It is supposition, with no bearing on the case.”

    I tend to agree. It was as much “supposition, with no bearing on the case” as Michael Reed QC’s statement in his closing address that Robin Bain changed his clothers “to meet his maker”. The issue is that the jury heard one piece of supposition, but not the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. AG (1,759 comments) says:

    vibenna,
    “I wonder who told the Herald?”

    Probably the fact that the issue of whether this evidence would be admitted was appealed up to the Court of Appeal was a tip-off for them …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Southern Raider (1,534 comments) says:

    Can’t believe I’m agreeing with BillyBorker.

    There is no way you could find David guilty, but this doesn’t mean he is innocent. The Police are the ones to blame. Completely incompetent. Rotorua had the thug cops, Dunedin got the NCEA acheived lot.

    Was this not the most fucked up family of the early 90′s?

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

    Inventory2 “The issue is that the jury heard one piece of supposition, but not the other.”

    You mean almost an entire defence of supposition, surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (10,088 comments) says:

    You might think that Patrick, but I couldn’t possibly comment ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Not really a classy stunt to try and second guess the judical system because you didn’t get the result you voted for David.

    Lets see how you feel about this sort of thing if you ever land in the dock.

    Bain isn’t a murderer, that is a legal distinction. Same as Rickards isn;t a rapist. Both are not guilty. Thats the system we have and like it not its still a shit load better than the pitchfork and torch mob mentality I see here.

    We may have light blubs and stripped toothpaste but I don’t see much different from the middle ages in terms of human evolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Darren (12 comments) says:

    If its good enough for Clint Rickards to have some very damining evidence, ie his mates in jail for an almost identical crime, suppressed, why shouldnt David Bain have some hear-say suppressed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Brian Marshall (187 comments) says:

    Some may think he did it, Some don’t. For all that, the only opinions that count are the 12 that decided his fate.

    More evidence points to him being the killer than doesn’t. That is a fact. The defence only have to put doubt into the juries minds to make them say “not guilty” is more a failing of our system. The french judicial system has a much better approach with the judge investigating the case rather than the adversial system we have.

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

    The last United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems that I can find NZ participation in shows NZ at 130000 trials with only 94000 convictions for 2002

    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/5678svc.pdf

    Either the quality of the police investigation, the prosecution or the justice system (or all three) needs to be looked at, particularly when you consider how many of those 94,000 may have entered a guilty plea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. swan (659 comments) says:

    The fact that some members of the jury cried as the verdict was read, went and hugged David Bain afterwards, and asked for Joe Karam’s autograph makes me think they werent being as dispassionate and objective as perhaps they should have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Hands up everyone here who can claim to have sat through ALL the evidence and shared the juries deliberations…

    Didn’t think so. This culteral accpetance of second guessing trials and thinking that going around Judges supression orders is a valid tactic is pretty damn disturbing frankly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jack5 (4,568 comments) says:

    I thought David Bain might be innocent and the father the shooter. This opinion was based on newspaper reports of the second trial and the coverage of TVNZ (Tabloid Vision NZ).

    However, my mind has been changed by the story in today’s Christchurch Press by reporter van Beynan, who I understand is a former lawyer. He appears to have sat through the whole second trial from go to whoa. From this story David Bain had a motive

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2478273/The-Bain-mystery

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Good one Jack, just follw the most recent story with the best selected highlights. Way to decide guilt or innocence.

    Torch or pitchfork?

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

    The requirement is reasonable doubt.

    Not big doubt. Not small doubt. Not uncertainty. Not just doubt.

    Reasonable doubt.

    In other words, doubt that can be reasoned.

    So if David Bain didn’t do it, and Robin Bain did, there has to be reason to support that view.

    However, there is a much greater case for Robin’s innocence than there ever was for David Bain.

    The outcome is the denial of justice to the five murdered people, a cowardly slur on an innocent man, a slander of his name and his daughter’s name, (while they’re dead and unable to defend themselves), and the work of twelve knuckle dragging morons.

    Four of them were reportedly seen hugging Bain after the case.

    I’d wager not one of the useless pricks has the intelligence to argue their ‘reasonable’ doubt. I’d guess they don’t even possess the intelligence to know what it means.

    They might have had doubts, but not reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. backster (2,073 comments) says:

    Well I consider the concealed evidence to be overwhelming as corroborating what subsequently occurred 4 years later. The diabolic alibi plan festered in a malevolent brain awaiting the right moment. It wasn’t hearsay it was direct evidence.Whether or not it was first carried out in respect to an early morning jogger is not known. I believe in most countries such evidence would have been considered relevant and compelling..Conversely I don’t believe the character assassination of the father would have been allowed. It was all based on the assertions of a child (after her death) who had claimed to have had an abortion, and born a white child and a black child from age 12. The person promoting most of these assertions shot through to avoid being cross examined. Will he re-offend who knows but he is certainly capable.

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

    What is more shocking from this morning’s Granny is the allegation jury members went drinking with David after the verdict and some even hugged him and kissed him after the verdict was delivered. I also think all that “evidence” about Robin Bain’s supposed motive should not have been admitted. Motive is not evidence of anything, and while enlightening to the average mind, is not normally relevant to whether someone killed someone else. It is a useful investigatory tool and should be left at that. Indeed, it is easily possible to plant false motives at scenes as was possibly the case here. I mean, why wasn’t Stephen Bain also deserved of living? He was the youngest and no trouble etc. What led Robin to kill him? The ultimate answer is who cares. Is there evidence Robin killed Stephen? No. Was there evidence that David might have? Yes.

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

    “So if David Bain didn’t do it, and Robin Bain did”

    I believe Justice Pankhurst basically instructed as much to the jury. “if the jury can exclude Robin then it makes logical sense that David Bain is guilty of murdering his family” thats what I find so bizarre about the decision. Obviously the Jury were struggling with the beyond reasonable doubt issue and I believe Pankhurst moved them outside of that into a comfort zone of looking purely at the evidence to support Robin was the killer.
    There wasn’t any

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Is it a full moon? Are the moslems in charge? Has Barack Obama’s birth certificate been found. Unlikely as all these may be today, something is strange when I find myself in agreement with Murray, not once, but twice on the same thread.

    His 10:26 and 11:11 are both right on the money.

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

    There is no evidence that Robin was involved in the murder of Stephen. In fact most of the evidence points to David. I blogged on this before the trial started and I still stand by it. The defence may have showed that it was plausible for Robin to have killed himself, however they did not adequately explain that it was plausible for him to have killed Stephen. If Robin had changed clothes (who knows where those clothes went – certainly not in the washing machine) he would have showered as well to remove all incriminating evidence. Therefore we would expect him to void his bladder at the same time.

    On the other hand, it were David’s clothes in the washing machine (for those who think they were robin’s clothes, David was half a foot taller and these clothes matched David’s size, not Robin’s) and his bloodied paw prints were on the washing machine and the detergent packets. The evidence points to David.

    Furthermore, why was David the big Kahuna. Why did he deserve to live? Why not Stephen? Why not Arawa? All in all, it would be difficult to prove innocence for compensation.

    If it is true that Jurors were drinking with David, then that is totally unethical. They should be punished.

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

    “If it is true that Jurors were drinking with David, then that is totally unethical.”

    Its just more proof of their utter cluelessness. It shows that rather than having “reasonable doubts”, they were utterly convinced of his innocence.

    Morons who have betrayed the murdered family and their right to justice.

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

    Can you believe this:

    “Some of the jury cried and hugged Mr Bain after their emotional verdicts were delivered. Last night, two jurors were seen coming out of the hotel where Mr Bain was celebrating.” – Herald

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

    The trial was probably too long. What kinds of people have 58 days’ to give for such a trial for the meagre recompense that the Justice Dept provides? If anything should change after this, it should be to impose a limit on the length, not only for the sake of taxpayers pockets but to reduce the obvious subjective influence that has appeared to have taken place here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nookin (3,033 comments) says:

    Murray
    While I agree with you that evidence which is not heard and, particularly, not tested in open court should not be weighed to assess somebody’s guilt or innocence after the event, I think it is reasonable to debate the basis upon which the evidence was suppressed. For example, the defence were allowed to give evidence of statements allegedly made by Margaret in relation to Robin’s state of mind and what he may do with a firearm. On the other hand, the prosecution were supposedly not allowed to give evidence of comments attributed to Laniet to the effect that the family had concerns about David’s possession of firearms. It may be that evidence simply was not credible. It would also be interesting to read the Court’s decision ruling inadmissible the evidence of David’s alleged plan to use of his paper run in order to provide an alibi on another occasion. It certainly suggests a modus operandi unique to David. I understand that the defence attacked the credibility of the evidence because of a fallout between David and the proposed witnesses. The court, however, indicated that this fallout did not destroy the credibility of the witness but that the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighed its probative value. There is also evidence that the Supreme Court has apparently suppressed. There is no inkling as to what that evidence may be and we may never know unless the Supreme Court lifts the suppression order. We have a system which is, at times, quite puzzling. There are occasions when the courts decide that juries are not capable of separating the wheat from the chaff (as in the instances above) but do seem to be capable of undertaking a detailed analysis of the basis upon which experts have come to conflicting conclusions and determine which of the experts has the greater degree of experience and skill, has the more reliable information and has adopted the most rational process for reaching what is, effectively, an opinion rather than a fact.

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

    There’s some interesting post-trial stuff here: http://www.courtnews.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Nookin I got as far as debate the the basis of evidence being suppressed. Unfortunately I can’t follow close text that doesn’t have paragraph breaks.

    I agree, however thats not whats going on. Within the context of DPF’s other posts hes making a concerted effort to undermine the judical system by popular vote. Every man and his dog is presenting their selected version to claim Bain is guilty or innocent.

    Well guess what, hes innocent. Thats the reality. You can find all the justifications you like for subverting that but I’m not going to buy into it. I see a mob mentality. I don’t care about the negative karma, never have, I’m calling it like I see and I challenge anyone to find me having stated at any time whether I thought Bain was guilty or innocent.

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

    Murray,

    Well guess what, hes innocent.

    Are you saying that on the basis of the jury verdict? If so, then, last time the jury found him guilty. So which one is right? Do we do it again and have the best of 3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Kent, guilt and innocence is a legal judgement as is the label “murderer” I point out that Clark herself was busted calling someone convicted of manslaughter a “murderer” and had to appologise.

    Bain has had his judgment – innocent.

    Thats got bugger to all to do with whether or not he killed anyone, its just what he is. Before he got that ruling he was a guilty murderer and you could call him such. But not today.

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

    For what it’s worth, the legal judgment is ‘not guilty’. Innocence is another party altogether, something which presents an ‘onerous task’ for Team Bain should they seek compensation: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2478228/.

    So when you quote ‘legal judgments’, please get it right. Legally, Bain is not innocent until proven so. If he was legally innocent, there would be no barrier to compensation.

    At this stage he is simply ‘not guilty beyond reasonable doubt’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Semantics and incorrect Kent. “Innocent untill proven guilty”

    You publish something calling him a murderer and see how like it takes for Joe Karam to sue your ass.

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

    I am not a legal expert, Murray, but the system has already proven Bain to be guilty once, so ‘innocent until proven guilty’ no longer applies. If he was legally ‘innocent’ then there would be no barrier to compensation. That is what I base my argument on. If you were correct, which you obviously aren’t then there would be instant compensation.

    If Bain can prove his innocence and get compensation then the picture would be different but that hasn’t happened yet.

    We could argue this to kingdom come and prove nothing. So I exit here.

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

    Can anyone explain why this story ref suppressed evidence has disappeared from the Home Page websites ( NZ Herald etc) when it was there earlier this morning? Has a gagging order been put out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Kent,

    The Privy Council quashed Bain’s conviction in 2007, so when his retrial began he ought to have had the presumption of innocence. His acquittal surely reinforces that presumption. However, when it comes to compensation, that presumption is insufficient. Bain will have to prove his innocence.

    I am not a big fan of the Cabinet guidelines on compensation. David Dougherty was fortunate (sort of) that DNA evidence meant that he couldn’t have committed the crime of which he was convicted. Without that DNA evidence, Dougherty would not have received any compensation. How does an innocent person prove their innocence in the absence of DNA evidence or supporting evidence? It’s virtually impossible.

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

    Someone said earlier on here that as soon as he heard that the jury giggled nervously when the gun was brought in that it was not a good sign about their abilities and so it has been shown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. nandor tanczos (77 comments) says:

    Justice Thorpe, in his 2006 report into miscarriages of justice, suggested there may be around 20 people wrongfully imprisoned for serious offenses in NZ. He outlined why wrongful convictions happen, or at least the factors that make them more likely, why it is hard to get justice for certain kinds of cases through the common law appellate system and made recommendations about what to do about it. I’ve blogged about it here: “rasnandor.blogspot.com/2009/06/bain-found-not-guilty-how-about.html”

    Thorpe’s recommendations have been ignored by government ever since. I’d love to see Simon Powers start publicly supporting a Criminal Appeals Review Office but I’m not holding my breath.

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

    so What do you reckon Nandor. – Was it Robin, or David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nandor tanczos (77 comments) says:

    I don’t know. There is a difference as well between thinking there is not enough evidence to convict (conviction is unsafe) and thinking the person is innocent.I read Karam’s book and thought Bain’s conviction was probably unsafe, but didn’t form a view as to guilt or innocence. Recent media coverage hasn’t swayed me either way and I didn’t sit through any of the trial.

    There is only one case I feel sufficiently convinced to state such an opinion. I am certain in my mind that Scott Watson is innocent of Olivia Hope and Ben Smarts murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Hump (25 comments) says:

    Let’s assume for argument’s sake that he is guilty. In a civil case (balance of probabilities) he would probably have lost. That being said, he has well and truly done his time . A dysfunctional kid from an incredibly dysfunctional family has re-integrated into society and is unlikely to re-offend.
    After the Privy Council case the government should have cut their losses. Taxpayers are over $4 million poorer and now staring at a significant remuneration payment which he is now entitled to.

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

    Problem with the system as I see it Nandor is when Justice Pankhurst the jury. “if the jury can exclude Robin then it makes logical sense that David Bain is guilty of murdering his family”
    I believe Pankhurst asked ‘Forget reasonable doubt, If you don’t believe the evidence supports Robin did it then find David guilty’.
    Unfortunately there was a jury sucked into the emotional drivel of Reid – with David nearly completing his sentence anyway, and they were keen to go home for the weekend.

    Im not as concerned about who shouldn’t be in prison, as who should be

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

    There has been some discussion on the blogs over the last few nights suggesting that because the jury asked a question about “reasonable doubt” that somehow that meant he did do it, but the jury didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict him.

    Reports on the evening news of several jurors stopping to hug David and shake his hand, proves that this just isn’t so. These are not the actions of people who voted not guilty due to insufficient evidence to convict.

    The other angle being pushed here and in the msm is the so called suppressed evidence. Given that this was to be the final trial, the other evidence was obviously not admitted for good reason. There is a lot of rumour regarding Laniet also and the Dunedin police, additional information that also was not included in the trial.

    Lastly some people have tried to undermine the judgement of the jurors. 12 men and women who have just sat through what must have been an incredibly gruelling trial. They have given up their normal family and working lives to take on what must have been a huge responsibility for what is essentially very little pay.

    I think we owe them the courtesy of not passing uneccessary judgement on their ability to make decisions.
    They sat through the evidence – the rest of us did not.

    Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome, we need to respect the jury process and their deliberations.

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

    Maybe the reason we do not get the full story is for some reason the media are not too vigorous getting the full story. One visitor to NZ suggested that we do not get information suggesting that some kind of censorship exists.

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

    “we need to respect the jury process and their deliberations”

    says who? – You perhaps? who has just given two very good reason why we shouldn’t…..i.e “There is a lot of rumour“ (FFS!)
    If the system is an ass why would we need to respect a system that allows a mass murderer to walk free?

    if society through the ages followed the advice you have just given we would still be burning witches at the stake.

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

    Patrick Starr

    Jurors are like voters in an election.
    You may not always agree with them, but their vote is the valid outcome.
    That is why we have 12 of them, that is why their decision has to be unanimous.
    They get the final say. THAT’S THE POINT

    I agree that there were major problems with the rest of the process, particularly the case bought by the police
    but in the end the jurors make the decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Come on Mum, there was bucket loads of evidence to convict OJ Bain.

    Others have highlighted the pathetic nature of the investigation from our incompetent police force but lets not forget the great job Karam has done in tainting the jury pool for the last fifteen years.

    That jury was NOT impartial, you do not go drinking with the defendant and asking for his autograph if you are impartial.

    The Police should appeal this verdict, I want to see this bastard OJ Bain back behind bars.

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

    It does look a little fishy with the risk of Bain reoffending

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

    The average lawyer is a lot more educated than the average detective and also probably got a better work ethic.

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

    Nandor, re Justice Thorpe’s findings.

    That’s a possible 20 out of more than 1,000,000.00 (one million) convictions during that period. That’s a pretty good strike rate and indicates the system works fine virtually all the time. There is no need for another tribunal or quasi judicial office. We have too many as it is.

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

    democracymum

    That’s right 12 random people off the street is the very point I’m making, considering 95,356 people still voted for Winston Peters in the last election what are the chances they were all idiots?
    We live in a country with an average IQ of 102. Have you ever been on a jury? Have you ever heard the level of debate?

    Here we had 12 random people bored stupid listening to the constant pleas for sympathy from a defence lawyer (who put $2.5 mil tax dollars in his pocket for his efforts). 12 random people who wanted to get home for the weekend. 12 people who either didn’t read between the lines of justice pankhursts instructions, or, as you point out some had already made their minds up prior to the trial. The point I’m putting forward is the system is wrong
    If David Bain happens to have another ‘blank hands’ moment whose fault will it be that he is out on the street? – Karams?, Reids?, the 12 random people or the system?

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

    “OJ Bain”, the internet brings the moonbats out. What a strange thing to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. lilman (883 comments) says:

    Total bullshit.
    He asked for his day in court,then faied to take the stand ,why you ask?

    I believe that he knew if he took the stand under crossexamination he would have been forced to reval this suppressed evidence that clearly showed INTENT.
    A liar and a good lawyer make very good bed fellows in this instance.
    A dead family with its murderer laughing at them in their cold graves,it makes you think doesnt it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. lilman (883 comments) says:

    Darren you tosser, 5 dead people would beg to differ when it comes to suppressed evidence,should all criminals get evidence hidden because you have a police phobia.
    Imagine if it was your extended family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Comrade MOT (59 comments) says:

    According to the ODT, several members of the Jury Hugged David Bain, One asked for Joe Karam’s Autograph, and two were seen leaving the Bain party. This is quite suprising, the jury were obviously quite convinced of his innocence, rather than just persuaded of reasonable doubt. The short deliberation also suggests that they had made up their minds early. Maybe most of the skeptical kiwiblog readers (including myself) are missing somthing, to believe that it is likely that he did? After all the jury sat through the whole thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. lilman (883 comments) says:

    billy borker-as for your statement about the evidence being supposition,what waffle, it was no different from all the evidence fronted about the supposed incest by witnesses to her statements, they did not see any of it so it is the same as the two who heard Bain and his preperation for the rape and use of his paper round for an aliby, not one from the alledged victim.
    As the judge said,this evidence would prejudice the defence case to much so was supressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. lilman (883 comments) says:

    Nandor,Isee you said you wouldnt hold your breath for changes to the system,well all I can say to that is “PLEASE FOR GOD SAKE HOLD YOUR BREATH, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES”.
    Thanks pal.

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

    democracymum

    Reports on the evening news of several jurors stopping to hug David and shake his hand, proves that this just isn’t so. These are not the actions of people who voted not guilty due to insufficient evidence to convict.

    Juries are carefully screened to remove people who know the defendant or who have family connections. This kind of behaviour indicates that the trial went on too long and the jury had too much opportunity to get to know the defendant. They are supposed to make an objective judgment and this kind of behaviour suggests too much subjective involvement and it goes against the whole principle of the jury in the first place.

    Robin Bain did not have such an opportunity to turn up at court every day so that people could see what a gentle, harmless human being he is.

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

    I followed this case from overseas, so its been interesting watching from outside.
    Couple points I thought pertinent,

    1) WHY wasn’t more made of the FACT that BAIN was seen kissing Lainet at a party?……..was D.BAIN having an incestuous relationship with his sister also?……….seems to me to lend itself to MOTIVE for MURDER, jealous that the old man was knocking her off also. This scenario seems more plausible that the PROPAGANDA crap coming from KARUMS CAMP

    2) I feel for the NZ police, they bungled this case…….should have been water tight, they didn’t even need to resort to circumstancial evidence, there was so much CONCRETE evidence to give no doubt that D.BAIN committed these murders.

    3) WENDY PETRIE, THE 2x JURORS who attended the after-party, and all the others swallowed up by Karem’s emotionally charged crusade…………..you are all irrational twits and have just contributed to letting one of NZ’s most serious serial killers free

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

    A juror in the David Bain trial has spoken of her trauma,
    “I spent the first few weeks in floods of tears”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576894
    really objective.

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

    Kent Parker

    “Gentle, harmless human beings” do not have sex with their own daughters.

    It appears there were a high number of professional people on the jury

    Bain’s case was heard by a collection of mainly professionals, including a professional with a law degree, a Justice of the Peace, a former and a current civil servant.

    From the Herald this morning…
    The juror is a mother of two, a recent graduate of a BSc and currently completing a separate law degree. The length of the case has put that degree back six months, one of many sacrifices jury members made.

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

    Thought the foreman/forelady was unprofessional in her responses to each charge as read out-she was celebrating too early. I know will never happen, but would love to hear the from each defence lawyer-their interpretation of iincriminating/damning evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    BB said: “The Police should appeal this verdict”.

    They can’t. Once you’re acquitted, that’s it. However, the Solicitor-General could appeal the verdict if there was a problem with the trial process. That happened in the Gwaze case last year, but it’s extremely rare. Anyway, why would police want to appeal, so their incompetence can be highlighted once again?

    Gooner said: “the system works fine virtually all the time”. That’s speculation. Sir Thomas Thorp looked at only a small number of cases and found a siginifant proportion were possible miscarriages. That doesn’t instil confidence in the system. Nigel Hampton QC said on Friday that the appellate structure is flawed – the appeals courts typically confine themselves to looking at matters of law. We need a system that allows for a review of a case in its entirety. That’s why we need a review tribunal. Sending somone to prison for a minimum non-parole period of 16 years for a heinous crime they may not have committed is not a good look. The cost to the accused is huge and the cost to the taxpayer is not inconsequential either. There is a better way.

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

    “Gentle, harmless human beings” do not have sex with their own daughters.

    There are plenty of people out there who have committed gross crimes who can put on an air of gentle harmlessness for 58 days continuously. Bernard Madoff managed to do it for 40 years.

    There is a definite psychological phenomenon whereby people begin to identify with whoever it is that they are faced with on a day to day basis. The longer the exposure the greater the potential for identification. This happens regardless of education. By giving David Bain back his presumption of innocence the jury are implicating Robin as the culprit. He does not have the benefit of being able to create a congenial real life impression on a daily basis to back up any claim of innocence.

    While even professionals claim to make their judgment on ‘facts’, subjective influences like these play a part. It is certainly not clear from evidence that was reported in the media what might have swung the jury to make such a unanimous decision so quickly. No new physical evidence was discovered since the last trial. All the defence did was to muddy each and every key piece of prosecution evidence and cloud it with doubt. They did this by carefully selecting experts around the world who were happy to have an all expenses paid trip to our beautiful land to describe plausible scenarios that conflict with the prosecution scenario based on the now deteriorating evidence. Faced with this the jury had no choice but to allow each of those to cancel each other out, thereby eliminating incriminating evidence piece by piece. You only have to look at global warming science to see how scientists can be diametrically opposed in any field of knowledge.

    The defence found no evidence linking Robin Bain with any of the murders. The preponderance of evidence (now refuted) relates to David Bain’s association with the scene of the crime (fingerprints, clothes, blood, gun, gloves etc). There remains little if any evidence linking Robin to the murders. All the defence did to implicate him was to demonstrate that it was physically possible for him to hold the rifle against his forehead, while it is being held in place by a special helmet, and pull the trigger.

    I think this case will remain controversial and I think there is a large proportion of the population who do not agree with your claim of innocence. It will be interesting to see what the QC equipped with deciding on compensation does.

    No doubt prosecutors are going to be more careful in future, not only in collecting evidence, but in keeping it secure for a decade or two in case someone with the resources such as Joe Karam has been able to muster, comes at the case with a sledgehammer ten years after the fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. jo434 (1 comment) says:

    What evidence was their for the incestous relationship between Robin and Laniet other than her telling all and sundry, along with stories of pregancies and babies?

    In my view the relationship between David and his Mother semed on the face of it rather more that way, it seemed he was taking the role of partner and head of house and Robin pushed further away.

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

    I’ve just been looking at David and Goliath again. Robin Bain is wearing 4 layers of clothing and a beanie in a photo showing him lying dead on the floor. The defence said he put on fresh clothes before committing suicide. Why would he put on 4 layers of clothing plus a beanie just to shoot himself?

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

    Alors! Where is Inspector Clouseau when you need him? He would have got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. thehawkreturns (162 comments) says:

    Unbelievable.
    The cops might just as well give up if they don’t have an eye witness.

    The IQ of juries should now be examined formally. Based on this case I would estimate
    the second Bain jury would be around IQ 75. Severely retarded yet ready for a cry, a drink and an autograph.

    Maybe they hope they’ll be featured in the upcoming best seller “How to get away with convincing a millionaire and 12 retards
    you didn’t do it”.

    Jeez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. nandor tanczos (77 comments) says:

    Gooner said:

    “That’s a possible 20 out of more than 1,000,000.00 (one million) convictions during that period”

    no, thats 20 wrongful convictions for serious offences. I’d say the rate for minor offences was much bigger. I know of quite a few cases where people have pleaded guilty to things they didn’t do for all kinds of reasons (time off work to defend themselves compared to the relatively small fine, protecting other people, no trust in system to give justice anyway etc)

    Anyway, I’m not arguing to overhaul the whole system, just for a better process to handle those kinds of cases where the appeal system breaks down…

    Actually I do argue for a total overhaul, but wasn’t in this context. Personally I think a system aimed at getting at the truth rather than aimed at proving who is the better lawyer would do us all good. Less guilty people going free, less wrongful imprisonment

    ps THR – eyewitness evidence is the single biggest cause of wrongful conviction, based on studies looking at what evidence convicted people who were later exonerated by DNA evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Alan Wilkinson (1,812 comments) says:

    Well said, Nandor. Thorpe was right and told it how it is but our justice establishment has a cast iron butt protection system.

    When was the last time there was an independent, competent review of the cost-effectiveness of our justice system?

    That’s right, never. The legal profession never loses control over any review process that might affect their (huge) provider-capture interests.

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

    Would it help if there was a time limit on such trials? That way, just like we learn in English Essay writing at school, each legal team puts up their best argument for or against in the most concise manner possible, thereby reducing the cost and the stress on the jury. It might help reduce the backlog and also make it easier to have a credible appeal if new evidence comes to light.

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

    David believes he was the only person who deserved to live.

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

    So, where’s the Herald article gone?
    David Bain trial: Alibi-plan evidence kept secret from jury

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

    To the halfwits spewing hate at David B , um correct me (he was found NOT GUILTY),recently and to the fuckwit tossers who still say he did it , get of your collective arses turn up at Joes place and shout hes guilty appear in court and have your sorry pathetic arses sued off .David needs money his reletives got it all, so dont post on kiwibog spewing pathetic theories , DO YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO STILL CALL HIM GUILTY go to court you will get your pathetic arse burned (I THINK SO)so fuck up posters or challenge him in court.

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

    thehawkreturns????????????????????? commented that the jury had a collective iq of 75 , will this fuckwit who thinks hes a bird calling people doing their civil duty stupid,this makes me sigh, David your site is now a blog for people who howl at a full moon . The hatred towards people doing their civil duty make me sigh as my wifes comming up for jury service and fuckwit tossers like im a dumb birdbrain (the hawkreturns) makes me worry for the low collective IQ of NZ,SIGH

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

    calm down joeaverage, you were angry at least 16 minutes between your 2x messages, thats a lot of anger. Whatever you are over-medicated on, stop and calm yourself down. I agree that its silly commenting the jury had a collective IQ of 75. Though ask yourself this question Joeaverage, when you are away from home and your wife is lying in bed alone, that the mentally stable David Bain who only sees black hands and has premonitions that something awful is going to happen, he is now free roaming around in society probably thinking about raping a woman while doing his errands run for Uncle JoeK. I hope you are sleeping well joeaverage knowing that David Bain is not-guilty and free.

    Has David Bain been psychiatrically assessed before his reintegration back into society, or are we to believe the PR mask that Joe Karam has given him???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Being Frank (3 comments) says:

    I agree with democracymum. The Jury did find reasonable doubt, which means there is doubt that he did it.
    But that does not mean Robin did it. Or if we believe that Robin didn’t do it it, it doesn’t automatically mean that David did it. And what is it ? The version of events as put forward by prosection. Which may be in error because inproper analysis was carried out by the police to determine WHAT happened, WHEN it happened, WHO was involved, HOW did it happen, and finally WHY, PRIOR to making a judgement. And as the judge pointed out, the Jury were the only ones who had all the information in which to make a decison. And not only make a decison but to debate all that information presented. But the jury are not allowed to be investigators, only to decide if the case as presented by the crown is true or not. Which is why the jury have to disregard anything but what is presented to them at the trial.

    The trouble here is that we (as human beings) tend to get polarized into BLACK and WHITE thinking, which shows lack of the ability to think. When we don’t think laterally we make the mistake of assuming there are only two possibilties, either David or Robin. Analysis involves integrating ALL the evidence and formulating what happened, NOT arriving at a conclusion and using the evididence to support that judgement. And remember the defence role is not to prove his innocence per se, but to prove innocence on the basis of the evidence.

    A senior police detective once told me that he believed that the police got it wrong in perhaps a third or more of cases because of arriving at conclusions before proper analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Being Frank (3 comments) says:

    Some evidence points to David, other to Robin. Some to Robin involved in a scuffle, and some to David. Both had marks and blood that indicated that. There are other explanations for the conflicting evidence. Robin clearly had the heat on him over Laniet, and David was by most accounts fond of his siblings and Laniet. Perhaps the family meeting organised by David bought things to a head. Perhaps Robin tried to get at Laniet inside the family home, and ended up in a fight, or perhaps lost it and killed the people he now saw as against him. Extremely heated and often “animal like” emotions over love (including incest), can make people do strange things, which is why in France in the 19th century sometimes would acquit people driven to murder in the spur of the moment – called “crimes of passion”. Animals fight to the death for “mating rights”. Incest is a very animal act, and so is murder – allowing one’s animal drive to overide what is normal, decent and civilised. Perhaps David arrived home and ended up in a fight with Robin after seeing the carnage, and killed him. Perhaps Robin was kneeled praying, asking for forgiveness from GOD for what he had just done and David killed him execution style. David’s behaviour after the fact, including washing his clothes is not uncharacteristic of someone panicking out of fear of how to explain everything, and fearing being blamed for it all. Maybe when discovered Robin was saying “he (Robin) didn’t deserve to live after what he just did”, and David wrote the note on the computer himself using a parody of what Robin had said.

    This is just a big perhaps, but it fits a whole lot better that either David killing all or Robin killing and then committing suiicide and its explains the conflicting evidence of blood and scuffles, and sheds more light on David’s behaviour after the event, including the “I shot the prick” statement if that is what he said.

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

    Honestly, using Occams Razor on this case, which basically states, given two or more competing possibilities to explain a set of circumstances, the simpler of the two is the most likely explanation of the events. So, taking into account that 65% of murders are committed by males in the age range, and only 5.9% of multiple victim murders are committed by males aged over 50, given the other highly unlikely events, and the fact that Robin may not have even known about Laniet’s allegations at all, I would simply say to Joe Karam, that in all probability, it is my opinion that David Bain committed 5 murders. Joe Karam cannot sue you for stating your opinion. However, to say that David Bain is guilty when he has been acquitted would place you in a lot of trouble.
    References:
    http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm
    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html
    Only 3% of self-inflicted gunshot wound suicides are in the left temple, and I would say that the majority of those would be by left-handed people, compared to over 50% in the right temple.

    The likelihood of all of the factors aside from these combined, and compounded with these makes the likelihood of Robin Bain being the killer at almost astronomical odds. In my humble opinion, it is so unlikely that Robin, that, were I a betting man, I would be more likely to win the main Powerball 3 weeks running. It has not been proven to my knowledge that Robin even knew about Laniet being a prostitute, let alone having an incestuous relationship with her. We now know that two independant witnesses have stated (one we could discount) that David had at least entertained the idea of committing a serious crime by using his paper run as an alibi, and this should therefore be tested in court by presenting this information in front of a jury. This evidence is reliable (two independant witnesses with nothing to gain for themselves), and at least as reliable as many of the witness statements presented at the recent trial.

    Ally that with the fact that David has changed his statements several times, most notably in relation to the statements he made regarding the fact that, when first questioned, he stated that he had only seen his mother and father, and then, come the first trial, presented with the evidence that his clothing was found to have blood on it from at least two of his siblings, he changed his testimony to say that he had been in Stephen’s and Laniet’s rooms.

    Further analysis reveals that, if, as David contends (they always talk about the person, even if it is in fact the Defense lawyer making the statement) that the computer was started at 6.39. So, then we have the hugely unlikely scenario of Robin waiting for the computer to start, thinking of a message to write, most likely typing in the message very slowly, (this is my assumption, but I know a lot of people in his age range and they are mostly hunt and peck typists, that is, less that 20wpm). The analysis has shown that it took at least a minute for the computer to start. Probably another to type in the sentence, and then he had to shoot himself in the remaining time. What remaining time, you ask? Well, we know from the witness statement that David arrived home at the lastest at 6.45am. So, David was almost walking in the door. As I stated elsewhere, if Robin really was responsible (highly unlikely), the David must be really aggrieved at having not arrived a few minutes earlier in order to save his father’s life.

    So, my opinion is that the jury might have been highly intelligent, but did they have a statistician on board? As the saying goes, they should all go out and buy themselves lotto tickets. As for their behaviour afterward, it just gets worse. One of their number and contacted the Herald to describe what it was like to be on the jury. It might not be illegal, but it certainly would seem to go against the spirit of the rules. Imagine what the outcry would have been if the Jury had delivered a guilty verdict and were then seen consorting with the Crown prosecution team. Joe Karam would have been crying foul the very minute he saw it! It is outrageous and I believe that the whole case should be heard again, and will be if I can get enough statistical evidence and another expert on gunshot wounds and their pathology, plus a forensic statistician to work out the actual likelihood of the defence explanation of events. Watch this space. I’m researching it all right now, and I will be presenting my case to the police sometime in the future.

    Also, I believe that David has had special favours all the way along. He has had 3 courts of appeal judgements go against him, and then he was turned down. But why were so many appeals allowed? Well, because he is a little white choir boy from South Dunedin, with a very powerful lobby led by Joe Karam. I am absolutely certain that a polynesian from South Auckland would not have had the same advantages.

    And as for Michael Reed QCs question, does he look like a psychopath? Well, actually, there is no set pattern for what a psychopath looks like. Ask the US police, they will tell you. Look at the two boys who killed all of their classmates at Columbine High in the US! Nice looking boys who wouldn’t hurt a fly. However, they just happened to kill killing 12 students and a teacher. I submit a link to show you what they looked like:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold

    So, let us examine briefly the statistics of this mathematically:
    66.1% of multiple victim murders are committed by males aged 18-34 and just 5.9% by males aged 50+
    In just 3% of gunshot suicides does the victim shoot themselves in the left temple.
    I’m not sure what percentage of people actually change clothes after shooting the members of their family and then shoot themselves, but it must be tiny, let us be generous and say 5%.
    Robin didn’t know about the whereabouts of the spare trigger lock key (David’s own testimony).
    On and on it goes.

    I say to Joe Karam, (and he agrees with one thing, that it was either David or Robin): I defy Joe Karam and Michael Reed QC to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Robin did it. So, by their agreement, and judging by all of the evidence, somebody seems to have made a huge mistake here. Or am I missing something.

    By the way, I haven’t yet read the 3007 pages of evidence, but I will in due course, and I will be examining all of the video and photographic evidence. David is not yet completely off the hook, as there are too many questions hanging over this case that have not yet been answered. I am waiting with bated breath on the decision by the Coroner’s office on whether there will be an enquiry into the deaths of 5 persons in a certain Every Street house on the morning of June 20 1994 (anniversary coming up soon, by the way). Will David have a celebration (as he did when he was found not guilty) or will he more properly have a memorial service to commemorate his family?

    In answer to the question whether or not there can be another trial after acquittal: yes, the police can appeal the decision, if there is additional evidence on the case that was not considered at the trial that may have an effect on the outcome of the trial. Watch this space.

    And I say to Joe Karam and his ilk, if you are allowed to be so persistent in trying to prove David was innocent (which has not yet been proven, merely that he shown to be not proven beyond reasonable doubt), why are others not allowed to find additional information to show his guilt? If it was my family, I would certainly be wanting to find the guilty party, and Joe isn’t even David’s family.

    Motive for all of this? 60,009 motives. $60,000 in family investments with friends, 3 investment properties, one each in Dunedin, Whangarei and Bundaberg, and the house at 65 Every Street. The remaining 5? His family members of course, who were causing him grief.

    Well, the jury thought there was reasonable doubt, but did they do the mathematics to work it out? Good on them, well done.

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

    Nandor, have you read James McNeish’s book, The Mask of Sanity? I should think that we should all read both books, and then the evidence, and watch the videos. Key piece of evidence for me was that Robin’s hands were examined for the evidence of gunpowder and none was found. Read here for more information on the likelihood of this. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html.
    My cousin has a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology and she is doubtful of David’s defence case.

    And additional my other comments above, we have to remember that the Police actually did a very good job in incredibly trying circumstances. Imagine, Dunedin, mid-winter, dark, dingy house, horrific murder scene. And they originally thought that Robin was the culprit and so therefore possibly missed some vital evidence. Also, DNA testing was in its infancy and you get the evidence presented. And the fact that David was apparently a very, very good actor. And also, the very marvellous Michael Reed QC and an extremely tenacious Joe Karam, mono-maniac extraodinaire and wait 13 years until a great number of the key witnesses are dead or otherwise unavailable, key evidence disposed of and you get a not-guilty verdict. And of course, at the first trial, David was a very different looking and acting person, and was cross-examined. Pity they didn’t have TV recording of him giving evidence at the first trial to present to the second trial. Now that would have been interesting.

    So, 12 jurors got it right and 12 got it wrong. But which 12??? LOL

    Can someone please explain how David got Stephen’s blood on the crotch of his shorts to me? Sorry, missed that one. Did he sit on Stephen’s face?? lol

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

    Oh, and another interesting point. The people who are most likely to determine whether someone is lying or not?

    Lawyers?
    Judges?
    Police?
    Criminals?

    Any other guesses?

    Well it is actually spys. Why is this? Because if they get it wrong, they will quite likely end up dead! My point here is that most people can’t tell if someone is lying unless they have other evidence to complement their decision and even then, they get it wrong, because they believe what the person is saying. However, as with Bill Clinton, if you closely examine a persons face in slow motion when they are stating a lie, you can see a flicker running across their face. That is why David was not allowed by his defence team to take the stand, for fear that he might give the whole game away. People would have taken the footage, and run it back very slowly and we would all have been able to see for ourselves whether he was telling the truth or not. Sadly, this will never happen again. However, we do have a lot of footage of him and we can see his emotions as he has to view the video footage and photos. Hard to contain the shock. And we have the evidence of him at the end of the trial, and he couldn’t speak because of the emotion. Also, I would have got taped 111 calls of other people reporting major crimes and some played by actors and asked them to determine which one was actually for real before they listened ot the David Bain 111 call. Also I would have got actors to record the transcript and asked the jurors to pick the real one. I for one think that he was doing a really good job of acting.

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

    Just in case anyone hasn’t viewed it yet, the suppressed evidence as revealed on the Sunday programme is viewable here: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video..

    Whoever fought to have this evidence suppressed from the retrial had no desire to seek the truth and every desire to fulfill their prejudicial beliefs. I find the evidence from the female friend of Arawa’s to be most enlightening. Note that this evidence was suppressed because it was too “prejudicial to David Bain” and not because it was deemed irrelevant or because the witnesses were unreliable. She actually testified in the trial but wasn’t allowed to tell the whole truth only parts of the truth carefully selected in the pretrial brief. What kind of justice is this?

    Sorry, democracymum, but you can no longer claim that the jury had a monopoly on the evidence in this case. In fact it is quite clear that some very incriminating evidence was left out.

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

    Joe Karam is single-minded. Joe Karam loathes the police- a distant or not so distant close encounter? Joe Karam is NOT an idealist. What IS his motive. Money. Watch this space.

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

    Bain and his dogooder friends who defend the indefensible, the truth is trickling out “A friend of Arawa Bain was stopped from testifying that David Bain had intimidated his family with a gun, because the judge was not told of when the alleged conversation had taken place”

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.