The Robin Bain did not do it documentary

July 7th, 2010 at 7:27 am by David Farrar

Like many, I watched the documentary on the Bain case last night, which took a view that it was impossible for Robin Bain to have killed his family and himself.

For those who have followed the case closely, little in the documentary was of surprise. I have always thought it incredibly improbable that Robin Bain did it.

Murder trials are not about balance of probabilities, but about beyond reasonable doubt. If the Bain compensation case goes ahead, then we will hear from an investigating QC whom, on balance of probabilities, was the killer.

The documentary had new evidence about whether someone who claimed to sell Robin Bain a photocopier, actually did so. I didn’t regard this as being a huge issue, and the Herald story has further on this.

The forensic evidence, especially the lack of blood on Robin, is what I consider the most persuasive.

As I said, the report from an investigating QC may prove to be the final word on this case, which has always had some people arguing that Robin was or was not the killer.

Tags:

365 Responses to “The Robin Bain did not do it documentary”

  1. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    To me the most compelling evidence was the trial footage showing the defence’s theory on Robin Bain shooting himself. He was holding the rifle in two places, but he didn’t leave any fingerprints – hmmmm…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    I was a bit disappointed with the documentary. The new evidence concerned the reliability of a witness who says he sold Bain a photocopier. I really struggle to understand how anything he said could possibly be relevant. His testimony is that on a visit to Robin Bain he thought he heard a woman’s voice in Robin’s van as Robin got out dressed only in a towel. Apparently this was supposed to be evidence Robin was sleeping with his daughter. The documentary raised questions about whether the person testifying really was there, but overlooked the irrelevance of the testimony. It was weak testimony that contributed to a very speculative motive for Robin wiping out his family. It is disappointing, to say the least, that such speculation could be allowed in a trial alongside blood, DNA, forensic and hard physical evidence.

    I found the blood evidence very persuasive.

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

    theres just too much evidence that says it was not Robin. I’ve questioned before on this site much was made in court of the difficulty one would have in shooting himself with such a long rifle, – so if it was suicide why would Robin Bain not just have unscrewed the silencer on the rifle and make it easy?

    as Pankhurst said; its either Robin or David

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (551 comments) says:

    I’ve always thought that David committed the murders. The first jury got it right however the second jury got caught up in the emotional hysteria that David was innocent. I wonder if Wendy Petrie was watching last night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Razork (374 comments) says:

    My position has never changed; I believe david Bain did it.

    I watched the documentary last night and thought the forensic information was pretty compelling and did nothing to change my belief.

    Then I watched the character assassination of Daryl Young the photocopier salesman. I disclose that Daryl is one of my best mates and I guy I trust 100%

    Like you DPF I struggled to understand the relevance of his testimony in the first place but putting that aside i was pissed off that my mate, who had nothing to gain, was destroyed without real opportunity to respond in such a manner.

    For me, it called into question some aspects of the rest of the documentary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Portia (204 comments) says:

    RB got up and collected the newspaper, took the gun from David’s room, found the trigger lock key and David’s white gloves, shot the first three family members, got into a massive fight with Stephen before finishing him off, changed his clothes, put on his watch and beanie, put bloody jersey into the wash while disposing of bloody trousers, underclothes and socks so well that they were never located, washed – nay scrubbed – the blood off his hands and feet which were stained from the bloody gloves and socks, wiped off his fingerprints from the gun, fired up the computer, wrote a note to David and then got shot himself (managing to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle in his last dying moments) – all on a full bladder and with the prospect that David could arrive home from his paper round at any moment.

    The defence also used taxpayer’s money to scour every corner of the earth until they found an “expert” contortionist who could demonstrate how Robin may have – just – been able to hold the gun and reach the trigger to shoot himself. No explanation as to why RB wouldn’t have simply pulled the silencer off and held the gun to his temple with his dominant hand.

    Also kinda weird that he would spare David, but go to such extraordinary lengths to frame him.

    There was so little forensic evidence to prove that Robin Bain was the murderer that, had he survived the shot to his head, the Police wouldn’t have been able even to charge him.

    But that’s okay – according to Michael Reed QC, Robin Bain was a depressed man, with body odour and a prostitute daughter, so it’s obvious that he would have executed four members of his family before killing himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    Well, DPF< that what mysteries are about.
    But the QC on compensatiopn will NOT be asked to dedscide who did it. Check Powqer's statement.

    The Police decided who did it
    The Robin Bain supporters decided, and implied who did it
    The Jury decided who DID NOT DO IT

    A couple of quick points:
    1. We are now sasked to beieve that all the points made last evening were ignored by the prosecution and were not used or attempted by way of rebuttal of the defence
    2. The gun position in relation to Bain R. shown was one of three (3). NOT the only one, shown at trial.
    3. If finger prints, Bain R's were an issue, why was this ignored by the prosecution?
    4. The ball gloves. The original pair were shown to be relatively free of blood, yet the washing of his hands in blood by way of "demonstration" last evening was at the very best, a cheap "shot"
    5. The photographs etc of Laniet used to attack the incest argument were pathetric. Try telling what was happening in her mind from a photo at a party.

    So, DPF, while you are in Dunedin, how about solving the mystery.

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

    David Bain / Robin Bain / Ockem’s Razor = David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    Portia said

    RB got up and collected the newspaper, took the gun from David’s room, found the trigger lock key and David’s white gloves, shot the first three family members, got into a massive fight with Stephen before finishing him off, changed his clothes, put on his watch and beanie, put bloody jersey into the wash while disposing of bloody trousers, underclothes and socks so well that they were never located, washed – nay scrubbed – the blood off his hands and feet which were stained from the bloody gloves and socks, wiped off his fingerprints from the gun, fired up the computer, wrote a note to David and then got shot himself (managing to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle in his last dying moments) – all on a full bladder and with the prospect that David could arrive home from his paper round at any moment.

    Indeed Portia. As a bloke in my mid-50′s, I can relate to the last bit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    Ben @7:44am

    Whilst the evidence of the photocopier salesman may seem unimportant to you – the real question is whether it was important to the jury. If only a few jury members were swayed by his testimony across the line to “Reasonable Doubt” then that is enough.

    His evidence, together with that of Dean Cottle, were critical elements of painting a picture for the jury that Robin Bain was a man capable of murder.

    The important issue raised last night, was that this testimony was left unchallenged. It is hard to see that anyone would have given credibility to the testimony of Daryl Young if the jury had also heard from Robin Bain’s teaching colleague. Why she did not testify is difficult to understand.

    Equally the evidence of Dean Cottle has been consistently proven to be unreliable.

    I think many of us who have followed the case (I was in Dunedin at the time of the murders/first trial) were left with the view that the prosecution did a poor job – and the judge was bending over backwards for the Defence to avoid another appeal. It doesn’t help that most David Bain supporters are the sort of people who wear tinfoil hats to avoid aliens reading their minds.

    I don’t know who murdered the Bain family. However I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that it was even possible for Robin to be the murderer, let alone likely. On the other hand, the evidence against David is compelling (insanity inducing jerseys aside) and there is no serious suggestion of another party being involved – either based on forensics or motive.

    David Bain’s supporters and lawyers have used public opinion and media to argue his case for 15 years. It is interesting to see how they respond to Robin Bain being defended in the same way. My advice to those in David Bain’s fanclub who don’t like what they hear: put your tinfoil hats back on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    @ flipper – the jury did not decide “who did not do it”. The Crown was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is a subtle difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. J Mex (178 comments) says:

    “5. The photographs etc of Laniet used to attack the incest argument were pathetric. Try telling what was happening in her mind from a photo at a party.”

    Um, the photos were to show how improbable it was that she was pregnant with a black/white child from rape, and went some way to showing her propensity for making stuff up to get attention.

    There has never been compelling evidence that said Robin did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. questlove (241 comments) says:

    Bye bye compensation case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Shit, fuck and bloody bastard…….I forgot all about this programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. 2boyz (230 comments) says:

    I thought about watching it but after deciding I am suffering from Bain over exposure sydrome, gave it a miss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Would someone mind explaining why we should care about this? Whether or not David Bain did do it, it (eventually) wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story. Unless that is, if people want a lower standard of proof for criminal proceedings. Even though it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the guy spent 13 years in jail. If our justice system decides that was inappropriate then he deserves compensation.

    I struggle to believe how people can get so wound up about a case that doesn’t have the slightest effect on them! This is the way our criminal justice system works, guys! Of course it’s imperfect, but is anyone seriously suggesting we change it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    Razork @ 0809 am

    I can understand why a friend of Daryl Young’s would respond as you do. Most of us have been in the position of seeing events/people we know distorted in the media. The full story is never told. Expecting a reporter to tell your story in the way you want it told is never going to happen.

    A few points:

    Daryl was given an opportunity to defend himself. I don’t blame him for not taking it – and exposing himself further in the media. Either way his reputation is damaged by the documentary. Whether that damage is justified or not doesn’t negate its impact

    In contrast, Robin Bain has been effectively convicted by the defence – and the jury – of having murdered his family and committing incest with his daughter. No lawyer was paid out of legal aid to defend his reputation. Daryl Young may be licking his wounds – but those wounds are insignificant compared to what Robin and his family have endured for 15 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    @ big bruv – I’m sure it’ll be on TVNZ On Demand soon enough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @ Thomas the Unbeliever, Inventory2 and so many others on here, what do you guys think of the phrase, “it is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man”?

    I think no one’s ever going to know who did the deed, but the point is the cops weren’t able to prove it was David Bain beyond a reasonable doubt, in spite of their best efforts. That should be the end of it, in my humble opinion. Who really cares whether he not he did do it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    The claim Robin was having an incestuous relationship with Laniet and feared being exposed is countered by the suggestion that the incest was already known to a number of people, and David’s relationships stood to suffer more than Robin’s reputation in any ‘exposure’.

    David’s behaviour just before his arrest [exchanges with his relatives and the incident in the sandhills] were incriminating.

    And as others have asked, why would Robin leave a message exonerating David but then take so many actions to frame him?

    Was the gunshot wound Robin suffered [with or without residue, or considering the nature of the injury] consistent with a suicide contact shot or with more distance than he could have managed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    I struggle to believe how people can get so wound up about a case that doesn’t have the slightest effect on them!

    Because we care about they way justice proceeds in our country.

    I don’t want celebrity justice with All Blacks campaigning on Good Morning. I don’t want infinite money spent on filtering through “experts” until they find one who says the right thing. I don’t want retrials ordered any time the police make a small mistake.

    The way the final trial happened was appalling. Dirty stories about Robin, but ignoring David’s fantasies about raping a jogger. Plus at the end the jurors hugging the creep. Our country spent a hell of a lot getting DB off, what a waste of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Yvette, who cares? The cops couldn’t prove it was David beyond a reasonable doubt! End of story!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Caleb (465 comments) says:

    In Joe Karams crusade to free a man he is willing to condemn another.

    Has he met Robin Bain?

    His nobility blinds his prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Caleb (465 comments) says:

    Lets get one thing straight.

    no case is beyond any doubt unless the offender admits guilt.

    the scum lawyers do a very good sales act to the not so educated jury’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @tristanb, the only reason our country had to spend an awful lot of money on this trial because a small group of cops didn’t do their job (that is, prove who the killer is beyond a reasonable doubt)!

    Are you proposing the country lowers the burden of proof required for murder convictions? What if you or someone you loved was incorrectly charged with a crime? Would you want them to receive a fair trial with the crown having a high burden of proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Caleb, sorry man, I don’t follow. A case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt if a jury decides it so. That’s the way our criminal justice system works! Are you suggesting we abandon jury trials?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jimbob (639 comments) says:

    This is a strange case. But one piece of evidence that never gets mentioned is that there was blood found down the barrel of the rife. To get blood there the last shot fired must have been with the silencer against some flesh for the blood to such back up the barrel after the gun was fired. The last person shot according to forensics was Robin Bain, so it had to be either suicide, or David put the gun flush on Robin’s head. With all the uncertainty of the evidence I think people at the crime scene did a proper job collecting evidence. The whole case from start to finish smells, and I believe no one can say with certainty who did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jimbob, I agree the case is uncertain, making it difficult to know who really did it. However, I do not agree the cops did a proper job of collecting evidence. A major part of the trial was that the investigators failed to control entry to the crime scene at the outset and systematically failed to collect evidence carefully. They even let the house get burnt down several weeks later. Fortunately for future cases, I am aware that the police has learnt big lessons from the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    Yes, it’s a strange case with strength and weakness on both sides of the argument. There’s only one person alive who knows if he did it or not. All the amateur analysis seems pointless, it’s not going to change anything, especially the uncertainty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    mjwilnz – “@Yvette, who cares? The cops couldn’t prove it was David beyond a reasonable doubt! End of story!’

    But I understand David has to now show he is innocent beyond doubt to receive compensation. Probably end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Pete George, I agree.

    @Yvette, to get compensation, David has to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities. However, I think you missed what I was getting at: why should we care?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    “why should we care?”

    I guess it is because the case stinks of something being wrong – but maybe you get that when everyone involved is so bloody dysfunctional – however there is a desire to see it resolved. Or, why care about anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    @Yvette, who cares? The cops couldn’t prove it was David beyond a reasonable doubt! End of story!

    The case was proven beyond reasonable doubt according to a jury in 1994.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    A thoughtful response, Yvette, thank you. But, at least as far as David Bain is concerned, doesn’t an acquittal resolve the issue? Why does there have to be a conviction?

    I’d suggest that the desire of the police to get a conviction was why they made as many mistakes as they did! What I’m getting at is that sometimes stuff happens in the world and it’s jolly tough to find a reason for it – should we always expect to find a reason? No, it seems to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    “The cops couldn’t prove it was David beyond a reasonable doubt!”

    “The case was proven beyond reasonable doubt according to a jury in 1994.”

    So everyone should be happy, they got the result they wanted at one time or another. Let’s move on. Who burned the house down and why? It wasn’t Robin or David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount, the 1994 decision was quashed by the Privy Council who sent the case back for a retrial. That’s the way our criminal justice system works (or at least worked until the Labour Government ended appeals to the Privy Council).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Good point, mjwilknz. Very true.

    Sonny, don’ forget that the judge in the first trial’ suppressed’ a lot of evidence that evidence that was unhelpful to the crown. Evidentially speaking, the second trial was by far the most fair of the two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Pete George, I understand the Fire Service burnt the house down, at the request of the Bain extended family. My point was that the cops let that happen; I am not sufficiently familiar with criminal investigations to know if that was a mistake, but, given the relevance further evidence may have had in the 1994 and 2009 trials, it looks at least a little unfortunate.

    At the end of the day, though, I agree that it’s time for the country to move on. Many on here, including this blog’s author, DPF, seem unable to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    “I’d suggest that the desire of the police to get a conviction was why they made as many mistakes as they did!”
    I’d suggest you’re wrong. Initially the Police were treating it as a murder/suicide. If they suspected David from the start then less mistakes might have been made.

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

    Since there appear to be a lot of informed observers on this forum and I dont have the time to research through two trials worth of information plus numerous docos and a few books, I was wondering if anyone could shed light on the following. I am not claiming to know anything about who might or might not have killed anyone, I am simply trying to find out who may be trying to communicate with me the past few nights. I am not a professional psychic and Im not after anything other than some information so I can make sense of what I have been seeing.

    On Tuesday night I had a dream that I did not know was related to this matter but now I think it may be. In the dream I was riding in a car going around a roundabout. I saw a girl I went to school with who has the last name Bain and she was dressed as a prostitute – long black boots, a black miniskirt and a black crop top. On her neck the word BAIN was tattooed in large letters going up one side and down the other side. I thought it was related to the girl I grew up with as I dont watch much television and did not know of this documentary until today. Can anyone tell me what the girl Laniet looked like or where I could find a picture of her? There is more in the dream that I do not wish to discuss until I can confirm some details. The tattoo would not be an actual tattoo like that, rather it was there so that the name was significant and I would remember it but does anyone know if she had a tattoo anywhere else?
    Thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Yvette – what is the incident in the sand hills?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    Three reasons we should care:

    We need the cops to take note of what happened in this case and be more careful in the future to do their jobs properly.

    The wider Bain family including those deceased should not have to live with an innocent member labelled a murderer. or watch a guilty member profit from it.

    If David should settle down at some stage and perhaps start another family, we would not want them to live with the possibility that someone who snapped and got away with it could do it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Some here seem to think the ‘evidence’ of the photocopier salesman wasn’t important, but it is very important to the key question “what was different about the second trial that convinced the mental incompetents on that jury to find him not guilty ?”
    Remember the salesman testified at the second trial, not the first. It is also important because it shows the level of shonkiness the defence was prepared to sink to by bringing up an obvious bullshitter in order to hoodwink the gullible jury members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    If you want a good read then get hold of McNeish’s book. Fascinating/scary stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. GJKiwi (179 comments) says:

    Interesting all the comments. The whole point of the documentary was twofold. Firstly to show how incredibly unlikely it was that Robin could have committed the murders (which most people with some intelligence had already worked out). I believe that was an integral part of the documentary. Secondly, the point of discrediting the witness was to demonstrate the how desperate the defence case really was. You may say that you fail to see how it is important, but if you extrapolate that to the rest of the defence case which was clearly aimed at defaming Robin, then you see that their case was, at best flimsy. There are other aspects of the case which can also be easily dis-proven. For example, the incest. At the time that the defence claims that Laniet was spending time down at the Taieri with Robin, she had in fact moved down there with her boyfriend. Dr Marjolein Copland implied that she was going down to see Robin. In fact she was going down there to have a threesome with her boyfriend and his friend, and ended up having a relationship with the friend. This information was courtesy of one of Laniet’s best friends. So, if you combine this with other facts, and you get a picture that refutes the defence case against Robin.

    @Razork. Well, if your friend made those claims in court, then he was obviously wrong about some things. Firstly, the teacher, who it can be documented was at the school on the day, as it was her last day at the school, which was, coincidently was the day the sales agreement was signed, by Robin and the the sales agreement was drawn up by Ian Arthur. Ian Arthur further claims it was he who made the sale. As well, Robin couldn’t possibly have come out of the back of the van, as Daryl Young claims. Why? Because of the frame built into the back of it. Not looking good so far, Razork. Shall I go on? And no one who knew Robin really well will say that he was a drunkard. And also there were so many people who made snap judgements about Robin based on meeting him very briefly and yet all of their statements were contradicted by people who knew him well. Did the defence really research the case against Robin? I think not. And finally, your friend was given every opportunity to take part in the documentary. It was shown on TV, with Bryan Bruce inviting him to take part: he declined. I have my own idea on why he declined. Perjury is a criminal offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (8,746 comments) says:

    i reckon they both did it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    “Would someone mind explaining why we should care about this?”

    How about the murder of five people? If that doesn’t make this case worth caring about, nothing will.

    I wasn’t sure what this doco would add to the debate, but it at least showed how gullible you’d have to be to believe Robin Bain was the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    mjwilknz – hereafter referred to as “David’s Friend” – yes, he was acquitted, but for reasons that have little to do with the question of whether he did it and mostly to do with procedural problems (I’m thinking the non-appearance of Cottle), lawyers’ tricks (his defence team managed to get important evidence taken out (the recording), and get a bunch of hearsay put in), police incompetence (the initial investigation, plus destroying evidence), and the passage of time degrading memories and, indeed, witnesses.

    All of this leaves the impression that a man who killed his own family may now be walking free.

    On top of this you have a defence team that threatens prosecution any time someone dares utter the possibility that David did it. In fact last night’s program was notable for a) not saying who did do it, and b) the phrase “in my opinion” repeated ad nauseum. Obviously, the doco guy (or his company) wrote his words with the possibility of defamation in mind. And still that’s not enough: this morning, Bain’s lawyers are threatening legal action.

    I think another source of the discomfort you see here is because the suspicion that David Bain would fail any lesser test of truth – that is, he probably/almost certainly did it, but the passage of time, police incompetence, and lawyers tricks that see a swathe of hearsay admitted but phone recordings where David, to my ears, makes an important admission, is left out, means beyond reasonable doubt cannot quite be achieved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. GJKiwi (179 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz The reason that the house was burnt down was as follows: The police had already spent all the time they needed to gather evidence. Much of the evidence was already past it’s best date. The blood decays fast, and the bodies had been removed. Secondly the house was being vandalised, and items were being removed by souvenir hunters, and in doing so, they had contaminated the crime scene in any case. Finally, it was costing the family a fortune to keep the security guards in place, over $1000 per week. There was no point in keeping the house intact beyond that point, save for the jury to view it first hand, by which stage the house might have been burnt down by others anyway, like the house in Christchurch which was attacked by arsonists last year (twice). So, that is rather a red-herring. As for moving on, what say you about David claiming compensation? Is he moving on? No, this case is one of the most important legal cases in New Zealand criminal history. It is really a test case for the new laws on hearsay evidence, and also, may in fact be a test case for the revised double jeopardy rules, if other witnesses can be discredited in a similar way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Portia (204 comments) says:

    Another reason we should care:

    David Bain’s circus of supporters now wants the Government to give him a large sum of OUR money. And these supporters include artful manipulators with very skillful powers of persuasion, who are prepared to be very vocal and public in their efforts to get it for him. To avoid undue pressure being brought to bear, there needs to be a strong, public expectation that his application is considered properly and consistently with the rules and precedent cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. cam46 (2 comments) says:

    An excellent summary by portia. As someone who has handled firearms all my life I was immediately struck at the first trial of the evidence of the trajectory of the bullet that killed Robin Bain. Apart from all the other evidence pointing to David as the killer and not Robin, it was immediately obvious to me that a right handed person (or even left handed) could not have shot himself in downward trajectory over the left eye except as portrayed by the “expert contortionist” which was plainly ludicrous. The prosecution in second trial seemingly did not emphasise this enough as well as the Solicitor General’s pathetic effort at the Privy Council.

    Last nights documentary was pertinent and well timed and I hope the Police investigate Daryl Young further but I am not holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    The second hearing was marked and decided by a keystone judicial system not keystone cops. The admission of unreliable
    probably untrue hearsay slurs against both the dead Laniet and Robin, including the unprecedented reading of an alleged affidavit from a dodgy witness who absconded to avoid giving evidence for the defence at both hearings.At the same time direct real evidence which was availiable was excluded in case it prejudiced the Jury against the accused..What else are the facts supported by evidence supposed to do? TRAVESTY sums up the whole saga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Short shrivelled, if the cops were behaving carefully, what was with Detective Sergeant, Milton Weir, writing on his wall, Hang Bain” during renovations of his house? It looks like the police became predisposed to a certain income. I don’t suggest that they were from the outset, just that they did not conduct their initial investigations well.

    @Sonny Blount, on your three points:
    1) Why is a conviction needed if we want the cops to care? I understand that many already do, in spite of there being an acquittal rather than a conviction.
    2) I agree it’s a concern. However, it says nothing at all about the outcome. Was an innocent man locked up for 13 years or has a guilty man been locked up for 13 years, but eventually got out of his conviction?
    3) Now you’re just flying off the handle. You don’t KNOW that David Bain did actually do it – no one does. How can you be concerned that he’s going to snap when you don’t even know he did it in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz

    The Privy Council was very clear in it’s decision not to indicate a view on guilt or innocence. It was more a procedural matter than rebutting the decision. Evidence wasn’t presented properly, it was possible that the decision might have been influenced due to that, so a retiral was necessary.

    To say the decision was quashed is not completely true.

    Aside from that (sorry to be picky, but it isn’t irrelevant) I agree that, from the criminal convictions perspective, we have to move on – he was found not guilty at the retrial and that is the end of that.

    From the compensation perspective, however the test of proof is significantly lower and that reopens discussion and relitigation of the ‘facts’ and opinion in the public arena.

    It is important we get this right as we should not be unduly compensating someone (nor withholding compensation unjustly.)

    If David or his counsel want to seek compensation (and clearly they do) then they have to accept the controversies to be raised again in public. It is also a great risk they are taking as if the compensation is rejected (without clear clarification to the contrary) it will be tantamount to stating “we think you did it but just couldn’t quite prove it.”

    If he is successful then, again, we need to get over it and move on (even if some still believe he is guilty.)

    Incidentally, perhaps we should entertain introducing a “not proven” verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. GJKiwi (179 comments) says:

    @ben, the police were not incompetent. This is a misleading idea put forward by the defence. They did an incredibly good job in very trying circumstances. The scene examination was very thorough, considering the technology at the time, and was sealed off as soon as was possible. Everything was photographed thoroughly. You may compare it to what happens now, but that is completely unfair. In this day, the police leave the entire job to scientists, but in those days, they did the scene examination. Their work has been the subject to many enquiries, and the only one who has ever stated that it was incompetent are the defence. Don’t be sucked in by that nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    The McNeish book. i didn’t like it, overall, but it did contain an interesting piece of evidence not widely reported. The day before his death, Stephen told a friend he woke up the night before to find David in his room, who pointed a finger at him and said, “bang, you’re dead.” Stephen said he wasn’t sure if it was a dream or not.

    Well that’s a heck of a premonition if it was a dream. It points to a deep level of planning and pre-meditation. I say this is very strong evidence pointing to what happened the next night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. cam46 (2 comments) says:

    Put it away, Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Karam’s response is all bluster, vague accusations and no response to the issues raised in the doco. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3891824/Bain-documentary-farcical-Karam

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Robert Mapplethorpe (125 comments) says:

    Incidentally, perhaps we should entertain introducing a “not proven” verdict.

    You mean so losers can feel like winners too?

    far too many law changes being made by this government according to what leads the Dom Post. far too many.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    GJKiwi: we’ll have to flat out disagree about the Police. The scene was not secured for (from memory) an hour and in that time there were no controls at all on access. Police subsequently destroyed evidence, rather than store it. This is fundamental stuff. The decision to burn the place so quickly, especially such a large and busy place potentially full of evidence one way or the other, is simply inexcusable. We cannot know what was lost in that fire – which of course is the point. Sorry: the Police failed badly in this instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @GJKiwi, I say nothing about David Bain’s pursuit of compensation. In my mind, that’s entirely up to the courts. My comment is that bloggers and commentors need to move on. You guys are running ’round like headless chickens on a case that has absolutely no effect on your lives.

    I do not suggest that it was the wrong decision to burn down the house, but I suggest that the evidence contained within might have been relevant and this shows that the cops did not do a good job of conducting that stage of their investigation.

    @Portia, our country has a legal system and that legal system operates under a system of rules. One of those rules dictates when compensation can be paid to the wrongfully imprisoned. Those are the rules and it’s very difficult to change them, especially retrospectively. Hence, we have no reason to care. If anyone was manipulated in that whole case, it was most likely the ’94 jury who were prevented from hearing all the evidence and whose conviction of David Bain was quashed by the Privy Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @Robert Mapplethorpe

    “You mean so losers can feel like winners too?”

    Care to justify what you mean there? “Not proven” is a verdict in other countries (Scotland for instance, I believe).

    Please enlighten us on how it would undermine our judicial system or society

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    mjwilknz – “a case that has absolutely no effect on your lives.”
    Are you serious ? Who’s taxes are paying for this farce ? And the bastard wants to get even more of our money from compensation. Although somehow I get the feeling the compo claim will get quietly forgotten about rather than try to convince a judge ( as opposed to a jury of morons) on the balance of probabilities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. GJKiwi (179 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz That sign was placed at a private party, after the outcome of the first trial was known. I would suggest that if you look at Milton Weir’s record you will find that he was a very professional policeman. He as celebrating the outcome of a major trial. In hindsight, it was a very silly thing to do. However, that hardly discredits him as a professional policeman. You might say it was rather black humour. Oddly, it was Weir who first worked out that it wasn’t Robin who did the murders, due to none of the primary evidence pointing to him. He is an obvious person for the defence to discredit and, when you look at the defence tack in other matters, it is hardly surprising. Hence Bryan Bruce defending Robin’s reputation. I’m not a fan of people who win at all costs, nor a fan of people who use their power and money to discredit people of integrity. Robin had integrity and stayed in his marriage despite its apparent many failings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @bhudson, yes, you’re right. Perhaps the verb “to quash” isn’t entirely accurate in this case. (Can I say that the Privy Council and the High Court together quashed the 1994 conviction? :-) )

    I would be very hesitant about a “not proven” decision. Compared to other countries’ justice systems, I for one feel very lucky that our imperfect system functions as well as it does. I wish other commentors here also did. I guess it’s the same old thing, NZers don’t know how lucky we are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. GJKiwi (179 comments) says:

    @ben, the evidence about Stephen’s dream has been discredited. The guy who made the claim also wrote a hoax letter claiming he committed the murders. It was probably nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    >Would someone mind explaining why we should care about this?

    It brings in to question the reliability of juries to decide guilt or not. Many people think the most recent jury decision is at such variance with common sense that it shows a basic deficiency in our judicial system.

    It also raises questions about the involvement of celebrity in the judicial system.

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

    GJKiwi – totally agree. The “case” against Robin Bain was a travesty. David Bain may regret going for compensation – I predict his reputation will be further damaged. Damned if I want my any of tax money going to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @GJKiwi, sorry mate, but I expect better of our police. We give them much power, we have to expect they should be responsible with it!

    @Put it away, really? You’re not a fan of the Government giving out money, even when that’s the way our system works? I take it you’re not a fan of 99% of Government spending. Social welfare, police, the fire service, even plain old cycle ways; you must either be a libertarian or an anarchist. How’s that black mask fitting today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    GJKiwi: re: Stephen’s dream, I didn’t know it had been discredited. Ok, thanks for the update.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @ davidp, in England, jury trials go back to the 12th century! There are plenty of examples of individual judges who have got things wrong as well. The justice system is imperfect (a major reason we don’t have the penalty) and just because juries aren’t perfect, it doesn’t mean we should give up on them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#England

    @RWood, I am doubtful David Bain’s reputation can be damaged anymore than it already is!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    I’ve always believed David got back from his paper round to find Robin too chickenshit to kill himself after killing the rest of the family. David wanders round the house in shock and disbelief getting contaminated and goes back downstairs where Robin pleads with him to pull the trigger.

    David obliges, then realises how bad it looks for him so attempts to clean himself up and cover his tracks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Sorry, that should, the justice system’s imperfects are a reason why we don’t have the death penalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    The only truly independent examination of the case and David Bain’s guilt or lack thereof was done by Sir Thomas Thorpe.

    Suprisingly enough this report seems to have been removed from public access.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Viking2 (10,703 comments) says:

    Well nobody has yet considered the third person and identified who it was have they? Always was a third person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Portia (204 comments) says:

    mjwilknz said:

    Our country has a legal system and that legal system operates under a system of rules. One of those rules dictates when compensation can be paid to the wrongfully imprisoned. Those are the rules and it’s very difficult to change them, especially retrospectively.

    If it were up to the legal system, perhaps you’re right. However, there is no legal right to compensation – Bain’s application is to the Government for an ex gratia payment. There are Cabinet Guidelines for considering such applications, but these rules may be more readily departed from than case law.

    Incidentally, the Bain team appears to be banking on persuading the Government to amend the rules as, according to expert commentators, the application is highly unlikely to meet the criteria as they currently stand:
    here and here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @ polywog, not a lot of blood on Robin (anyone know if he had any bruises?) after his fight with Stephen, but mysterious scratches & bruises on David, which were never adequately explained. And if David wanders round the house in shock and disbelief getting contaminated and goes back downstairs why are there not more bloody footprints everywhere given the amount of blood shed by Stephen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    mjwilknz
    Compensation is not determined by the courts but by cabinet on the reccommendation of a senior lawyer.
    The rules that determine eligibility for compensation are not “rules” but are cabinet guidelines. It is very easy to change them, especially retrospectively and this is exactly what has happened in this case. Bain did not come within the previous criteria. There was a residual discretion within which the Crown has worked to come up with a set of parameters.

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/test+set+out+david+bain039s+compensation+claim

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

    How about putting those charlatan TV psychics from Sensing Murder show to tell us who did it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    I also think it likely the jury got it right the first time around.

    I’ve always believed David got back from his paper round to find Robin too chickenshit to kill himself after killing the rest of the family

    pollywog, that is an interesting idea. But could Robin have cleaned himself up so much (little blood) and then prepared himself to die whilst having a full bladder? Could anyone still have a full bladder knowing full well that they’re about to die? I don’t think so. And if he was clean then wouldn’t the shower have bloody evidence in it? I don’t know enough to know if it did or not.

    I have always thought that David doesn’t sound “real” in the recorded telephone call he made to Police. By that i mean he sounds more guilty / nervous than he does shocked at the murders that have taken place. It sounds acted somehow (and not very well at that), and someone said above that the second jury wasn’t allowed to hear it.

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

    @mjwilknz: You bet his reputation will sink further! The proportion of the public who believe he’s innocent will drop significantly.

    @Fletch: Yes, it does sound more like an acting job. Not as bad as Lundy’s totally OTT antics, but suspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount, on your three points:
    1) Why is a conviction needed if we want the cops to care? I understand that many already do, in spite of there being an acquittal rather than a conviction.

    You asked why we care about the outcome. Bain has been acquited and we can’t change this, if it is confirmed that he was actually guilty, then there are many lessons for the police about prosecuting these sorts of cases.

    3) Now you’re just flying off the handle. You don’t KNOW that David Bain did actually do it – no one does. How can you be concerned that he’s going to snap when you don’t even know he did it in the first place?

    IF he did it (And I think he did) then you have someone who is capable of killing and has got away with it, free in society, this is always a danger of some degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    @ pollywog – that’s an interesting theory. However Bain D could well have got off with a verdict of manslaughter, or even been acquitted of Bain R’s murder due to some form of diminished responsibility. He certainly wouldn’t have spent 13 years behind bars. Don’t you think that such a defence might have been raised if that were indeed the situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz – I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting. Some bad thoughts are leaking in.

    I am just looking forward to any defamation action, or BSA complaint, or compensation claim – but I am not sure that David Bain’s legal advisors are stupid enough to open the door to that sort of scrutiny. David Bain got lucky – and his defence team played a good game to help him ride that luck. The more they expose him to scrutiny, the less likely it is that his luck will hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    pollywog, that is an interesting idea. But…

    dunno Fletch and IV2.

    I just dont get that David had a strong motive for killing everyone but if it played out like i imagine, he would certainly have one for killing Robin, which accounts for his guilt and story not being up to scratch.

    I’m sure i could make up the rest to fit the evidence :)

    I reckon the cops figured out something like my scenario but were to far down the track towards pinning David with all the murders that they just went ahead and in doing so botched the whole affiar beyond recognition of who did what, when.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I have no doubt that David shot them all. I followed the trial and I’ve read most of the books (including the completely flaky ones written by Joe Karam).

    Another bit of anti-evidence for Robin, IMHO, is the suicide note on the pc. It seems implausible to me that an old-school type principal/teacher would turn on a computer, wait for it boot-up (a long time in those days), after having shot the family and knowing David would be back any minute, whilst dying for a piss, just to write a banal little suicide note. Teachers spend all day writing stuff by hand. Why not just dash the note off on a piece of paper? It just doesn’t fit.

    Who is David Bain I wonder?. Has he convinced himself that he didn’t do it (quite possible) or is he just a very good liar. If the latter then he must be a very scary character, underneath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    I just dont get that David had a strong motive for killing everyone but if it played out like i imagine, he would certainly have one for killing Robin, which accounts for his guilt and story not being up to scratch.

    Not all murdrers have a ‘strong motive’ – some are just fucked in the head.

    On the balance of the evidence presented, Robin is less likely to be the killer than David. Although it seems a jury eager to hug the jersey’d one, and bask in the media spotlight disagreed..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Although it seems a jury eager to hug the jersey’d one, and bask in the media spotlight disagreed..

    At least he’s not wearing the Cosby Sweater anymore :)
    Sorry I know that is irrelevant, and adds nothing but i couldn’t resist slipping it in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    There has just been a fascinating exchange on Radio Live between Joe Karam and Michael Laws, it is fair to say that Laws got the better of Karam.

    Karam has offered to go on Radio Live with Laws and debate the case, Laws has enthusiastically accepted the offer.

    It should be fantastic radio.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. chairman Carrott (5 comments) says:

    David Bain is guilty of the murders, that documentary was compelling in highlighting the facts that David has blood on his hands. Perhaps he will add a twist at some stage like the movie “Primal Fear” and cough up the truth after acting all this time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I just dont get that David had a strong motive for killing everyone but if it played out like i imagine..

    I can recommend ‘The Mask of Sanity’ by James McNeish if you haven’t already read it. He postulates a plausible theory (to me at least) that David felt trapped by his dysfunctional family. The mother in particular had some very funny ideas and she transferred her nuttiness to David, according to McNeish. Also motive is a bit of a red herring because if you’re mad/strange enough to kill your whole family then your motive might be something which is trivial to normal people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Although it seems a jury eager to hug the jersey’d one, and bask in the media spotlight disagreed..

    Many a true word is spoken in jest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    Has anyone definitively ruled the cat and/or Casey the dog out? They have kept a pretty low profile through the proceedings.

    ***Also motive is a bit of a red herring because if you’re mad/strange enough to kill your whole family then your motive might be something which is trivial to normal people.***

    As is telling a school friend of a plan, of a plan to abduct a female jogger, using the paper round as an alibi.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10578157

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    When Big Bruv?????????

    As for motive, David had plenty…. he was closed in with the family so long, mother wanted to build a dream house with rooms at the top for mother and David. Dad was not welcome, he was an outsider now. If this happened David would be stuck forever. David finally has a good non-platonic relationship, he is now passing uni, he has a better social life, he is in plays. His messed up family cannot get in the way of all this.
    Seriously, read the McNeish book

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Nookin and Pollywog, thanks for clearing me up on that. However, if those are the rules for compensation, then those are the rules. I still don’t see why you need to be whining on about it, here.

    @Thomas the Unbeliever, uh oh, looks like I need to be sent off for “correction” of my impure thoughts! Does NZ have a version of Siberia? Oh well, it looks like Palmerston North will have to do! :-)

    @Sonny Blount, you think he did it, huh? Well, need I remind you that it scarcely matters what you think. A jury of David Bain’s peers didn’t think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it.

    @All you guys and many commmentors on here, I just don’t get it while you guys are worried. Whether or not he did it, David Bain spent 13 years in jail and will be forever viewed suspiciously, in this country. Given that there’s some uncertainty as to whether he did it, don’t you think he’s been punished enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    oh, sorry Malcolm, stepping on your toes :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    On the balance of the evidence presented…

    You only have to ‘present’ evidence a certain way to lead the jurors down the garden path.

    Sure David could have wrote the note on the PC but that doesn’t mean he killed the rest.

    IMHO, the cops were too hasty to ram through the David did it thing and while i believe David’s a liar, i don’t think hes as good a liar as to fake not being a cold blooded psycho.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    oh, sorry Malcolm, stepping on your toes

    Not at all. Great minds think alike :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    @ big bruv – Laws has a post on his Facebook site this morning which reads

    Wednesday: the Robin Bain TV 1 doco last night has sparked talkback this morning. Want to make it clear that I’ve always believed that David Bain was the killer & the Chch jury manifestly got it wrong. Robin Bain could NOT have killed the family and that was what the TV doco properly surmised. So if you believe David is innocent … who did it?

    That will be a VERY interesting piece of radio. Both with fixed views, and neither known for backing down – bring it on!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    “@All you guys and many commmentors on here, I just don’t get it while you guys are worried. Whether or not he did it, David Bain spent 13 years in jail and will be forever viewed suspiciously, in this country. Given that there’s some uncertainty as to whether he did it, don’t you think he’s been punished enough?”

    almost 1/5 of the comments on this topic are from you…………. who does it seem is the most worried?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    No date has been set yet SSSL, one hopes it will be soon.

    Although, I suspect that Karam will not front unless he can set the boundaries for the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    “don’t you think he’s been punished enough?”

    No, he murdered five people, the only correct punishment for that is death, failing that, the next best punishment is life (and I do mean life) in prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Seriously, read the McNeish book

    I ‘d rather someone got in Davids face with a camera and put my theory to him and read the reactions in his face and voice.

    David just doesnt seem that clever or manipulating to have planned the whole thing and expect to walk free but he seems clever enough to know that by admitting to killing Robin and attempting to cover his tracks it’d be easy to pin him with the rest of the murders as well and there’d be no chance he’d ever walk free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Short and Shriveled, a fair comment, mate! :-) The main reason I’ve got stuck in on this post, though, is that I have some spare time this morning and have gotten sick of DPF going on about David Bain like he actually knows he did it! For pete’s sake, no one knows!

    Maybe you can consider my interest in this post a simple expression of frustration at the tone of many comments on here. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, but that’s my point, you don’t KNOW that he killed five people, you only think he did! What if you’re wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    It is perfectly reasonable and logical for DPF to have strong views as to David Bains guilt given the sheer amount of evidence pointing towards that being the case. Couple that with the ridiculous case against Robin Bain that is simply improbable and nigh on impossible and his strong views are even more validated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Dexter, the case against David Bain wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt . Given that, you’ll need to explain why it’s “perfectly reasonable and logical” for someone of DPF’s noted online standing to lower himself to holding strong views on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    ben – “Yvette – what is the incident in the sand hills?”

    David and friends were walking among sandhills [St Kilda, I think] before he was arrested, when David disappeared and when found was on his knees saying something to effect of What has happened, or What have I done. It was reported in the papers at the time of the first trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Flipper posted at 8.21:

    …The Jury decided who DID NOT DO IT

    Flipper means the second trial jury, but you can’t hold them up as top-class decision makers when some of them partied with the David Bain camp at the end of the trial.

    One jury member had a letter printed (anonymously) in the Christchurch Press recently in which he or she claimed they didn’t find Robin Bain guilty. Yet the Judge seems to have virtually instructed the jury: Robin or David. And they found David not guilty.

    Flipper also posted:

    …DPF, while you are in Dunedin, how about solving the mystery.

    There is no mystery, Flipper.

    MJWilknz posted at 9.04:

    …the cops weren’t able to prove it was David Bain beyond a reasonable doubt, in spite of their best effots…

    .

    The police did prove it to the first jury’s satisfaction, and the second jury – well they couldn’t wait to get to the party. Also from last night’s excellent TV documentary, the prosecution looked lax in not blowing away the evidence of the Irish gun “expert”. Also, wow the photocopier sdales stuff! Holy shit!

    MJWilknz again at 9.13 says “end of story”.

    Crap, it’s just building up steam. And DPF certainly did not lower himself in his post on this issue. And DPF certainly did not lower himself in his post on this issue.

    Jimbob posted at 9.24:

    … there was blood found down the barrel of the rife. To get blood there the last shot fired must have been with the silencer against some flesh for the blood to such back up the barrel after the gun was fired. The last person shot according to forensics was Robin Bain, so it had to be either suicide, or David put the gun flush on Robin’s head.

    The latter fits the picture, Jimbob.

    Pollywog’s posts reckoning both David and Robin Bain were the killers is the most bizzarre, fuckwitted post of the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    I’m continuing to find it remarkable that people on here think they KNOW something that the 2009 jury didn’t, in spite of the latter sitting through 13 weeks of a trial, including 180 witnesses and 3700 pages of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    I believe the most crucial point is whether gunshot pathology indicates Robin died from a contact gun injury or one from a greater distance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. bobberesford.com (12 comments) says:

    Well……..I was actually inside this case for years – i visited David in prison in ChCh as well and donated his new computer, stereo, TV and other stuff to him.
    The whole Trial by television style of thing has been a disaster……but then so is our Justice system – it apparently exists as a playground for lawyers – who make fortunes while others go bankrupt. Often in winning a case you lose. The adversarial system means truth is suppressed and lawyers play tricks and lie.
    Currently, this case has cost the country a fortune, while not presenting a clear and truthful unbiased picture. May get closer now with the inevitable multi-million compensation claim having to go through process. Obviously, David should speak – as an accused should at a trial. Joe Karam would no doubt like to do a movie, though David has never wanted that.
    The amount of misreporting of case detail – incl by established press – is remarkable.

    Some worthwhile comments ( some not ) here. Pollywog is onto something . Objectively, the case evidence has always most closely matched a scenario of double involvement, with David shooting Robin – perhaps even being asked too …perhaps after an altercation on his return and finding a dead family. Then David tries to cover up and wash things later to white-wash the family image.
    The only way it’s feasible to have David killing everyone is if he doubles back during his paper run. But at the latest trial there was evidence supporting that possibility – and the police had that ( unlikely ) theory early on. They did also fudge the time up the street to the gate – unless David was deliberately hurrying/running.

    Robin Bain had bruising on his right hand and blood traces under his dirty fingernails. The green jersey used in killing Steven had belonged to David as a boy, but now didn’t fit him. Robin and Arawa would use it. There’s a lot of relevant detail that often conflicts with a single theory.

    The words on the screen could point to either – more likely Robin – and is usually misquoted. it’s in lower case with only one comma -

    sorry,
    you are the only one who deserved to stay

    I did a write up of about 48 pages and sent to GovGen and Clark years ago. The time I got from boot to write was what the defence were now saying in the latest trial.
    If anyone has genuine first hand knowledge , or accurate relayed info about the case, I’d be interested to hear about it. I’d like to get to the bottom of it myself . bob@bobberesford.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    “big bruv, but that’s my point, you don’t KNOW that he killed five people, you only think he did! What if you’re wrong?”

    I do know he did it, ALL of the evidence points to him, there is no chance at all that I am wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    bobberesford.com posted at 12.30:

    … I visited David in prison in ChCh as well and donated his new computer, stereo, TV and other stuff to him.

    Bob, you would have a good impartial view of the so-called television trial, then wouldn’t you?

    This is a very good, professionally done TV series.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, uh huh. So why did the 2009 jury acquit him, then? Oh, they were manipulated by lawyers, I’m sure, all twelve of them… as were the Privy Council when they sent the case back to trial.

    Arrogant isn’t a term you’d be unfamiliar with, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, uh huh. So why did the 2009 jury acquit him, then? Oh, they were manipulated by lawyers, I’m sure, all twelve of them… as were the Privy Council when they sent the case back to trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    The jury were not allowed to hear ALL of the evidence, they were indeed “manipulated by lawyers”.

    As for the jury, I can only say that they must be stupid, mind you, the trial was held in Christchurch so on the balance of probability there is a far better chance of finding twelve morons than there would be in any other city in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    jwilknz posted at 12.43:

    …So why did the 2009 jury acquit him, then?

    Maybe they just couldn’t wait any longer for a beer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, do you think maybe, even just maybe, the jury were doing their best to make the right decision. If they acquitted him, after hearing so much evidence, maybe, just maybe, that was the right outcome? Given you didn’t sit through that big trial, why are you so sure you know better than they did?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    I’m continuing to find it remarkable that people on here think they KNOW something that the 2009 jury didn’t, in spite of the latter sitting through 13 weeks of a trial, including 180 witnesses and 3700 pages of evidence.

    The suppressed evidence for starters. David relating a plan to get away with murder and rape years earlier, and part of his 111 call.

    The issue with the jury is not merely the evidence presented. It includes the human factors of jury selection, that it is easier to apply blame to a person never seen in the flesh than a live person sitting in front of you. And the media coverage and celebrity through the 13 years until the second trial. Nobody on the jury was entirely unaware of Karam and his crusade before the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack 5, uh huh? You’re comment was meant as a joke, of course, but have you ever heard the phrase. grasping at straws?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    The jury acted grossly inappropriately immediately after giving the verdict, it is possible that reflects on how they acted before giving the verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount, the grasping-at-straws question might apply to you, too! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Pollywog’s posts reckoning both David and Robin Bain were the killers is the most bizzarre, fuckwitted post of the day.

    Cool…so what’d i win ? :)

    Look, i haven’t seen or read anything other than whats been in the MSM over the years but i’m a pretty good read of people cos my bullshit filter is stuck on high while my fuckwit tolerance meter’s set to minimum.

    to that extent David seems like a liar not a psycho killer, Karam seems like a fuckwit, having had some experience with Dunedin cops i wouldn’t trust them and Robin on the face of it seems like he had more motive.

    good to see bobberesford is looking at the evidence cos my feeling is there’s way more there than meets the eye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    “If they acquitted him, after hearing so much evidence, maybe, just maybe, that was the right outcome? Given you didn’t sit through that big trial, why are you so sure you know better than they did?”

    They jury did NOT hear all the evidence therefore it is a stretch to say that they came to the “right” outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Yeah right, Sonny Blount, yeah right! So a jury just happened to give David Blain a hug at the end. Jurors are human, too!

    The justice system obviously isn’t perfect. I think you just need to get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Bloody hell!

    Karam is on with Willie Jackson and John Tamahere now, he has called in to demand that Radio Live edit their callers and block anybody who claims that Bain is guilty.

    The man is clearly becoming unhinged.

    Edit: Karam and Laws are to debate the case live on Radio Live in two weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, if there was a miscarriage of justice in this latest trial, why hasn’t the case been appealed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    “So why did the 2009 jury acquit him, then? Oh, they were manipulated by lawyers,”

    Oh dear are you really that naive? Jury’s get it wrong all the time and have done since their inception, they do not judge cases impartially and solely on the merits of the evidence presented. History is littered with instances of innocent men whom present as unsympathetic being jailed and vice versa. In this case a propaganda machine was working in overdrive for some 13 years leading up to the 2nd trial rendering any chances of a fair and impartial Jury virtually null. You couple that with the reaction and statements they made at the end of the trial and it is patently obvious that they were emotionally invested in a ‘feel good’ outcome.

    Do some research on Sir Thomas Thorpe and his findings in relation to the Bain case, I’m more inclined to agree with the findings of our greatest legal mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Dexter, if juries are so imperfect, why have the English been using them since the twelve century?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    Having suggested the nature of Robin Bain’s head wound could hold the key to whether it was suicide or a more distant shot, I would be remiss to not point out comments I have found in the Press 25/05/2009 –

    “In other evidence, Cordner told the court Robin Bain’s head wound was “perfectly compatible” with him committing suicide.
    He said he had no reason to differ from the pathologist who conducted the post mortem on Robin Bain who said the wound was a contact or near contact wound.
    Powder burn abrasion marks seen by other pathologists giving evidence for the Crown were in his view not stippling or tattooing but probably skin defects or adhering blood or too indistinctive to make a judgement.
    The features of a contact wound – blackening from soot, burning, and bullet wipe resulting from the material leaving the barrel – were all present in Robin’s case, he said.
    “I have exercised my mind a lot on this but it would be wrong to proceed on the basis the photograph shows stippling,” he said.
    Cordner said the trajectory of the bullet through Robin’s head was a matter of no consequence. The site of the wound in Robin’s temple was a site of election for gunshot suicides and right-handed people did shoot themselves in the left temple according to a survey he had done which showed out of 51 gunshot suicides, four were shots to the left temple and nine were to the right.
    “The head wound of Mr Bain is perfectly compatible with self infliction.” Views that suicide was unlikely seemed to lack basis judging by the information he had seen.”

    But my suggestion related to a cleaner wound which could have meant it wasn’t suicide. The above only indicates he was shot at closer quarters, either by himself or by David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    Probably for the same reason why they remain a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    Not all of the evidence was presented at the first trial either.

    I can understand that people see some evidence and fixate on one conclusion, some of the evidence seems to point strongly one way. But then you come across another piece of evidence that seems to go strongly against that. It is far less simple than many are making out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Pete

    It is easy, all you need to consider is this.

    How did Robin shoot all the members of his family without leaving one speck of blood on his clothing, then turn the gun on himself (choosing the most difficult way possible) without leaving any fingerprints on the gun?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    The David Bain trial inspired me to not shirk my jury summons later in the year last year and do my civic duty. I sat through two trials. In the second one there were four individuals at trial and a total of 5 counts. We found 3 of the counts guilty and the other 2 not guilty. We all thought all 5 counts should be guilty but the 2 not guilty verdicts could not be found guilty *beyond reasonable doubt*. (It took something like 5 or 6 hours of deliberation).

    Even before I was a juror, I watched the David Bain case with a lot of interest. At the time I believed he did actually do it, but that the jury did actually reach the right verdict. The defense did an excellent job of creating doubt. And that is the key word and key phrase when it comes to guilty / not guilty. Doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt.

    And now having sat through two trials and read a lot more about the case and trial etc, I still believe that David Bain did it, and that the jury did come to the right verdict. They could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt (although given the lack of forensic evidence for Robin doing it, the whole motive thing becomes a bit of a red herring).

    Defense lawyers are very good at what they do and have a much easier job than state prosecutors. I don’t think they really care about the truth all that much; just that they can get the defendant off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Portia (204 comments) says:

    For those who didn’t read it at the time, here is an opinion piece by Martin Van Beynen from The Press who like the jury, sat through the entire second trial and saw/heard all the evidence:
    Plenty of doubt in Bain jurys verdict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Bloody beaut!

    Here is the link for those who missed the programme.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/the-investigator/investigator-s1-case-against-robin-bain-video-3630015

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, once again, can I ask why, if it’s so mind numbingly obvious to you, did the 2009 jury acquit David? Isn’t it possible that the jury viewed all the evidence and decided they honestly did not believe that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    Why mjwilknz, did members of that jury hug Bain after the trial and desperately try to attend his after trial party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    mjwilknz,

    Average NZers voted in Helen Clark 3 times, their propensity to make incorrect decisions is proven, and I would not be confident having a jury selected from such decide my future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    BB
    Consider also the fact that there was an extensive hand to hand struggle with Stephen that put blood everywhere but on Robin. Or, if it did, Robin managed to dispose of all clothing withoutout trace apart from the jersey which he conveniently popped in the laundary basket to wash.

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

    @mjwilknz I think in the minds of many jurors, there is confusion between “beyond reasonable doubt” and “beyond any doubt”. Judges have had to lecture juries on this point.

    I also think the Sherlock Holmes maxim applies. The case against Robin Bain is so wildly and bizarrely improbable, both from the viewpoint of physical evidence and the psychology of human behaviour, that the other (and only) conclusion must be drawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    Once again I make the point to you that the bloody jury did NOT hear ALL of the evidence, given that, they cannot have made the right decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and a bottle of wine, they retire for the night, and go to sleep.

    Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”

    “I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes” replies Watson.

    “And what do you deduce from that?”

    Watson ponders for a minute. “Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?”

    Holmes is silent for a moment. “Watson, you idiot!” he says.

    “Someone has stolen our tent!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. YesWeDid (1,002 comments) says:

    mjwilknz – I think Martin Van Beynen answered your question.

    ‘The verdict surprised me, but should not have. If the case had been put to 10 juries, I believe six would have convicted, two would have acquitted and two would have been unable to reach a decision. Bain won the lottery.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount, on the hugging and party attendance, I don’t deny that something went on. However, I don’t think it’s entirely clear exactly what it was.

    What I suspect is that jurors were only being human. Since they decided David Bain wasn’t guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (having sat through a 13 week trial with 180 witnesses), they probably felt sorry for him having been in prison for 13 years. I definitely would have if I’d sat through the trial and decided that.

    I’m not saying jury trials are perfect, but they’re the best we’ve come up with so far. Perhaps that’s why we (or at least our English forefathers) have been using them, in some shape or form, since the twelve century!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sonny, Nookin, big bruv, RWood and YesWeDid, I think you guys really need to get over it and move on! God, if something involving our justice system happened to you guys that actually affected your lives, I don’t think you’d recover! :-) Why not argue about something you views might actually affect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    And plenty of juries have been dismissed or things as simple as looking up the case online. Any collusion observed during the trial would result in a retrial, it may be human (and I disagree that it is a normal reaction) but it is not acceptable.

    If I was found guilty by a jury that hugged and socialised with the prosecution after the trial, I would be ropable and demand that the case be retried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. glubbster (345 comments) says:

    NZ’s OJ

    “mjwilknz” lol you dont fool me.

    I love your claim that no one should care, despite the injustice, the prejudice left against Robin and the fact that if no one cared, most likely the manipulating defence would find a way to get the compensation from the public purse. No, no we do not care at all.

    The one saving grace is that D Bain spend 13 good years of his life in jail and hopefully he is now reformed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    And Karl Kuchenbekers family and the RSA victims families should get over it. Who cares if known killers are walking free in our society, how could there be any danger in that?

    Killing 5 people is a big deal. And it matters that the next time a mass murderer is put on trial in NZ it is conducted in the best way possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    A jury heard all the evidence and found David Bain not guilty. That decision stands. You have to wonder about the motives behind the documetary, coming just before David Bain tries to leap the huge hurdle he needs to clear to receive any compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @Ch123,

    “In the second one there were four individuals at trial and a total of 5 counts. We found 3 of the counts guilty and the other 2 not guilty. We all thought all 5 counts should be guilty but the 2 not guilty verdicts could not be found guilty *beyond reasonable doubt*. (It took something like 5 or 6 hours of deliberation)…And now having sat through two trials and read a lot more about the case and trial etc, I still believe that David Bain did it, and that the jury did come to the right verdict. They could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt ”

    And your experience illustrates why we should institute a “not proven” verdict into our system. It is for just those situations described

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. YesWeDid (1,002 comments) says:

    Maggie the ‘motive’ is that any thinking person who looks at the plain facts of the case has to come to the conclusion that David killed his family not Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    “A jury heard all the evidence and found David Bain not guilty. That decision stands. You have to wonder about the motives behind the documetary, coming just before David Bain tries to leap the huge hurdle he needs to clear to receive any compensation.

    why is that hurdle ‘huge’?
    this doco was well overdue
    we have had 15 years of saturation from the David Bain fan club

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Maggie, I agree and suspect the documentary makers aren’t dissimilar to so many commentators here. They seem entirely unable just to move on to other things! Does it show the lack of stuff going on in their own lives? Maybe they don’t have much to move on to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    sorry,
    you are the only one who deserved to stay

    If Robin left that message, can somebody please tell me why Stephen (that poor young lad) did not also deserve to stay? What made David so especially valuable in Robin’s eyes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. glubbster (345 comments) says:

    OJ went through the same trial jury process as Bain did in 2009. Both are widely known in their respective countries, both had clever and manipulative defence lawyers, both used hearsay to good effect, both had almost celebrity status.
    OJ amongst black people, David through some errors in due process, those with a cause to support and media speculation.
    In hindsight, no re-trial should have taken place. David was always likely to be acquitted by a 2009 jury in the circumstances. His supporters paint this as meaning David was innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Maggie posted at 2.14:

    …A jury heard all the evidence and found David Bain not guilty. That decision stands…

    You could have said the same after the first trial jury trial.

    Thanks to Portia at 1.40 for giving a link to the excellent von Beynen article. Von Beynen put his finger on it: why wouldn’t David Bain take the stand in his own defence in the second trial? Was David Bain afraid of cross-examination, and if so, why?

    Here’s Portia’s link again:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2518948/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @bhudson, given so many are whining here about how inaccurate jury trials are, why make them more complicated by introducing a third verdict? How would that possibly make them any more accurate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    The good Colonel Masters puts his finger on another crucial piece in his 2.19 post, the last message on the computer.

    Would a school teacher like Bain senior fail to use a capital letter and such sloppy grammar, even if he was upset?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Rod (236 comments) says:

    Somebody above was looking for this:
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2000/application-for-royal-prerogative-of-mercy-david-cullen-bain/documents/thorp-bain.pdf
    After reading that I would have thought the defense team’s strategy of going for compensation had a substantial amount of downside risk. I sincerely hope the motive is not just so folk other than DB can hope to get a cut … and no wonder DB has been planning a future life overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, no, we couldn’t have said the same about the first jury trial because the Privy Council ordered a retrial occur. If you want to be pedantic, I guess we’d say the the 2009 decision stands, at least until it is successfully appealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    @bhudson

    “And your experience illustrates why we should institute a ‘not proven’ verdict into our system. It is for just those situations described”

    Absolutely. I believe the Scottish courts have a ‘not proven’ verdict and it makes a lot of sense. I remember when the second Bain trial concluded and it was quite astounding the number of people who thought ‘not guilty’ = ‘innocent’ when it’s not necessarily the case. We do not know, and cannot ever know, what went on behind the closed doors of the jury and whether they thought he was innocent or just not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    That Stuff comment piece linked to in a comment above makes a very interesting read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    Oops, it was a Stuff comment piece, not NZ Herald…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    “Does it show the lack of stuff going on in their own lives?”

    And yet you’ve invested more time and energy in this thread spamming your drivel than anyone else.

    You don’t have anything interesting or constructive to add to the debate nor do you appear to be even remotely informed as to the facts of the case or the functionings of our legal system. Perhaps if it upsets you so much that people take an interest in such a high profile case you could try not opening this thread and subjecting us all to your worthless trolling and spam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Maybe David should write a book, he could call it “If I did it”..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Sonny Blount (1,829 comments) says:

    @Maggie, I agree and suspect the documentary makers aren’t dissimilar to so many commentators here. They seem entirely unable just to move on to other things! Does it show the lack of stuff going on in their own lives? Maybe they don’t have much to move on to?

    Well what is worthy of our interest and will show we have lives worthy of your approval? The quality of the foam on an over-priced latte? The weather? The rugby?

    Resorting to the ad-hominen as you have suggests that you feel you are losing this discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Actually, mjwilknz, I am not sure that I am the one with the problem. I have been around long enough and run enough cases to know that there is no sure fire result in litigation. That doesnt stop me having an ongoing interest when an exceptional case crops up. Nor does it stop me debating controversial points. Tell me, does your mantra include “Ellis was convicted – get over it? Watson was convicted – get over it?” Did you tell Pat Booth that Thomas was convicted – get over it? Maybe someone should have told Dougherty’s lawyer to lay off!
    It comes down to the fact that most people have a strong sense of justice/injustice (albeit with varying degrees of refinement) and when they see something other than a fair cop they like to know why. Of course there are always the assholes and bigots beating their own drums but they are seen for what they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    A question for the legal eagles: if David Bain has to prove himself innocent to get a huge handout from taxpayers, will he have to take the stand and be cross-examined? Does the Crown or whoever is on the other side have the power to require this?

    And why doesn’t David Bain instead of Karam front up to Laws etc, and why didn’t Bain front up to the TV documentary maker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz,

    I’m not claiming that juries get it wrong.

    I believe the absence of a ‘not proven’ verdict leaves no alternative but to find ‘not guilty’ (even though not guilty doesn’t actually mean 100% innocent) event though they actually believe the defendant is guilty but that ‘reasonable doubt’ cannot be proven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    So Bain will, eventually, join Thomas ?

    Why?
    The Privy Council found that the first jury was denied defence evidence on nine (9) specific and relevant issues.
    Consequence – Retrial
    Result – Not Guilty.

    Collins would have smarter to have let the matter drop. But then compensation would have been almost a given. Moreover, the “Sword and the Shield” (aka NZ Police bosses) in Wellington wanted a second chance.

    Now, all this debate over guilt or innocence is just rubbish. Pack it up and move on…. …

    But, before you do, remember the findings of the Royal Commission on Arthur Alan Thomas.

    Much was made of the role of retired NSW Justice Robert Taylor. He undoubtedly ensured that the “old chums club” was unable to skew the inquiry to suit their ends. But there were others who played a major role apart from Pat Booth, Yallop and Jim Sprott. (Isn’t there some similarity to Joe Karam’s role?) But to return to Thomas, two of the main players who have been overlooked were the other Members of the Royal Commission, Archbishop Allen Johnston (former Anglican Primate) and former Cabinet Minister, the Rt Hon Peter Gordon.

    Most commentators attribute the hard-hitting nature of the Commission’s report to Taylor. They may be right. But the Cromwell-like injunction and condemnation of the then Police hierarchy (and Hutton et al) in the published report did not emanate from Taylor. According to Peter Gordon the most critical words (He identified a particularly acerbic paragraph) were penned by Archbishop Johnston and adopted with full support from himself and Justice Taylor.

    The point of all this?

    To remind us that snafus happen.

    Bain D may be guilty. But the jury said not guilty.

    The Privy Council thought the first trial was flawed, ergo a second trial option. Ergo compensation for 13 years in prison.

    I say again: Let it go!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Flipper (2.43) says we should all let go of the Bain case. Two problems.

    1. David Bain and Karam are trying to hit up taxpayers for what will be millions of dollars in compensation.

    2. There is the unsettled matter of the grossly nasty smears against Robin Bain, the father.

    The aftermath of this appalling family slaughter has still to be settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Someone close to the Bain family thinks it’s time David Bain opened up on the tragedy and talked. It’s Robin Bain’s sister-in-law, presumably David Bain’s aunt.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/114426/039time-david-talked039-relative

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. chairman Carrott (5 comments) says:

    The way you put me on the stand like that, that was brilliant. The whole “act-like-a-man” thing. I knew what you wanted. It was like we were dancing, We did it, man. We did it. We’re a great team, you and me
    As I say “Primal Fear” without the insanity plee…… Brilliant acting by David

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Dexter, Nookin and Sonny; sorry, guys, I wasn’t attacking you, more just musing about a reason you seem unable to let it go. While I don’t feel like I’m losing this debate, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I’m certainly up against it, in terms of weight of numbers.

    @Nookin, unlike the Bain case, neither the Ellis nor the Watson case have gone to the Privy Council (yet, in the former’s case). In that sense, it’s hard to believe the legal systems have turned fully on those cases. As a lawyer, I think you’d agree that every man (and woman) is entitled to that happening. If the crown were to lodge an appeal on the Bain retrial, I would reconsider my “get over it” comments. Until such time as it does, though (and I’ve seen no suggestion it will), I think the comment stands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    It’s wonderful that people can so flippantly dismiss the fact that 5 people were clinically & brutally murdered without demanding that someone be held accountable.

    Should we also “get over”

    Chris & Crew Kahui?

    Harvey and Jeanette Crewe?

    Kirsty Bentley?

    Jennifer Beard?

    Ray Mills?

    Kirsa Jensen?

    Albert Anderson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @bhudson, a fair reply. What do you think a “not proven” verdict might mean in terms of the person getting on with life? Might they be prevented from travel or from certain roles in society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, a trial, an (eventually) successful appeal to the Privy Council and an acquittal at retrial is not a flippant dismissal! If it were, I’d hate to see the expense of what you’d deem an appropriate-followed investigative decision process.

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

    Now the next best step would be to talk to Robin himself and ask him what really happened…
    time to call in the sensing murder team… well its always good to get a different prospective…
    believe it or not seems to be the flavor off the whole case..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Are you dense?

    You come across as if we should let the matter drop entirely, to just forget the fact that 5 people are dead. Either David or Robin killed them, we owe it to them to find out who.

    I simply ask if you think we should also give up on other unsolved murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. bobberesford.com (12 comments) says:

    I was saying to David even prior to 2000 ( when Karam and co blew the chance offered by Clark Gov of a negotiated settlement ) that he’d win a case now based on the Reasonable Doubt criteria. There is simply too much doubt ( though that doesn’t make someone innocent ) to convict based on the conflicts of evidence and timing. David would at least have had to double back during his paper run – too unlikely to convict on – though that’s now surfaced as evidence.

    I always suspected a scenario more like Robin killing family – cleaning up and waiting for David at gate – and then David eventually shooting Robin. The police at the last trial actually offered that as a plea deal – if David admitted to killing father and even finishing off laniet then they’d drop the other charges. Defence declined.
    David could also have done the final shots that put Laniet out of her slow dying misery. She’d first been shot in a hurry – but kept breathing and ingesting blood. The defence has always said otherwise – they are wrong.
    In this final shot through the top of her head, a sheet or pillow was used to cover….never found. Both sides knew this at outset but never raised it at first trial – so vital info suppressed thanks to the Adversarial system. Should change to Inquisitorial.

    The shot to Robin was close contact – on or nearly touching – and lined up for max damage, passing through the brain. ….as had been the finishing shots on the children.
    Suicide with rifle was very simple, and often fingerprints are not left. Gun has been wiped at some point. The rifle demo in B Bruces doco was pretty silly. Before Robin’s shot, his hands were clean and rifle was wiped ( natural if he’d killed the others and cleaned up earlier.

    I suggested originally a position with Robin’s left foot on chair, butt on floor, right hand holds rifle and left reaches down to push trigger, possibly even with the spare cartridge . The defence obviously came round to my way of thinking there because they suggested something like that in the last trial. Robin probably die with his hand contracted on cartridge – then it was removed by cops -or even David – and placed on edge. Robin spasms as he falls back across the room and most of the blood on him is his own droplets – incl on his left hand. Droplets on curtains could match this – but also match David holding the gun from the other side – eg in an assisted suicide.
    If the cartridge placings are true then this is more likely because a Winchester rifle like that ejects back and to the right – which is how the last cartridge places…found in computer alcove beyond curtain. There were mis-fired cartridges on the living room floor ( the rifle had been jamming ever since the violent struggle with Steven ).
    Robin was an ex hunter ( and gun enthusiast ) ….could dispose and cover tracks in bushland at rear. possibly planning to die in innocence and denial. Though David could also dispose of things in a bin on the paper run.

    The message on computer has just printed wrongly on Kiwiblog. It’s sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay with the ‘you are…’ line on the line underneath and tabbed across to start just right of the comma.
    Talking to someone for years is much more revealing than just looking at them.
    For Compensation purposes , the powers that be could demand David speaks to support his case….they probably should.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz,

    As it is not a conviction it should not impede travel. For the same reason I would expect it would not require disclosure for job applications. (In high profile cases it is possible that the person may be obviously identified but the issue would be no different than a case where the person had been found not guilty but there was public doubt/controversy over the case.)

    That aside, they would likely be identified by many as obviously guilty but just lucky enough not to be proven as such. That would likely have an impact on how they were treated within society. Given that the jury would have weighed the evidence and reached that verdict, that is not an unfair outcome – after all, the ‘not proven’ is a clear “you are guilty but we just can’t quite prove it beyond reasonable doubt” verdict. (Again I would argue the same can apply to people found not guilty except in the publics’ eye.)

    Incidentally I do have faith that juries, properly directed, do get it right. (That does demand that judge does direct appropriately and correctly, however that it is the current demand on them – and, I believe, grounds for appeal if they get it wrong.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    mjwilknz: well I care, and really no justification is needed. I just do, I’m actually not entirely sure I know why. The case has long fascinated me. As a poster above pointed out, five people were killed and the person who did it may be walking free in part because Police didn’t do their job, and his scheme was just clever enough to raise doubt. I do not believe < 3 years jail time per murder is sufficient if that is what he did, so there is a sense of justice undone about this case. Yes, a lot of time and effort has been spent on this, but then one of the most serious crimes in NZ history occurred. It really matters, IMHO, that this is properly dealt with. That's true whether or not in your judgment I "have a life".

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Am I dense? Possibly! :-)

    No one’s suggesting this case wasn’t thoroughly investigated and the matter thoroughly argued before the courts. I think we’ve had a jolly good crack at trying o find out if anyone (alive) did the deed, but we haven’t succeeded.

    If an unsolved murder was actually unsolvable, do you think we should keep wasting time and money trying to solve it? Are you much good at flogging dead horses, ’cause I’m not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    Some times it is like talking to the Flat Earth Society.

    Read these extracts again Jack 5

    ….”The Privy Council found that the first jury was denied defence evidence on nine (9) specific and relevant issues.
    Consequence – Retrial
    Result – Not Guilty.”

    ….. ” Bain D may be guilty. But the [second] jury said not guilty.

    ” The Privy Council thought the first trial was flawed, ergo a second trial option. Ergo compensation for 13 years in prison.”

    In respect of another blogger …. There is NO crown option for appeal without permission of the Court of Appeal / the Supreme Court (and time for any such application has long since passed).

    But, come to think of it, it may be that the Privy Council had jurisdiction because of the date of the tragedy.
    I dont think Collins would have wanted to try again in that forum.

    If Bain D. gets compensation it will be because he lost 13 years of his life as a consequence of flawed procedure (notwithstanding the innocence or otherwise aspect).

    I say, yet again: Let it go!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    If someone you loved was murdered, would you want the Police to give up… EVER?

    Silly me, I thought justice was worth more than money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, quite frankly, yes. I would want the cops to have a jolly good crack at finding the scumbag who did it and, if they haven’t had any luck, after a time I’d want them to stop so everyone, and me in particular, could get on with their lives! Money doesn’t come into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (551 comments) says:

    For Bain to get compensation he would probably require some new evidence be introduced that would totally exonerate him from the crime. The level that one must reach for any compensation is a lot higher than just reasonable doubt. I don’t believe he would be able to reach that level based on the evidence at hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    do you think we should keep wasting time and money trying to solve it?

    Money doesn’t come into it.

    Well, what are you actually saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, sorry, that does look a little unclear of me. You asked me a question, would I personally want police to keep investigating the murder of a loved one? I answered, no, but added it wasn’t about the money. I asked you, effectively from society’s point of view, would you want to keep investigation going no matter the time and money. You might guess that my answer would be no to this one also. However, this time it would be about the money: I think society has bigger things to worry about than investigating cold cases.

    Does that clear things up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Razork

    “Then I watched the character assassination of Daryl Young the photocopier salesman. I disclose that Daryl is one of my best mates and I guy I trust 100%

    Like you DPF I struggled to understand the relevance of his testimony in the first place but putting that aside i was pissed off that my mate, who had nothing to gain, was destroyed without real opportunity to respond in such a manner.

    For me, it called into question some aspects of the rest of the documentary.”

    I have just watched the doco Raz, while I admire you defending a good mate it does look a lot like his evidence is highly debatable.
    I do not see it as a character assassination, more of a man in search of the truth, the shows presenter offered Young the chance to discuss his evidence yet he declined to do so, IMHO is Daryl Young’s character has been called into question then he has done so on the back of his own words and highly questionable testimony.

    For me the doco cleared up one or two issues, those who watched it cannot seriously think that the killer is anybody other than David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. voice of reason (491 comments) says:

    Big Bruv
    “….the shows presenter offered Young the chance to discuss his evidence yet he declined to do so, IMHO is Daryl Young’s character has been called into question then he has done so on the back of his own words and highly questionable testimony”

    BB – Daryl Young gave his sworn evidence in court – no doubt he was cross examined.
    Then 2 people rebutted his evidence on TV, they didn’t swear an oath, they werent cross examined, we dont know what was edited out of the show. Highly questionable regardless of who you believe. Nothing more than tabloid TV.
    In my view the presenters ethics / scruples are in question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. chairman Carrott (5 comments) says:

    @ BigBruv, I think any half intelligent person must come to the same conclusion from last nights Doco that David is the murderer…. Surely if Daryl Youngs testimony is so fabricated, untruthful and misleading, does that not warranty a mistrial based on the fact that the Jury heard evidence that was incorrect and in some way put doubt in there mind as to motive?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,667 comments) says:

    Who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @ mjwilknz

    Yes, but I think your sentiment is flawed. With this case in particular, you have only two suspects. I say lets forget the circumstantial & hearsay motive stuff, lets agree they could both have motive and look at what the physical evidence tells us. lets once and for all lay out all the evidence and come to a conclusion.

    As for society having bigger things to worry about, well I think Justice (not retribution) is a cornerstone of our society and cases like this erode that stone irreversibly, It is exactly theses cases (Kahui Twins etc.) which left unresolved only weaken our society.

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

    Having read the book David and Goliath written by joe Karam i was totally convinced that David was definantely wrongfully convicted.
    this doco was really well put together and now with the evidence pointed out to me last night i have done a polar shift……..am i a victim of a cunning journalist that has put a media spin on my thinking?

    Have i been blinded

    I too (like other bloggers) have had 15 years of not gulity, pro David Bain had i become a member of the “free the man club” ?

    I was confused when David Bain did not the stand in his own defence in the second trial. cross-examination may have threaten his window of freedom.
    The author put together some interesing points ….the lack of blood….the lack of finger prints……The sequencde of events of a mass murder and a man intent on suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    A corner stone of our society? Yeah right, Claron! Surely, a much bigger cornerstone is the right to a fair trial. Personally, I think we’re much more likely to weaken society if we muck with that cornerstone than if we muck with your “cornerstone” of finding a killer in every whodunnit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Voice

    “Highly questionable regardless of who you believe. Nothing more than tabloid TV.”

    Rubbish, the programme dealt with the facts, IMHO had the trial dealt with just the facts and not relied so heavily on hearsay evidence the verdict may well have been different (even allowing for the twelve morons who sat in judgement)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    You are dense!!!!

    I’m talking about finding the killer where we know it was one of two people!! David’s had his Fair Trial, What about Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Voice of reason, big bruv obviously believes everything he sees on TV. Best of luck with convincing him of reason; I tried, but failed, I think. Hope you can do better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Voice of reason:
    You are right about the simplified presentation and lack of testing (x-exam). You cannot, however, overlook the evidence of the document and the closed end of the van which contradict some of the facts asserted by Young. The doco raises questions. I have not seen Young’s evidence or cross-examination apart from what was on TV. Given the dubious worth of the evidence I would doubt the the prosecution spent that much time in rebuttal. We therefore have a credible contradiction of evidence called to prove a nebulous point. The jury may have bought it though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, no need to get nasty. Are you proposing we once again put David on trial, via a trial for Robin? Doesn’t sound like a fair trial at all.

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

    Where did Robin Bain supposedly shoot himself? through the temple?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. chairman Carrott (5 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz You obviously believe everything you see and here in a court of law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. chairman Carrott (5 comments) says:

    Whoops hear… predictive text

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Voice of Reason posted at 4.03:

    …BB – Daryl Young gave his sworn evidence in court – no doubt he was cross examined….

    According to the documentary, Young was a late witness for whom the Crown had no chance to prepare a decent cross-examination.

    If Young was rock solid, why didn’t he front up for the well-researched TV documentary?

    More to the point why didn’t David Bain front up for cross-examination in the second trial, or face up to the excellent questions on the TV documentary?

    Flipper at 3.32 posted:

    …” The Privy Council thought the first trial was flawed, ergo a second trial option. Ergo compensation for 13 years in prison.”…

    Flipper, you must be president of the Flat Earth Society you refer to. It’s been stated several times in posts that David Bain must prove his innocence to get compensation.

    Ergo (as you would put it), for compensation, think of a snowball thrown into Hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @chairman Carrott, I believe David Bain was (eventually) found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.! As Voice said, though, witnesses in a court are cross-examined, ‘witnesses’ on TV are not. I will believe evidence given in a court room over TV any day of the week!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    I’m proposing that we put the evidence on trial without a Defendant per se

    But now you mention it, I see nothing wrong with propping up Robins corpse in court & subpoena testimony from David. If it’s good enough for David to sit speechless in Court while his lawyers sling mud, It would be remiss to not extend the same courtesy to the man they tried to blame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz posted at 4.49:

    … will believe evidence given in a court room over TV any day of the week…

    The documentary included video clips from the trial, and video interviews with some who were not witnesses. I thought the copier salesman who contradicted the defence’s alleged salesman was particularly convincing. Similarly, still the photograph of the back of the van that Robin Bain supposedly stepped out of was convincing.

    As for mjwilknz’s comment that court witnesses are cross-examined, see the 4.44 post. The TVdocumentary said or implied the evidence of Young was brought into the trial at a late stage without the Crown being able to fully prepare cross-examination.

    This was an excellently researched programme. It was solidly presented and led by a former cop who has done first-class TV features on other NZ crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, like I said, mucking with the right to a fair trial sounds a fantastic way to weaken our society. The right to silence is almost as old as jury trials!

    Both you and Jack5 could learn up on the foundations of our legal system. Such things were not won easily, nor should be given up lightly!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. glubbster (345 comments) says:

    flipper, compensation is not about whether he lost 13 years of his life, its whether he can prove/show on balance he was not-guilty. That is a much higher standard than reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz;

    It’s called sarcasm, dolt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (329 comments) says:

    “I’m talking about finding the killer where we know it was one of two people!!”

    Why has a third party always been ruled out of all consideration?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Re mjwilnz at 4.58:

    No-one said David Bain should be forced to give evidence or forced to offer himself for cross-examination.

    We just questioned why a person whose whole family had been massacred and he had been accused of the crime, could possibly choose to remain silent, not only in the trial but in the post-trial discussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, my apologies. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t really work on these chats. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @Puzzled in Ekatahuna;

    [Judge]Pankhurst said; its either Robin or David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, I was pointing out that an accused remaining silent reveals nothing about his guilt or innocence. What possible upside there’d be for David Bain from talking to the media, I don’t know. He’s not about to convince any of you jokers he’s innocent, is he? Your minds are already well and truly made up, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (329 comments) says:

    ciaron – ‘[Judge]Pankhurst said; its either Robin or David.”

    Did he give any reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz posted at 5.08:

    …I was pointing out that an accused remaining silent reveals nothing about his guilt or innocence

    Perhaps remaining silent means you avoid providing evidence about your guilt or otherwise. Whether or not the Judge were to instruct the jury to ignore this, you can bet rational people will take it into consideration. There obviously can be reasons for silence, such as not wishing to implicate others, and lawyers may elaborate for us.

    But why would David Bain choose silence? If it was to enhance his chances of being found not guilty, fine, but how? What could he have said that would have damned him? And why does his silence continue now that the jury has reached its decision?

    If David Bain thinks he is entitled to millions in compensation taxpayers are entitled to hear why and to hear why from his mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz;
    Yes, but veiled in that sarcasm was the very real assertion that if we are to continue along the premise that David is innocent, should not Robin also be entitled to a defense, especially as the evidence is not overwhelmingly in this direction?, would that not also be fair?

    There should be a result in this one, and like the Kahui case, it’s really disgusting that there isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, “But why would David Bain choose silence?”

    How about because there’s no possible upside since so many have already their minds made up? Sounds pretty good to me. :-)

    If you mean to ask David if he’s being truthful and fair, you should ask that question of yourself, first!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Sarkozygroupie (188 comments) says:

    @bhudson, given so many are whining here about how inaccurate jury trials are, why make them more complicated by introducing a third verdict? How would that possibly make them any more accurate?
    (Comment by mjwilknz)

    Having been a juror on a rape case last year, I would dearly have loved the option of the verdict of “not proven”. In all honesty I could not find the defendant guilty because I was not convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that statutory rape had been committed. However, I am convinced that some kind of (and I suggest criminal) behaviour did occur, and I don’t believe for a second the defendant was innocent.

    The majority of the jury felt equally comfortable in not finding the defendant guilty as charged because we could not find “beyond reasonable doubt”, and equally uncomfortable because we were (except one) convinced the defendant was guilty of something, possibly even the charge of rape. The Prosecution, however, was unable to prove it beyond doubt.

    The amount of very skilled game playing that went on by defence was interesting to watch, to say the least. The actions of four jurors were suspect in how they came to their conclusions. Put simply, they did not use an analytical process to assess information to hand. One was so confused they thought the trial had ended on the first day and was about to pop off home. Two males said the complainant was ugly and fat so made light of the evidence that she had been attacked, one female thought the girl was lying because she reckoned she ‘smirked’ at one point. The fact that the defendant and this particular juror were of the same colour, and the complainant wasn’t seemed also to have some bearing on views being formed.

    The experience of being on a trial juror in the High Court only cemented my view that, at least in some situations, we would do very well and justice might actually be served, if NZ employed an Inquisitorial system. It also made me fervently hope I never find myself in front of a jury, because the calibre of the one I was on, the way the adversarial system works, and the fact they we are limited to either find “guilty” or “not guilty” left me in no doubt, that at least the outcomes of some jury trials, are a hit and miss affair.

    By the way, I’m quite convinced David Bain is the murderder. And mjwilknz, you should care, otherwise such a laisez-faire approach to significant societal issues just belies a dismissive and lazy intellect. Perhaps you should read Lord of the Flies as your 101 course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, I agree with you in that it’s a tough thing when many people believe in the phrase, of the dead, speak no ill! I myself find some solace in it. However, the living cannot be forever beholden to the dead.

    There must come a time when there’s nothing left, but to move on. I for one feel that time has now been reached.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    To my question, why would David Bain choose silence, mjwilknz replied at 5.20:

    …How about because there’s no possible upside since so many have already their minds made up?

    So it’s all our fault. David Bain won’t talk to us because we already have our minds made up. Perhaps our minds wouldn’t have been “made up” if he had talked at his second trial and had talked to the excellent TV documentary.

    Your answer, mjwilknz, seems pretty circular logic to me.

    If David Bain wants to hold his hand out seeking taxpayer money, let him speak openly in public to a good questioner like the ex-cop who made last night’s TV documentary, and without refusing to answer questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. voice of reason (491 comments) says:

    “Big Bruv
    Rubbish, the programme dealt with the facts, IMHO had the trial dealt with just the facts and not relied so heavily on hearsay evidence the verdict may well have been different (even allowing for the twelve morons who sat in judgement)”

    Well thats the problem ‘init’ – who says the “FACTS” are as presented on TV last night.
    All we get is another slant on a particular story.
    Young claims he “Sold” the Photocopier – the other bloke says he did.
    Young admits the other blokes name was on the sales invoice, but says that isnt unusual.
    But that “fact” does not mean that Young did not visit Bain’s van as he claims he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    “since so many have already their minds made up”

    Like you mjwilknz?

    Despite overwhelming evidence you still think that the killer was Robin Bain.

    Tell me, do you still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Re Voice of Reason’s 5.32 post…

    What about the walled off back of the van that Young said Robin Bain stepped out of? What about the teacher’s evidence, and she remembered well because it was her last day at that school?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sarkozygroupie, sorry, for my clarification, you mean an Inquisitorial system in the Spanish sense of the word?

    I do not believe I am dismissive or lazy. In fact, I question the rigour of many on here. The question for them seems to be, did David Bain do it? That is, it does not appear to be, did David Bain do it beyond a reasonable doubt? The latter is much harder to argue over here. It would probably be a lot easier to go with the flow and decide David Bain is guilty because so many others on here have decided it so.

    Finally, I have read Lord of the Flies. It is because I believe our society is principled (in not finding an accused guilty unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt) that I believe our society is above that in Lord of the Flies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. voice of reason (491 comments) says:

    “Re Voice of Reason’s 5.32 post…

    What about the walled off back of the van that Young said Robin Bain stepped out of? What about the teacher’s evidence, and she remembered well because it was her last day at that school?”

    Sure on the face of it I agree the testimony is not solid. Particularly when recalled 13 odd years later.

    But imagine this – Its 1994, Young visits the van – knocks on the side drivers door – he cant see that the van has another side sliding door. Robin Bain gets out of that side door and walks around the back of the Van and to see who is there. To Young it would appear that Bain got out of the Back Door.

    Now recall that 13 years later – and you are bound to get it wrong, having replayed it over in your mind many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz;

    the living cannot be forever beholden to the dead

    I believe you can when you’re using them to leverage a payout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, “sigh”, I have never made any statements about who did it. All I have (repeatedly) said was that the crown did not prove it was David Bain beyond a reasonable doubt in our justice system. I offer no opinions on the whodunnit beyond that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    The judge said that it had to be either David or Robin, now given that you keep coming back to what happened in the court room then it follows that you must agree with the judge.

    So mjwilknz, if it was not Robin, who is the killer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Sarkozygroupie (188 comments) says:

    mjwilknz

    The Spanish Inquisition and the French (or other countries) inquisitorial system are tow entirely different subjects.

    An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

    The Spanish Inquisition (1400′s-1800′s) was introduced, and intended by the Spanish monarchs (Ferdinand and Isabella) to retain Catholic orthodoxy, and wrench control from the papists who had control of the medieval inquistion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, as said, I for one think the time for the living to be beholden to the dead in this case has now passed. Others may disagree and are welcome to. I note that few are predicting David Bain will be successful in his compensation claim, but it’s his decision to pursue it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz at 5.56:

    …I for one think the time for the living to be beholden to the dead in this case has now passed…

    1. Not when five people have been murdered and one of them besmeared in the ensuing murder trial.
    2. Not when the taxpaying core of 4,369,116 New Zealanders are being asked for a payout related to the ensuing trial for the crime.

    Dunedinites will be talking about this crime a century from now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Sarkozygroupie, ah, please forgive my ignorance (I’m not a lawyer), but I was unfamiliar with an inquisitorial system, in the legal sense of the word, only the historical sense. Under an inquisitorial system, what role have the police? You don’t think our justice system has a better separation of powers?

    Since I take it you’ve read the Lord of the Flies, I imagine you’re familiar with the beneficial effects of a proper separation of powers. Would you fill me in on why that’s not a concern with your alternative judicial system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    My goodness Jack 5. Are you ill, or was it your lunch?
    Or are you descended from the French knitting needle brigade?

    So, shall we see what the test (?) is before jumping up and down ?

    I suggest pou read the following CAREFULLY before jumping to conclusions
    ++++++++++++++

    On 20 April, 2010 it was announced as follows (source Google) –

    Justice Minister Simon Power has written to the lawyers representing David Bain in response to a claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

    Mr Bain was convicted in 1995 of murdering five members of his family in Dunedin. In 2007 the Privy Council quashed his convictions on the grounds of a substantial miscarriage of justice and ordered a retrial. In June 2009 he was found not guilty at a retrial.

    Mr Bain’s lawyers wrote to Mr Power on 25 March notifying him of a claim for compensation. They wrote a second letter on 9 April regarding the process for their claim.

    Under Cabinet guidelines adopted in 1998, the category of claimants who are eligible for compensation is limited to those who have had their convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial, or who have received a free pardon. To receive compensation eligible claimants must establish their innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    However, at the same time as adopting those guidelines, Cabinet decided the Crown should have residual discretion to consider claims falling outside the guidelines in “extraordinary circumstances” where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

    “Mr Bain’s claim falls outside the guidelines because he was acquitted following a retrial. However, it is open to him to meet the extraordinary circumstances test,” Mr Power said.

    Claims under the Crown’s residual discretion are assessed on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, and consistent with the Cabinet guidelines applying to eligible claimants, a claimant must establish innocence on the balance of probabilities. But for claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines something more is required that demonstrates that the circumstances are extraordinary.

    “I have instructed officials to work with Mr Bain’s lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of Mr Bain’s claim.”

    ENDS
    ++++++++++++

    One assumes that Michael Reed QC is confident he can meet the test(s) or he would not be proceeding. There is so much baggage associated with this case that a succesful bid is far from impossible.

    The start point, you may assume, is 13 years in prison based on a flawed process.

    For a basic understanding of the issues, go to the Privy Council’s web site and read the full version of their decision. The New Zealand judiciary and our system does not emerge with flying colours.

    Moreover, now we have had an Op Ed TV programme that purports to examine Robin Bain’s liability (Which is to say: The 2nd jury got it wrong).

    Further we now have a rabid pack setting out to cast aside due process and to re-try Bain D on thir terms. Moreover, all of this is supposedly in support of the ” Bain family”.

    To repeat -

    Am I saying he (Baiin D) did NOT commit the murders? – NO.
    Did the first jury get it right? – I dont know, but the Privy Council says there was a “substantial miscarriage of justice”
    Did the 2nd jury get it right? I dont know, but they did hear ALL the evidence.
    Am I saying he should receive compensation? No opinion.
    Will the rabid dogs prevail? No, he will receive fair consideration in spite of efforts to the contrary, as demonstrated by some writing here.

    Good evening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, sorry, I’m not sure I get your point. Do you propose when such time would have passed? You feel we need longer than the time taken by an initial trial, a 13 year jail term, an appeal to the Privy Council and a subsequent retrial? If so, how much longer?

    Surely there comes a day when we let bygones be bygones. When do you think it is? You’re not the sort that holds grudges forever after, are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @big bruv, sorry for the slow reply. Quite frankly, I don’t care who WAS actually the killer. All I care about was that it wasn’t proven to be David Bain beyond a reasonable doubt! For petes sake, man, it doesn’t matter whodunnit, all that matters is was proven to have done it beyond a reasonable doubt?!

    You can fuss about whodunnit ’til the cows come home, if you like; you can read David Bain books by notable journalists, do all the research, go back and talk to any witnesses you find, go for your life. People will be wonder what’s gotten into you, but, if that’s the way you want to live your life, go for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Zapper (843 comments) says:

    mjwilknz said “who cares”…..

    then made a subsequent 100 or so posts….hmm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    I watched the programme and all I can say is our justice system is sicker than a mad cow on phool’s bad acid climbing an apple tree.
    Hey judge got a spare hammer on the head you twisted turnip!
    Our justice system is beyond hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Zapper (843 comments) says:

    mjwilknz: please forgive my ignorance

    Don’t worry mate, I forgave it hours ago

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Zapper, a fair comment. I guess the 100 or so posts are because I care about the argument. (I might not have learnt a little about inquisitorial justice systems had I not done all these posts.) I do not care if David Bain was the killer, all I care about is was it him beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Anyway, a fair enough comment. I had less that 200 Kiwiblog comments to my name at the beginning of the day. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    I wonder if the keystone cops give Mr Bain a gun license?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Chuck Bird (4,402 comments) says:

    Those keen on the debate should watch Close Up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    I wonder if Joe Karam will go duck shooting with Mr Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Who is on Chuck?

    I normally avoid that pathetic programme like the plague.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Caleb (465 comments) says:

    i feel for robins family, the brother seems very considered, just asking david to talk about what happened.

    pity robin cant be defended, not even in a doco…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    I wonder if Justice P has any braincells?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    The time will have passed when we know whodid it.

    or petes sake, man, it doesn’t matter whodunnit
    Tell that to Margaret, Arawa, Laniet & Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    Hey I will not allow an innocent dad to be fucked up the arse by a bent justice system. It hurts real bad I can assure you.
    Justice must be administered correctly your honourable twit judge.
    Dedicated to the Tony, Dave and Team.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Claron, you seem awfully confident there is some way we’ll find out whodunnit! I can’t see what makes you so, but I wish you the best of luck for finding out soon.

    @Dad4justice, if you’re honestly for justice, I take it you’d be uncomfortable about us convicting an innocent man. Or are you actually Dad4revenge, in disguise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    “I take it you’d be uncomfortable about us convicting an innocent man”

    Do a seven-day stint in the round room cell at Pap Prison as a falsely accused father then get back to me boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    The truth will out……. Sooner or later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. American Gardener (554 comments) says:

    “The truth will out……. Sooner or later.” – no it won’t unless the one man who knows the truth decides to tell it. Meanwhile Robin Bain , a father who did his best with a crazy wife, rests under a cloud. I am not surprised his family is pissed off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Dad4justice, for better or for worse I don’t have any comparable experiences, at all. Since it sounds like you have, though, are you not uncomfortable about others serving time while having been <b<potentially falsely accused?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    “potentially falsely accused?”

    Ask the screws how many prisoners I visit a year who I believe are totally innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    How about his lawyer on close up: “We proved it’s lies on TV3, we’re gonna sue, ra ra ra”
    Contrast Robin’s brother & sister: we just have a couple of questions for David……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    No, I take it. Well, I care and I have less faith that our justice system is 100% accurate. What should we do when it gets things wrong? Maybe, as you appear to suggest, we should do nothing because prisoners are never totally innocent? Call me idealised, but I have higher expectations that we should do our best to get things right than that!

    I don’t pretend for a moment we live in some perfect world, but I don’t see that as an excuse for not continually trying to do things better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    I watched that ciaron, Reed did not offer anything to counter the case put in last nights doco, as with Karam he is seeking to shut down debate by using bluster and bullying tactics.

    I did think it was incredibly brave of Reed to offer a full independent enquiry though, surely he must know that a true independent enquiry would show that David Bain is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    ciaron, bb, I watched it too.

    A lot of gruff posturing. He must have said “absolute rubbish” more than half a dozen times, but saying something with force doesn’t make it so. He offered no answer to the allegations. I don’t know why they won’t let David answer. It seems to be a no-go area in the trial and now. He was right in one respect – if David lied then he’s going to lie now as well. But maybe he isn’t a very good liar – maybe they’d need the real-life Lie To Me guys to have a look at the video for reactions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    they won’t let David answer because apparently, he’s already said it all.

    Anyone see the bit on TV3 where the new evidence was “destroyed”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Lol…destroyed by that sickly liberal John Campbell?

    The same John Campbell who stuck his tongue down David Bain’s throat the moment he walked out of the doors at the Christchurch courthouse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Pass Bruv. But in my experience, threats like that only come from those who have something to hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Flipper at 6.07 posted:

    …Did the 2nd jury get it right? I dont know, but they did hear ALL the evidence.

    No they didn’t. They didn’t hear the evidence of the copier salesman who actually made the sale to robin Bain.

    They didn’t hear the schoolteacher whose last day at the school was when the copier was sold.

    They didn’t hear the hearsay evidence of some of the elder Bain daughter’s friends as to what was allegedly going on before the shooting.

    Above all, they didn’t hear David Bain giving evidence and being cross-examined.

    Flipper also posted at 6.07:

    ..will the rabid dogs prevail

    An unwise choice of words, I think, when you are talking about a family massacre.

    And mjwilknz posted at 6.15:

    Surely there comes a day when we let bygones be bygones.

    Mjwilknz, we’re talking about mass murder, not throwing lawn clippings over the fence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Grizz (476 comments) says:

    I think the evidence of the copier salesman is oversold. The documentary explained very clearly in the first part that the physical evidence could not have placed Robin Bain as the murderer. A motive just asks why. Just because you are capable or have the motive to commit a crime it does not mean you carried it out.

    That Clown Reed rubbished the new evidence of the Photocopier salesman. So what. It does nothing to link Robin to the Physical Evidence at the Crime scene. He had no counter argument to the interpretation of the physical evidence at the crime scene. This I feel was the biggest revalation of the programme. Reed just tried to divert attention over more trivial evidence of photocopier salesmen. I have always felt the Defence’s presentation of the physical evidence linking Robin to the Crime scene was weak and the argument put forward against Robin being the murderer was far more probable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, sorry, have to disagree with you there. It may have been murder, but as you seem to remarkably, yet consistently, fail to realise, the crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that David Bain that did it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz (9.45)…

    Surely you aren’t saying regardless of whether David Bain “did it”, the Crown couldn’t prove it a second time, and so it’s time to move on and let matters lie?

    What about all the gross accusations against the dead Robin Bain? David Bain’s lawyer continued the smearing of Robin Bain on TV tonight, calling him smelly and dirty in his last months.

    Above all, What about the money? Our money? Just shell out and shut up. Is that your position? Well to hell with that.

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

    What I find astonishing is that David has requested the exhibits used at his trial and re-trial. In other words, he wants the rifle returned to him. Hmmmm. He claims to be innocent but wants the gun that killed 5 members of his family. If I were in his shoes, I would not want to have anything to do with that damned gun.

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

    >…Did the 2nd jury get it right? I dont know, but they did hear ALL the evidence.

    Wrong. Suppressed was evidence from two high school friends that David told them in 1989 how he could rape a woman jogger and use his paper round as an alibi, by arriving at the usual time at some houses where he was often seen, but delivering to other houses much earlier. Evidence was also suppressed from a friend of Arawa Bain that David Bain had been intimidating the family with his gun, which was used in the murders.

    I wonder what effect this suppressed evidence might have had on the jury’s verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    Ross@ 10 19 It was a goddam .22 rifle with a silencer, a gun as you should know is very hard to quieten as it has a large smooth bore, ( thats the hole you look at just before you get ventilated), makes a very loud noise and is very damaging. A gun normally makes very big holes either with a heap of pellets at short range or with a solid projectile at longer ranges.
    There is so much ignorance about different weapons from people who love to advance their opinions on them.
    The media reported the other day a Hawkes Bay man had to have “bullet fragments” removed from his face I will bet a weeks pension that they were pellets from a shotty not bullet fragments from a rifle.
    Now back to Origin 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Well, Ross, the evidence was ruled inadmissible by, I think, the Supreme Court, who had a lot more information on it than we do, as well as the benefit of legal argument. This is not the court trying to twist the balance in David Bain’s favour.

    And don’t forget that the highly relevant allegations re Robin and Laniet were ‘suppressed’ by the trial judge in the first trial. That was the one the Privy Council said was a miscarriage of justice.

    I don’t care whether Bain is innocent or guilty, but I do care that a trial should be fairly run, and the first one was not. Only the second jury got the maximum amount of admissible evidence. The evidence you referred to, while interesting, does not go to show that Bain committed these murders, and nay have been considered unreliable, which also makes it inadmissible.

    Either way, we are simply second-guessing the judges who had far more information than we had, plus the Crown legal team to oppose the defence objection.

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

    F E Smith,

    You miss the point: the claim was made that the jury heard all of the evidence. That is clearly incorrect.

    You imply that the second trial was fairly run while the first trial was apparently unfair because evidence was suppressed. I don’t understand your logic – the second trial also saw highly relevant evidence suppressed. You’re sounding like a defence lawyer:)

    The evidence about Laniet’s alleged incestuous relationship with Robin proves nothing. As Bryan Bruce showed, Laniet’s claims about having a baby were highly dubious. There is no reason to think that her claim re incest is any more sound. Even if there was such a relationship, where is the motive for murder?

    You’ll no doubt be aware that Dean Cottle again failed to show up in court to testify. He was the guy who also failed to front up at Bain’s first trial and whose evidence you seem to place a lot of weight on. I would regard his evidence as totally unreliable – crucially the prosecution was unable to cross-examine him because he refused to appear, though a statement he had made was admitted. That’s unsatisfactory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    @F E Smith

    You refer to “The evidence you referred to, while interesting, does not go to show that Bain committed these murders, and nay have been considered unreliable, which also makes it inadmissible.”

    The suppressed evidence was ” from two high school friends that David told them in 1989 how he could rape a woman jogger and use his paper round as an alibi, by arriving at the usual time at some houses where he was often seen, but delivering to other houses much earlier. Evidence was also suppressed from a friend of Arawa Bain that David Bain had been intimidating the family with his gun, which was used in the murders.”

    While the rape and alibi may have been idle schoolboy talk, it does show that he knew how to provide himself with an alibi and is highly relevant. As is evidence that he had been intimidating his family with his gun.

    This evidence is no more or less reliable than that which was used to supposedly provide Robin with a motive. However, it *should* have been subject to cross-examination in the trial for the trial to be considered fair and balanced.

    Although I have earlier stated here that I think David did it, I should re-phrase that I think David killed Robin. Robin may well have killed some or all of the others. I find the lack of forensic evidence on the weapon make it impossible to prove that he killed himself, and on the contrary make it extremely unlikely he did. And on the other side of the argument, the forensic evidence available makes it almost impossible to prove it was David either.

    So we are left with evidence supplied in court under cross examination from witnesses. And this makes all evidence available from all sources highly relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3895556/Complaint-laid-over-Bain-juror

    The more this case is exposed the more it stinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Ross, the jury heard all of the admissible evidence. That us not that they heard all of the potential evidence. No jury ever hears all of the potential evidence, trials would take far to long and juries would often be sidetracked by irrelevant evidence. That is why the Evidence Act defines what evidence is admissible.

    But just think, the first jury heard no contradictory forensic evidence, while the second one heard from experts from around the world. It is a fact that the first defence team was severely limited in the scope of the defence they were able to present. In that respect, the second trial was much fairer. What you are arguing for is collateral evidence, designed not to prove any fact but instead to show an inclination or potential for offending on the part of the accused. There are strong and historic reasons for not admitting that sort of evidence.

    The first Bain trial WAS unfair. I have no doubt about that. The amount and quality of evidence presented by both sides in the second trial was far superior. In that respect, any opinion based on the first trial jury decision is flawed.

    The arguments over the jury conclusion in the second trial is definitely open to debate, as is any verdict. Don’t forget that A A Thomas was found guilty twice before his innocence was accepted. Debate is normal, but this trial involved highly skilled lawyers on BOTH sides, and a huge number of man hours by the police- far more than any the defence could muster. I think the Crown got a very fair hearing and did a good job with what they had. I also think the defence did a good job of raising a reasonable doubt.

    I don’t see the problem, to be honest. Innocent people do go to gaol, guilty people do get off. It happens. No human based justice system is perfect and we shouldn’t expect it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Stephen fought desperately for his life.
    Robin had some old grazes on his hands.
    David had scratches and bruises (if memory serves) which he could not explain.

    I just can’t get past things like this to the point where I can even consider the possibility that Robin was anything other than a victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Bruv, that juror was entitled to serve on the jury and was under no obligation to disclose anything. Legally there is no issue with that point- it is a red herring.

    More interestingly, the complaint about the hearsay evidence by Robin Bain’s brother (which he has made before) are amusing as the law change that allowed that evidence in was made over the objections of defence lawyers, as we saw (and see) it as being primarily to aid prosecutions. It is amusingas when it is used by the defence, suddenly it is unfair. When used by the Crown, however, it appears to be fine. After all, the arguments on this thread are contrary to what Michael Bain is calling for!

    It just seems to me that NZers would prefer to have criminal trials weighted in favour of the prosecuting party and are willing to amend the law regularly to achieve that. It should not be that way. The justice system is supposed to be impartial, deciding only on the evidence.

    But perhaps I am a bit idealistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    The fellow who gave David Bain a computer is interesting, but I am afraid most of the pro-David argument hinges on “he couldn’t have doubled back on his paper run”. That’s pretty threadbare – he’s a tall guy with long legs and knew the route well, and had all the time in the world if he wanted to kill his family.

    The rest of the arguments surrounding “well Robin could have done this or could have done that”. If you want to create reasonable doubt, then that may have some validity, although most of that is far-fetched too in my opinion. Unfortunately for David, we are no longer discussing reasonable doubt, we are discussing whether he actually did it. And the amount of things one has to believe for him not to have done it is flat-earth stuff. Well yes, Robin could have done the fandango in a tutu, and that would have made him the killer. But sorry, no evidence for it. All the evidence, reasonable doubt or not, points towards David. That has always been his problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    I’m with Big Bruv and all the other “course the fucker did it, why should he get any taxpayer money” comments on this thread.
    But in response to the question posed much much earlier on this thread about why should we still care? Well, maybe cos 5 people were brutally murdered. One of whom, an innocent 14 year old boy, fought ferociously for a life that was taken from him. And another, a beautiful, charismatic young woman with whom I had the privilege to pay netball in 1994, was on her knees begging for her life.
    If that’s not enough for us to care then I don’t know what would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Christopher Thomson (374 comments) says:

    I live near Christchurch and have served on a jury. The case I heard was so obvious but to have to sit through some moronic chatter listening to some of the others trying to decide if the case had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt was mind-numbing. They had no idea.

    Reading what is said here about the case not being proved is a smoke-screen. The Bain jury were incompetent and too easily swayed by their own attitudes and the ploys of the defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Perhaps it would have been preferable to get a jury from Australia, as most people eligible to serve would have had at least some exposure to the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    Perhaps it would have been preferable to get a jury from Australia,

    If that happened I’m sure some investigator/book writer/journalist would discover one of the jurors had criminal ancestors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @John5, yes, that is my position! To hell with it, huh? Chill out, man! If you can’t handle someone tacking a different view to you, maybe it’s best not to get involved with chats on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    mjwilknz, I personally respect your different take on things (even though I believe the evidence supporting Robin being the killer is so weak as to be laughable). But I objected to you asking why we should care. Do you now agree that 5 dead people is a reason to care?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Atheist1 and ciaron, you guys just don’t get it, do you. It wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that David Bain did it.

    You can yell and scream about how terrible it was – and I do not disagree with you – all you want. That won’t bring Margaret, Arawa, Laniet, Stephen or Robin back. Getting “revenge” on someone – anyone – won’t either!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Atheist1, sorry, I should clarify the “why should we care” statement. I think we should care absolutely that 5 people were murdered. I do not think we should care that it wasn’t proven (to that old chestnut, beyond a reasonable doubt) who the killer was.

    Like I said, even if we found out who did it, that won’t bring the 5 murdered people back. All that’s left is to learn the lessons and let people get on with their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    True enough, it won’t bring them back. But I think a lot of people care because they were disgusted by the celebrity status afforded to the person who (IN MY OPINION!!) killed them, and then to have that same person seeking compensation…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. bobberesford.com (12 comments) says:

    To anyone reading who’s actually interested in facts……..more puzzlement – David’s white opera gloves , damaged and soaked in blood had been thrown back under the bed in Steven’s room – where they were found. The gun had misfired there – marked bullets found on carpet. Finger nail scrapings were taken from David – who was clean, and Robin – who had what the CSR Auckland ( commissioned by police ) called Possible traces of blood under his dirty nails. Could be read as ‘having traces of blood’, I feel. Large recent bruise on back of his right hand.
    The original lawyer – Michael Guest – only called 3 witnesses, but apparently ( so David told me ) got about 140 grand in legal aid for the case. I’ve talked to him about the case and there were key aspects to it he was clueless on and hadn’t thought properly into. His strategy was clearly to just impress the jury with certain points…eg the fact that the police armourer had measured the gun wrongly ( embarassing in court ). Guest was later struck off the register for misleading an old woman client over legal aid. He’s now a Dunedin councillor, and apparently responsible for raising the parking fines.
    He was actually friendly with Milton Weir. Detective Weir was ‘very knowledgeable’ on the Dunedin prostitution scene and Laniet worked as a prostitute ( perhaps triggered by the abuse ? ) under the name of Paige . So Weir may well have recognised the name before he even arrived at the house ? There is much evidence about Laniet’s incest situation . Robin to some degree appears to have led a double life…..but then it’s possible David did in some way.
    Current defence team have received a small fortune in legal aid. Being a defence lawyer is very profitable for people like Michael Reed, Mr King, Mrs Hedgehog-Kerr….Barry Hart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    if that comment is directed at me Bob I am completely familiar with the facts, having read everything I can lay my hands on including the entire trial transcript from the first trial. You can obscure the issues as much as you like but for me the key is the lack of Stephen’s blood on Robin and the lack of Robin’s blood on the gun. Explain those 2 points away to me in a believable way and I might change my mind. Until then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Atheist1, celebrity status? You’re kidding, right? The poor bloke won’t be able to go anywhere, in this country at least, without being recognised, without comments being made. If you guys don’t like him, don’t forget what his life will be like now, even though he’s not in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    what a load of bollocks! Have you forgotten Wendy Petrie punching the air in joy? And I’m guessing you don’t read trashy women’s magazines (well neither do I :) but every time the guy moves they are in there with a front page article!)

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

    @atheist1 “..You can obscure the issues as much as you like but for me the key is the lack of Stephen’s blood on Robin and the lack of Robin’s blood on the gun.”

    I agree. Unless something can explain this, the Holmes imperative applies – because the case against Robin remains a near-impossibility. The Bain defence has done its utmost to distract attention away from the fight in Stephen’s room.

    My experience of juries, both personally and from descriptions by friends, leaves me with no faith at all in our jury system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    FE Smith posted at 9.22:

    …that juror was entitled to serve on the jury and was under no obligation to disclose anything. Legally there is no issue with that point- it is a red herring…

    This was one of the jurors who also partied with the Bain defence team after the trial, and hugged David Bain at the end of the trial, according to the von Beynen report in today’s Christchurch Press. Von Beynen (who I understand is also, like FE Smith, a lawyer) says the police usually vet jury lists to ensure people “with a possible bias against the authorities are not included on juries”. Von Beynen also says the woman was convicted under her maiden name for the offence, which was stealing $6000 from her employer, but after that changed her name twice by deed poll and has married a second time.

    Von Beynen also writes that the Press had been told she wanted to be jury foreman, but was unsuccessful.

    So her inclusion in the jury may have been legal, but was her it right and just?

    FE Smith also posted:

    …Innocent people do go to gaol, guilty people do get off. It happens. No human based justice system is perfect and we shouldn’t expect it…

    But it also happens that public action sometimes corrects the legal system, as apparently in the Arthur Allan Thomas case. So the present outcry led by Robin Thomas’s family is just of this broader process, isn’t it?

    FE Smith also posted:

    …It just seems to me that NZers would prefer to have criminal trials weighted in favour of the prosecuting party …

    From his wide experience, that may be true. However, I think in the Bain murders, many people are upset by the defence’s blackening of the character of the father, Robin Bain, and feel this is untrue, unfair, and unjust. There was no-one to defend his reputation.

    Is this part of a broader problem that FE Smith may be able to enlighten us on? Is it true than in NZ you cannot libel the dead? Is there no legal restriction on defamation of the dead? And could Robin Bain’s siblings and families have appointed a counsel to appear in the trials with power to defend his character and reputation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz posted at 11.31:

    …If you guys don’t like him, don’t forget what his life will be like now, even though he’s not in jail…

    If David Bain wasn’t the killer that is tough. Agreed. However, those who doubt his innocence will be thinking David Bain’s life, with trips to Europe etc, is a lot better than the fate of his brave young brother and two sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    Jack5 – totally mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Libelling the dead?
    I seem to think that there was a case in the early 1900s when a family, knowing that they could not sue on behalf on a dead person, turning the books on the defamer and published some very derogatory articles, forcing the defamer to take action (which he lost) and so the dead man’s rep was vindicated. I will look deeper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. flipper (3,268 comments) says:

    After more than 24 hours, the debate (would that the rules applied) continues.

    F E Smith, mjwsilknz and bobberesford have made interesting, constructive and essentially non judgemental contributions.

    I am intrigued by Atheist1 who stated …. ” I am completely familiar with the facts”. Really!
    Then there is the group including the learned Jack5, Ross and a few others.

    Perhaps their trouble is that they read only the transcript of the first trial – a trial that was found to be “a substantial miscarriage of justice.”

    So, folks, if you are really interested in a balanced view please read the full transcript of the Privy Council’s decision. But I note however, that by your apparent standards, the PC was clearly “in the pay of the defence”.

    If there is anyone who is responsible for the continuing Bain family angst it is Solicitor General David Collins. He made the call to go to retrial. While it further exposed the Bain family, it saved the Crown the ridcule of an immediate compensation payment. The old Chums Club that tried and ultimately lost on Thomas were no doubt delighted. But the overall cost to the State (which is to say we who pay taxes) was significantly greater.

    Now we have a situation where Michael Reed QC can (and may) argue that Bain D is entitled to compensation because of the Crown’s (malfeasant?) actions in the first trial – actions which cost him 13 years in prison.

    His guilt or innocence will not be decided by the outcome of the compensation claim. The outcome of that claim will NOT be influenced or determined by petitions, twisted TV Op Eds and/or bloggers. The outcome may upset one party, both or none. But consideration will be fair and balanced.

    A penultimate thought.
    The second jury was (probably) asked:”How do you find the defendant, Guilty or Not Guilty ?”
    The answer: “Not guilty”

    And so, in respect of David Bain, mjwilknz summed the issue to perfection:

    ” …. celebrity status? You’re kidding, right? The poor bloke won’t be ble to go anywhere, in this country at least, without being recognised, without comments being made. If you guys don’t like him, don’t forget what his life will be like now, even though he’s not in jail.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    Actually, Flipper, I said everything I could lay my hands on INCLUDING the first trial transcript. If you want a list I can give it to you but I assure you it included the PC judgment.
    You answer the questions I and RWood posed above then, about the blood. I’m yet to hear a believable response to either of those questions.

    (and if I don’t reply for a while I haven’t gone away, I just need to do some work :))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5 and Atheist1, how long is it going to take you guys to “get it”? I really have no idea if David Bain was the killer or not. All I know is that it wasn’t proven that he was beyond a reasonable doubt. He might have brutally murdered all five people, but then again he might not have. Given that, I think it’s appropriate we treat him according to the law, same as everyone else.

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

    Some are quick to allege perjury.

    Understandably perhaps after viewing a programme which was selective in choosing facts which met its agenda ( which btw was NOT to present the case against Robin Bain).

    The programme made much of the fact a sales record shows that Ian Arthur sold a photocopier to Robin Bain on a particular day. And that the school-teacher remembered that day as it was her last at the school and said Darryl Young did not visit that day.

    Bryan Bruce and some posters seem to see this as evidence that Mr Young was lying or perjuring.

    What the documentary omitted telling viewers was that Mr Young never claimed to have sold a photocopier to Mr Bain on a particular day. On the contrary he explicitly said he wasn’t sure of the year.

    “At a guess this would have been around ’92 or ’93” – from the court transcript shown on TV3 and quoted here , tinyurl.com/26vx2pq

    In his documentary Bryan Bruce did not consider the possibility that Mr Young sold Mr Bain a photocopier ( say in 91) then years later Mr Arthur sold him an upgraded model.

    The programme made it seem sinister that Mr Bain could not have exited his van via the rear doors as they were blocked by shelving, and lead some viewers to believe that Mr Young claimed Mr Bain exited through a rear door. Accounts of the trial agree that Mr Young said he knocked on a rear door. But did he claim Mr Bain exited via a rear door ?

    Compare this report in the Christchurch Press :

    ” When he ( Mr Young ) got to the van he knocked on the back door and heard voices. He moved away five or ten metres and thought he heard two different voices. He naturally assumed one was a female voice and the other voice was Robin’s.

    Robin came out and he was wearing a towel and “that was all’’.”

    tinyurl.com/o9o3os

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    mjwilknz, how long until you “get it”??? Five people were murdered and the probable perpetrator (IMO) now wants compensation!!

    How is he not being treated according to the law like everyone else?

    Every interesting murder case in history is debated for years afterwards, whatever the outcome. Res judicata means he can’t be tried again now that he has been acquitted. You raised yesterday the prospect of the Crown appealing. As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong on this) that isn’t possible (and never was possible). So now he is a free man, but that doesn’t mean people can’t have opinions and discussions on whether or not he did it! (especially when a dead man who can’t defend himself has been painted as the killer and double especially when DB now wants compensation which if given will come from mine and your taxes!)

    So yeah, I get it alright….do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    jwilknz posted at 12.27:

    ….All I know is that it wasn’t proven that he was beyond a reasonable doubt. He might have brutally murdered all five people, but then again he might not have. Given that, I think it’s appropriate we treat him according to the law, same as everyone else.

    On this basis you would not have freed Arthur Allan Thomas or supported paying him sizeable compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Re GwimWeeper’s defence of the copier salesman at 12.29: why wouldn’t he appear in the TV documentary then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Atheist1, I’m no lawyer either and you might educate me on it. The lack of discussion of an appeal indicates that you might well be right. Doesn’t really matter, though, does it? That’s our system; if you want to change it, you’re welcome to have a crack. I’m not sure how whining about one particular case is going to help, though.

    As for the suggestions that David Bain not be treated according to the system, is it just me? How have you missed the near constant calls for compensation not being paid (whatever the system says) and David Bain somehow being sent to prison because the jury got it wrong?

    @Jack5, Arthur Allen Thomas just happened to get that minor thing called, a Royal Pardon! I’m no lawyer, but that strikes me as reason enough to let him go free and perhaps pay him compensation. (I am unfamiliar with the process for the latter.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. bobberesford.com (12 comments) says:

    Note that my expressions are balanced by the fact that I was inside this case for many years, often visiting David in prison, often talking one on one with him, exchanging letters, supplying him with useful things like his stereo ( JVC Rb 550 model ) TV – 15 inch flatscreen, computer and Viewsonic 19 inch LCD proscreen, software….etc….no doubt many still won’t believe me…which is their problem, I don’t care.

    I’m not trying to obscure things or target individuals – there’s too much underinformed stuff turning up here .
    This is a difficult case. The fact that both sides – prosecution and Joe Karam’s Defence have sealed off the vital info for so many years doesn’t help. Karam has released bits – as it suits – in an orchestrated media campaign……..which the cops inevitably resent.
    I would question some of those press releases, too, especially the statement about animal blood – not human – on the gun. I rang the Melbourne pathologist myself and the samples were so scant and degraded that they weren’t able to confirm any DNA – animal or human. Though the gun had been used to shoot possums and rabbits.

    A lot more will have come out in last trial, but then it’s only what both sides will allow and agree on – and the Defence got some useful stuff struck out. All part of the legal game – funded by taxpayers – which inevitably suppresses truth……….or some of it.

    Note that if David had been convicted of murder under Insanity at that time, the sentence was 7 years in an institution, not 13 years in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    mjwilknz – I never said I wasn’t a lawyer ;) – I just don’t know the answer to that because it’s criminal law. Reminds me of a line in The Castle “What do you mean you don’t know? It’s law isn’t it? You’re a lawyer aren’t you?” “)

    As for the “near constant calls for compensation not being paid?” – again, as I understand it, such calls are irrelevant. The Judge (or whoever?) appointed by Cabinet will presumably undertake his or her inquiry and reach a view on whether compensation should be paid. One side or the other aren’t going to be happy with that view but won’t be able to do anything about it. There’s nothing preventing healthy discussion on blogs on people’s views as to whether that’s a way they’d like their tax payer moneys spent or not, however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz posted at 12.50:

    …Arthur Allen Thomas just happened to get that minor thing called, a Royal Pardon!

    But that was the result of a public campaign outside the courts, which led to Prime Minister Muldoon initiating the pardon.

    You have said repeatedly everyone should just accept the second jury’s decision. Thomas was found guilty by three juries, I think. Your policy, mjwilknz, would have left Thomas in prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Atheist1, thanks, yours sounds like a lot more mature way to talk about – not just whining about how the 2009 jury got it wrong.

    While it will of course be imperfect, principally applying the system is what strikes me as being most important here. Otherwise, our society is no better than that in the book, Lord of the Flies, which someone helpfully suggested I read yesterday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mwilknz at 1.11pm reinforced his philosophy which would have blocked the freeing of Arthur Allan Thomas:

    …While it will of course be imperfect, principally applying the system is what strikes me as being most important ..

    That’s okay, mwilknz, as long as you see what your position entails.

    As for:

    …not just whining about how the 2009 jury got it wrong….

    This is ad hominem junk. It’s the equivalent of accusing you of whining about how the 2009 jury got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    My main worry is that if David is compensated, what we are really saying is that Robin did it, yet that has never been proven. That’s why I think the personalities should be taken out of the equation and a decision made purely on the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    The Arthur Allan Thomas case was quite different. He was twice convicted (so two juries) but:
    - his wife was always adamant he was with her at home so couldn’t have done it
    - a witness was sure his wife wasn’t the woman seen at the Crewe house
    - the police were found to have planted evidence (bullet cartridges) that made a big difference to the strength of the case

    There is far more uncertainty in the Bain case, including:
    - the first verdict was found by the Privy Council to be unsafe
    - the second trial with additional evidence resulted in a not guilty verdict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    mjwilknz – you’re welcome. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The fascinating thing will be (again, from what I understand and you’d be forgiven for assuming that isn’t much :)) is that the person advising on whether or not compensation should be paid will have no constraints over what he or she considers? i.e. it will ALL be in, everything from 1995 and from 2009…..

    And apologies if I have come across at all belligerent today. Certainly not my intention, but because I knew one of the victims personally I have always had quite strong emotions when it comes to this case. Emotions which, I might add, I have never allowed to cloud my judgement when considering the case. Hell, I remember the evening of the day it happened all my fellow shocked students in the Captain Cook bar in Dunedin, standing around and sympathising with DB. It’s only when the forensic evidence emerged that I, personally, changed my opinion.

    Anyway, now I really MUST do some work! Catch ya later

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, a Royal Pardon is part of our “system”. End of story.

    As for ad hominem junk, accusing me of whining about that the 2009 jury got it right implies that I believe David Bain didn’t do it! Do you think if I say this in CAPS, it will help you “get it”? I DO NOT KNOW whether the killer was David Bain or not! Is it “ad hominem junk” if I suggest that your reading skills could do with some work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Re Pete George’s 1.24: The point was that the Thomas pardon followed a huge public campaign throughout the country, which in turn followed journalist Pat Booth’s work. mwwilknz has been arguing that everyone should just accept the second jury’s decision and leave it at that. If you applied that consistently to the Thomas case, Thomas would not have been pardoned.

    As for mjwilknz at 1.31:

    … Is it “ad hominem junk” if I suggest that your reading skills could do with some work?

    Yes. The answer to this question is definitely yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Atheist1, thank you for your thoughts. This issue appears an emotive one, even if one isn’t personally involved, as you obviously are.

    Just because it’s emotional, though, I don’t think we can ever give up wondering if we are actually wrong and the other side right. It’s remarkable the inability of some on here to admit that maybe, just maybe, David Bain didn’t viciously kill five people!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, in the case, my humble apologies, please consider my reading skills comment retracted.

    RE: Thomas, if there’s the possibility of the opposite of a Royal Pardon, a Royal (re-)Conviction perhaps, then I think it best we stand aside and let the system turn. If it’s not part of the system, then it’s time to leave it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    My problem with your position mjwilknz, is that you don’t seem particularly concerned with finding out who did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @ciaron, I am conscious of the need to find out who did it and make them pay for it. That’s what discourages people from killing others.

    However, don’t you think the chances of us finding out must be minuscule, now? Why waste more of taxpayers money and people’s time on it? Our world is for the living, not for the dead, don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    “..You can obscure the issues as much as you like but for me the key is the lack of Stephen’s blood on Robin and the lack of Robin’s blood on the gun. Explain those 2 points away to me in a believable way and I might change my mind. Until then…”

    David wiped down the gun after shooting Robin and Robin, being a psycho sexual deviant killer with sublime bladder control, wandered round the house naked shooting the rest, then cold showered and got dressed before David got home…

    …OK i’ll grab my coat now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz posted at 2.08:

    …Our world is for the living, not for the dead, don’t you think?

    Would you be saying that, mjwilknz, if NZ had had the death penalty at the time of the first David Bain trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Mark Petersen (1,301 comments) says:

    The Bain issue is becoming a bit tedious. Whether David Bain or Robin Bain committed the murders will always be open to some form of conjecture. Both men lost the case in a sense in that Robin Bain is dead and David Bain served 13 years of his sentence.
    It is unlikely that compensation will be awarded to David Bain given the threshholds set for compensation claims.
    The TV programme added little to the debate. It was one side of a two sided argument and without the benefit of even a modicum of serious cross examination of the hypothesis it was relatively meaningless.

    I do not know who killed the Bains, it could have been either or someone else altogether. I have not had the benefit of being at either trial and seeing the complete set of evidence as submitted to the juries.

    Hopefully the media will find something else to follow shortly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    hmmm…i wonder if Robin had prostate problems and couldn’t piss properly ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Part of the fascination with this case is that it shows (at least to me) how flawed the jury system is, and infact the whole trial process. It seems to be more interested in getting a prosecution than determining exactly what happened. And any little trip-up and the case fails, which is quite likely if your target is not to get the true story but just to come up with something which fits. Maybe that’s the best way, but they wouldn’t for example investigate an air-crash in this way. There would be proper consideration of all the info. None of this suppressed info and the defence/prosecution not seeing each others info or springing something at the last minute which cannot be investigated/rebutted by the other side. A very shonky system if you’re interesting in knowing exactly what happened, and by extension who was responsible.

    Anyway, it’s also interesting that this case gets so much interest, whereas Scott Watson, whose prosecution was far less sound (IMHO) gets relatively little. Maybe Scott Watson is a ratbag (and the police certainly helped to put that message out), but the evidence against him is very weak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, that our justice system is inaccurate isn’t disputed here. If one accepts that, a death penalty becomes about revenge and not about justice, at best, and cruel and inhuman, at worst.

    @malcolm, if you know of a better alternative to our jury system, please suggest it. The format of air crash investigations is hardly a respectable method for deciding whether or not to ruin someone’s life, as happens in murder investigations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    THE COURT IS NOW IN SESSION!

    Either you, Mr Farrar, or you, Mr Slater, must have leaked these documents to the press. The penalty for this is 12 years imprisonment. You may each now make your cases as to why it wasn’t you, and at the conclusion of this I will come to a decision on who goes to jail, based on the balance of probabilities.

    Not a very sound way of doing justice, is it?
    This is why I just can’t get excited about arguments of the form “It seems incredible, what had to have happened if Robin did it; therefore it MUST have been David.”

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

    @RRM: With that swipe, I gather you’re suggesting that some other party could have done the killings. If that were even a faint possibility, then the defence would have been very lax not to suggest it. The fact that they didn’t run that line and took such strong measures to attack Robin Bain’s character say all that needs to be said about that idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Chuck Bird (4,402 comments) says:

    I have a suggestion – all those who think David deserves compensation start a fund for him.

    I was on the jury or any other jury for that matter and thought there was to 99% chance the person was guilty and a 1% chance that the person was innocent I would vote not guilty. I doubt if any other country in the world would pay compensation in similar circumstances. In the US people have been released on DNA evidence that proves they definitely did not commit the crime and all they get is an apology.

    I do not want my taxes to go to pay compensation for someone who is more likely guilty than innocent. If David is innocent someone should tell him life is not always fair get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    David Farrar, from –
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/the_david_bain_case.html

    “… So what do you have to believe, to think Robin was the killer. This list is not comprehensive, and is even a bit repetitive. But here goes:
    1. It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies
    2. Again a lucky guess hen DB told police officer they are all dead
    3. The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.
    4. The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence
    5. The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses
    6. The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living
    7. David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time
    8. David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience
    9. Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes
    10. Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder
    11. The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there
    12. Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails
    13. David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies
    14. The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit
    15. Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide
    16. That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.
    17. Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message
    18. Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder
    19. Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails
    20. Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?
    21. That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?
    22. That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.
    23. That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch
    24. That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.
    25. That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David
    26. That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.
    27. That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.
    28. That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live
    29. That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death
    30. That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.
    31. That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.
    32. That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.
    33. That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.
    34. That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teendage son who put up a furious fight
    35. That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself

    I remember during the first trial being convinced David was guilty and over the years you feel less certain as things get chipped away. I found the reports of the trial very useful at reminding me of the overwhelming foresnic evidence against Robin having done it.

    [...]

    … let us look at what you need evidence to believe, to think David is the killer.
    Well there isn’t a lot. Almost all the evidence fits in perfectly with the theory. The best I can come up with is:
    1. That he managed to finish his paper run quicker than normal
    2. That his foot at 300 mm couldn’t make a 280 mm luminol print
    3. That he was prepared to risk his father waking up early and finding the family dead.”

    I think little has changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    FE Smith said: Sonny, don’ forget that the judge in the first trial’ suppressed’ a lot of evidence that evidence that was unhelpful to the crown. Evidentially speaking, the second trial was by far the most fair of the two.

    Your first point is correct however (and I can barely believe I am saying this) the second trial was not fair – indeed, it was distinctly unfair to the Crown. Pertinent evidence (the plan to cover up a rape by doing a paper round) was ruled out and highly irrelevant evidence was allowed in – eg the photocopy bloke – true or not the relevance is up around zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    @malcolm, if you know of a better alternative to our jury system, please suggest it.

    You can identify flaws in a system without necessarily having a fully-formed alternative. But for starters I’d like to see professional jurors with a strong emphasis on reasoning and scientific backgrounds. Juries are too representative of society, i.e. plenty of idiots who can’t think clearly. E.g. the jurors in the DB trial who thought nothing odd of hopping along to the aquittal party. Also in cases with lots of scientific evidence (more and more), it’s easy for the defence to create reasonable doubt in lay jurors, simply by sheer volume of technical testimony. E.g. Vicky Calder case.

    And the professional jurors should document the reasoning behind their verdict, and detail which evidence they concluded to be incorrect/unreliable and which they concluded to be reliable. And why. That way when 10 years later it turns out that the photocopier saleman was mistaken, the appeal can be decided more sensibly on whether or not that evidence had any bearing on the verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    I think little has changed.

    I reckon a good keen cop could present that evidence and find other bits of hearsay and circumstantial evidence to support e a case for Robin killing the others with David killing Robin then trying to cover up it…

    the trick is to get David to speak now and on camera

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Malcolm, I see, so it isn’t so much jury trials in that in our system the burden of proof lies not with the defence, but with the prosecution. Nice one! Don’t worry, though. I’m sure some countries have systems you might find preferable, maybe Zimbabwe, Cuba or Bolivia. You should try one out, some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz at 4.39 to Malcolm (while ignoring the outstanding 4.13 post of Yvette)::

    …I’m sure some countries have systems you might find preferable, maybe Zimbabwe, Cuba or Bolivia. You should try one out, some time…

    There you go, Malcolm. That’s what you get for not going along with Team David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I’m sure some countries have systems you might find preferable, maybe Zimbabwe, Cuba or Bolivia. You should try one out, some time.

    Fair enough. My mistake. I incorrectly assumed you were interested in a sensible discussion. Sorry, won’t happen again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, I still have no idea how you connect me with Team David. CAPS didn’t work to convince you otherwise, constantly repeating myself didn’t work. Even one pointed, ad hominem attack didn’t work. I have nothing left, but put my hand over my heart and say, I have never ever had anything to do with David Bain nor do I ever expect to. That’s all I have left, mate. After that, you’re welcome to keep whining and to believe what you will about me.

    @Malcolm, my humble apologies. Hopefully, you can understand that, as many English and NZers did before me, I regard our judicial system, with its focus on protecting the innocent, worth fighting tooth and nail for. Attacks on it strike me as misguided, ignorant and unprincipled. The old New Zealand adage, we don’t know how lucky we are, comes to mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    Mjwilknz at 5.51:

    ….you’re welcome to keep whining …

    Can’t help yourself, can you mjwilknz – ad hominem and broken-record blitzkrieg.

    Still it keeps DPF’s hit count high.

    PS: Do you know that CAPS in the blogosphere are the equivalent of shouting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I regard our judicial system, with its focus on protecting the innocent, worth fighting tooth and nail for.

    Me too. Which is not to say the system can’t evolve or that it’s perfect. One of my contentions is that the “12 of your peers off the street” worked better in the past when trials were simpler and didn’t rely on so much technical/scientific evidence. 12 people off the street is now hopelessly inadequate, IMHO. If David Bain was tried 200 years ago, there would be no paper round timings because hardly anyone had clocks, no pc suicide note, no fingerprint evidence except the most obvious, no DNA, no ballistics, no luminol blood traces, and far less evidence because investigations were far less thorough. Trials did not last for months on end. A normal person could keep the evidence in their head.

    A lay jury seems like an outdated anomaly to me. Like a lay architect or engineer. And I see no good reason why the jury shouldn’t have to produce at least a summary of their rationale for the verdict. Would you trust an engineering or scientific report which had only a conclusion but no explanation of assumptions and method?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Sorry to take so long to answer…. other responsibilities :)

    # mjwilknz (269) Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    @ciaron, I am conscious of the need to find out who did it and make them pay for it. That’s what discourages people from killing others.

    However, don’t you think the chances of us finding out must be minuscule, now? Why waste more of taxpayers money and people’s time on it? Our world is for the living, not for the dead, don’t you think?

    Does the name Jules Mikus mean anything to you?

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

    I have no faith in our jury system. I’d like to see an inquisitorial type instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Malcolm, sorry, you confused me slightly. When you talked about how much more complicated court cases have become, you said that this meant the defence was more likely to sway juries. I guessed that you were focused on the risk that defence teams, and not prosecution teams, sway juries because you were questioning our burden of proof? Was I wrong on that? Apologies, if so.

    There must be an equal risk that juries will be swayed by the prosecution as by the defence. I point to the guilty verdict in the John Barlow case being based on possibly misleading evidence, as an example.

    Our Courts require that experts appear before juries to explain what was done and be subject to cross examination. If cross-examined evidence can’t be explained so a normal person can understand, then it’s unlikely to be of use. In spite of the increasing complexity, if I were an innocently accused I would sincerely want the prosecution to have to explain the evidence against me to a panel of my peers in a way they can understand.

    @Ciaron, uh huh. Any chance you can explain how another trial of David Bain could possibly find us a killer unless, that is, we find more evidence first? Doesn’t the Jules Mikus case suggest we need to wait for new evidence, first?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @RWood, welcome back. Any chance you can explain how such a system is focused on protecting the innocent rather than convicting the guilty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    malcolm

    ” One of my contentions is that the “12 of your peers off the street” worked better in the past”

    I agree, I have been on three juries in the past four years, on each of these juries I sat with people who were not fit, nor able, to sit in judgement of others.

    I do not shirk jury duty, I see it as part of my civic duty and to be honest it gives me a chance to see that justice is done for a change despite the silly games that the legal fraternity play.
    I also have to say that being on a jury for a week or two is not going to cause me any financial hardship, sadly that is not the case for so many other people.

    The result of so many able people being excused from jury duty is that the jury room becomes full of people dressed as if they were about to attend rugby practise or look like they have just dragged their sorry backsides out of bed.

    I was twice selected as jury foreman simple because I happened to be wearing a suit and tie, I shudder at the prospect that some of these morons might be sitting in judgement of me one day.

    The only solution that I can see is to either require potential jurors to pass an IQ test or appoint professional jurors.

    As for the Bain case, well we all know the jury pool had been heavily tainted, anybody who has lived in NZ for the past fifteen years cannot have helped but to form an opinion one way or another about Bain.
    The courts should have found a way to draw the jurors from a pool of recently arrived immigrants, there are thousands of Poms and Safa’s who have made NZ their home in the last three or four years, not one of them would have had a clue who David Bain was.

    But then…..Bain’s legal team would have objected, they wanted the jury to be on their side, sadly, they achieved exactly that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. American Gardener (554 comments) says:

    I don’t think that Robin Bain did it but there is no point criticizing the jury unless you were on the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    mjwilknz, I’m going to call you mercury from now on.

    Please stop banging on about another trial of David. I’ve NEVER said we should put David on trial again.
    As someone else suggested, I propose we address this in a similar way to say, an air crash.

    The Mikus reference was in rebuttal to you continual insistence that the chances of us finding out must be minuscule, now? . Fifteen years later and the Cormack family get a result, get closure. Why do you want to deny that to the extended Bain/Cullen Families?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    AG

    There is every point in having a crack at the twelve morons who decided to let Bain go free, even more so when one of them is now known to be a convicted thief and also attended the Bain ‘after party’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Sorry, Ciaron, your “air crash” investigation still sounds like a trial to me. I’m sure a whole heap of people (including many commentors on here) would be treating it as so. Would it not actually be?

    On Mikus, I never said the chances were zero, I said the chances were minuscule, a small yet significant difference. My comments were because I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that you were saying the police should carry on spending money and resources on their investigation. Since the police have limited resources, spending them on the Bain case takes resources away from other cases. I don’t see that as a good thing.

    Possibly, you’re saying the cops should keep the case on file in case new evidence turns up. Given they’ve already tried Bain once, I don’t imagine they can do so again, now (the lawyers out there are welcome to correct me).

    P.S. Might I ask why you’re calling me mercury?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Cause you’re fucking dense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    RWood: which one? There are a number of forms to choose from.

    GPT: personally, I don’t think that is enough to make it unfair. It certainly wouldn’t get past the s385 proviso. I think Panckhurst J and the CA agrees with you and the Supreme Court with me!

    Bruv: I don’t like the idea of professional jurors, we have judges to do that, but compulsory jury duty might fix the problem you describe, which is a real one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    Ciaron, maybe, maybe. At least I know what a minuscule chance means, though eh? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    I was twice selected as jury foreman simple because I happened to be wearing a suit and tie, I shudder at the prospect that some of these morons might be sitting in judgement of me one day.

    haha bro…no one simply happens to be wearing a suit and tie.

    so what happened ?… you got pissed one night, woke up next day as your name was being nominated for foreman on jury duty and looked down to see you simply happened to be wearing a suit and tie ?…pffft

    my advice if you dont want morons sitting in judgemnt of you is, don’t get caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    pollywog

    Clearly you have no idea how jury selection works, nobody is guaranteed of being on a jury, one is best advised to turn up wearing ones normal work attire in-case you are not called and have to return to work, mine work attire just happens to be a suit and tie.

    I will admit that I would never dream of going along dressed any other way, I would not want anybody to think I am a Labour voter or an unemployed bludger (come to think of it, they are one and the same)

    Perhaps your only experience with our legal system is one where you are called the accused, given that I can understand why you are so keen on having the most moronic jury possible and why you have no bloody idea what it means to dress respectfully in public.

    I also note (in the best traditions of the Labour party) that you advise me to not ‘get caught’, you do not advise me against committing a crime, just to make sure that I get away with it, that marks you down as a life member of the NZ Labour party as far as I am concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    You are far better placed to talk about the merits or otherwise of our nations judges than I am, my experience is that while they are undoubtedly a great help to the jury they still cannot make up for the inadequacies of some of the people on the jury.

    While compulsory jury duty sounds a good idea there are so many people who just could not afford the cost or time of a trial that runs as long as David Bain’s, asking people to give up four or five days is fine, demanding that they give up two to four months is just not on.
    Perhaps professional jurors is not the right way to go, but there should be a system where suitably intelligent people who can afford the time place their names on a list of potential jurors, this would weed out the morons and those who are just not up to doing the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    @mjwilknz

    When you talked about how much more complicated court cases have become, you said that this meant the defence was more likely to sway juries. I guessed that you were focused on the risk that defence teams, and not prosecution teams, sway juries because you were questioning our burden of proof? Was I wrong on that? Apologies, if so.

    Yeah, that was basically what I meant. As trials become more complex, the evidence more technical and the duration increases, I think a lot of people can’t keep up or sort through all the conflicting evidence in their mind and thus must err on the side of reasonable doubt. It’s not their fault, but you wouldn’t get a random punter off the street to design a bridge for you, but we expect normal people to undertake a very complex evaluation of masses of information.

    Complexity and duration work in favour of the defence. The Vicky Calder case (which I’m guessing you’re familiar with) was IMHO a good example. The defence had masses of meandering testimony about other possible causes of the symptoms. But when all was said and done, there was really only one likely cause of his illness. And his jilted lover as only of a handful of people in NZ with access to that substance.

    You mention the John Barlow case. There was a lot of ballistic evidence in that trial but there was also a lot of plain old-fashioned solid evidence. The tip receipt. The gun at the tip which was the murder weapon and also belonged to Barlow. The reverse annuity mortgage motive. The scheduled meeting which was ripped from the pad. In many ways this was a clear-cut trial. The only mystery is how Barlow has kept his charming wife and family on his side all this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    BB, interesting about your experiences on a jury. I haven’t had the pleasure but each time a friend has, I ask their impression and it has seldom been favourable.

    One mate sat through a long employee fraud case. When the jury went into deliberation, two old ladies promptly said “well we didn’t understand much of that so we’ll just go along with what you people think”. I wonder how many of the other jurors thought the same but didn’t want to admit it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    Stay with me now mjwilknz, this will take a while.

    I quoted you thus: The Mikus reference was in rebuttal to you continual insistence that the chances of us finding out must be minuscule, now?

    you replied: On Mikus, I never said the chances were zero, I said the chances were minuscule, a small yet significant difference.

    I ask, where did you get that zero, you imply I misquoted you?

    then this pearl of wisdom:At least I know what a minuscule chance means, though eh? :-)

    well, I can only speculate as to how you quantify it.

    Shall we wrap this up?

    I have been advocating embarking on a process to establish once and for all who perpetrated the crime. A compensation proceedings seems a logical place to do this with its higher threshold. If David can prove his father did it, I would not begrudge him a substantial payout. After all, he is not guilty

    You however, seem to be quite content to sweep the matter under the rug one minute then say:I am conscious of the need to find out who did it and make them pay for it. That’s what discourages people from killing others.

    When others suggested alternatives or tweaks to our system, you decried them, but then said I don’t pretend for a moment we live in some perfect world, but I don’t see that as an excuse for not continually trying to do things better. I didn’t read anyone advocating wholesale changes to our system, and no doubt, as a result of this case and especially the Kahui twins it is obvious the way cases are prosecuted for us needs overhauling.

    you say @Atheist1 and ciaron, you guys just don’t get it, do you. It wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that David Bain did it. We get it only too well. I simply ask if we can extend the same test to Robin.

    Alsohow long is it going to take you guys to “get it”? I really have no idea if David Bain was the killer or not. All I know is that it wasn’t proven that he was beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, why don’t you do some reading and form an opinion?

    My argument is that it is not good enough to leave the matter unresolved. The defense obviously did a fantastic job creating doubt, and it follows an alternate scenario/s that the jury considered possible, that is not in question. What I want to know is will any of these scenarios hold water? I suggest if the compensation proceedings are not an ideal platform, then perhaps and investigative process should be looked at, one which lets the evidence, rather than lawyers do the talking.

    You began by asking why we should care about this, well I believe for justice in society to work, we all must be invested in seeing justice done, to be actively involved in the same. You have made me think, that maybe the time to let it rest is when all avenues have been exhausted, and I rest in the knowledge David may be lying to us, but he won’t be able to lie to his maker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    i was gonna metaphorically rip you a new asshole big bruv but i suspect you’re all ass and nothing but, so yeah, enjoy sitting in judgment based on what people wear…

    …given that, those jerseys Bain used to wear mark him down as a mass murderer to start with just like Freddie Krueger

    can you believe he wore one just like it ?… GUILTY !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @ciaron, what you playing at, eh? Given that you have decided to call me mercury, I am a little puzzled you’re so familiar with my arguments.

    Need I remind you that this case has already been heard in two jury trials and by the Privy Council. I have no idea how you think putting it aside now means I will “sweep it under the carpet”! If you really think it appropriate we continue to spend money on it then where is your wallet? I for one think taxpayers have spent quite enough already.

    I simply don’t understand why I need to form an opinion on whether or not David Bain killed his family. Having one seems quite pointless to me. It won’t change anything about the case and why should anyone care what I think about some case that is, for (nearly) all intents and purposes, over? I hope that my thoughts on the system are something quite different altogether, but we shall see what people think of them.

    I quantify a minuscule chance as being small, but still greater than zero: that is, a minuscule chance of something means that, although it’s unlikely, it might still happen. (That the Teresa Cormack case actually hadn’t been through two jury trials before Mikus was charged is a small aside.)

    Finally, I am glad you believe in justice. Perhaps you can tell me how we haven’t already exhausted all avenues for it. If you can’t then it must be time for you to “rest in the knowledge David may be lying to us, but he won’t be able to lie to his maker.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Jack5 (4,216 comments) says:

    mjwilknz at 1.11pm:

    what you playing at, eh? AND … I am a little puzzled you’re so familiar with my arguments.

    Assertions don’t make an argument no matter how times you broken-record repeat them, mjwilknz.

    I’m suspicious mjwilknz is a persona created by some wags or by David Bain groupies rather than being a living poster.

    “What are you playing at” – sounds like dialogue from an 80-year-old movie, The Maltese Falcon or some such.

    Who/what are you mjwilknz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @Jack5, if you please, have another read of my final message to you, yesterday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. bobberesford.com (12 comments) says:

    Sometimes blogs get wrecked by a few people who think they own the site taking over and posting again….and again……..and again…………and again…………often in rapid succession. usually they don’t have much to say and repeat themselves.

    Others usually then give up on it.

    If these people love talking irrelevant stuff to each other so much, why don’t they just swap emails ?…..or even phone numbers -instead of wasting everyone elses time on what was a good subject of huge interest.

    Does this place get moderated properly ? On Stuff, people who hijack it like this get warned off.

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

    Flipper said:

    “Now we have a situation where Michael Reed QC can (and may) argue that Bain D is entitled to compensation because of the Crown’s (malfeasant?) actions in the first trial – actions which cost him 13 years in prison”.

    Michael Reed can argue all he like but it won’t make a blind bit of difference – David won’t be getting a brass razoo. Unless of course he can adequately explain why he heard Laniet gurgle but decided to wait 20 minutes to call police, despite the fact that she may have been alive. Or maybe he can explain to the QC determining his compensation claim how he got the scratches and bruises on his body…or why he was doing his paper round earlier than usual…or why he put apparently bloodied clothes into a washing machine…or why fibres from David’s jersey were found under Stephen’s finger nails. David will of course be expected to answer these questions and a lot more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. ciaron (1,157 comments) says:

    @ Mercury.
    Once again, you prove your density of 13.5 t/m3. You’re thick because you can’t understand other peoples arguments, or answer simple questions.

    I quoted you thus: The Mikus reference was in rebuttal to you continual insistence that the chances of us finding out must be minuscule, now? the point being that after 15 years, the case was solved. If it had been put away, as you suggest here, the evidence would not have been retested and a murderer walking free.

    you replied: On Mikus, I never said the chances were zero, I said the chances were minuscule, a small yet significant difference.

    Simple question: where did the zero come from?

    I’ll type this bit slowly so you can keep up.

    if-you-do-some-research-maybe-you will-form-some-questions-of-your-own-that-you-would-like-answered-before-your-hard-earned-tax-dollars-get-shelled-out-to-someone-who-has-a-forensically-high-chance-of-being-a-mass-murderer.

    I can’t state my argument any simpler than this:

    It has been established that the Killer was either David or Robin. (Pankhurst)

    The defense managed to prove doubt that David did it.

    Ergo, Robin has had aspersions cast on his character.

    The case against Robin should be tested.

    my final question to you Mercury, Do you think it is just to create a situation where a dead man is effectively convicted without trial?

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

    Although I had previously read Martin Van Beyen’s extremely well written article, I realised something I’d previously missed before: Laniet (apparently Robin’s favourite) was shot 3 times in the head. Why was ‘special’ attention given to Laniet? When a ‘favourite’ is murdered by their killer, usually a degree of respect is afforded to them and great pains are taken to preserve a level of dignity to the body. However, when an individual (known to the victim) is singled out and mutilated/desicrated in some way (i.e. more than the one perfunctory shot to the head) this would indicate a form of jealously, hate or resentment towards the victim. I must admit that even prior to David Bain being arrested, I believed that he was the perpetrator of this heinous crime. It is possible that David is a malignant narcissist, however it is rash to make these assumptions without proper diagnostic evaluation by a qualified psychiatrist. Has David ever undertaken evaluation? It isn’t surprising that David declined to give evidence at the trial; I think that under pressure he would finally give up the secrets he’s so strongly kept all these years. Only one person can be sure, without any reasonable doubt, who the murderer is, and that person is David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. mjwilknz (606 comments) says:

    @ciaron, forgive me, I think you and I have both ended up feeling aggrieved by what the other has to say. Perhaps I did misinterpret you re:minuscule. However, rather than trying to explain yourself better, you came straight back telling me what mercury meant. I’m a little unsure what kind of reaction you expected to that, but you’ve taken big offence at the one you got!

    What I’m trying to say is, I think we can both chill out a little. I am entirely willing to accept that you do not like being told you don’t understand what a minuscule chance is IF you are willing to accept I don’t like being called Mercury. If you are happy with that, perhaps we can progress with a discussion of the Mikus case. If you are so willing, would you be able to start by clarifying what you think our actions to David Bain should be until and when new evidence arises?

    In regard to your second question, no, we did not have a trial of Robin Bain, just a trial of David Bain, the outcome of which was that the jury did not find David Bain did it beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not find David Bain didn’t do it, only found that there was reasonable doubt that he did it! The two are quite different! So in summary on your second question, I quite honestly do not believe we do have a situation where a dead man was effectively convicted!

    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.