Bain to speak at Injustice conference
May 16th, 2011 at 5:55 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
David Bain will speak at an injustice conference in Perth next year in his first public appearance since he was cleared of the murder of his family.
I guess Robin Bain couldn’t make it.
Related posts:
- The Robin Bain did not do it documentary
- Bain says parents made him strong
- Anti-Bain group
- The David Bain case
May 16th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Harsh DPF; harsh, but fair!
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Is his family going with him or is he going on his own?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Well to be fair, both his trials were miscarriages of justice so he’s quite the expert.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
So much for the David Bain motto “Silence is Golden”. Or is that meant to be “The Silencer is Golden”…
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
How’s that compensation bid going, David? Oh you didn’t apply. How strange.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Yes they have been very quiet on that, very quiet indeed… a little harder to prove balance of probabilities now isn’t it? :-/
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
You have to wonder, in this politically correct age, just how much cost the “Injustice Industry” inflicts on society.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Poor poor form on the evil little shit’s part, and even worse on the part of a conference organiser who would book him.
But as we know, if Robin had put on that funny head harness, he could just about have balanced a rifle at that odd angle, and shot himself, before hiding it of course.
Still I guess its important for our Australian friends to fully appreciate the special features of the NZ criminal justice system. Maybe their lawyers could plead (under CER perhaps) for their most egregious cases to be tried in front of New Zealand juries, that are known for their, ahem, analytical flexibility and lack of intellectual baggage.
Still looking forward to Bain’s claim for compensation as mentioned by PIA above, that should be a doozy!
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
The man’s been tried and found not guilty. Respect the verdict – regardless of any doubts about the process, he’s innocent until proven guilty.
[DPF:OJ was found not guilty also]
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Here’s hoping that he incriminates himself in his speech just like he did at the first trial
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
regardless of any doubts about the process, he’s innocent until proven guilty.
Wrong.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
speters
You can’t respect stupidity, there were no doubts about the process, just 12 idiots with not even the most basic ability to even listern let alone analysis information .
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
It’s the man’s chutzpah that gets to everybody – Innocent – you think? No he has been acquitted, he certainly hasn’t been cleared.
A victim of an injustice?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Dear God…I guess he’s going to start doing the ‘poor little me’ after-dinner speaker’s circuit just like that similarly guilty-as-sin nutjob Ruben ‘Hurricane’ Carter…
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I wonder what jersey he is going to wear …
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Yeah the Aussies are big on injustice, it’s in the blood over there, they thrive on it. Great grandad came to Aussie in chains, oh the injustice. Of course they’re all pure as driven snow and they don’t drink Tui either.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I certainly wouldn’t join him for shots at the bar afterwards.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I guess he’s decided that he has more chance of a decent pay-day from the celebrity speaker circuit than from compo from the Nz Government. At least this way, we’re not paying for it.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I think suitable compensation for Bain would be to give him a south pacific island.
More specifically a rocky island in the middle of the Auckland Islands – with a condition that he has to live there for the rest of his life with no resupply – he shouldn’t complain about that – his lawyer could join him too.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I see the lynch mob is out in force this evening.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
DB will give a bad name to those others who will be speaking with him at the conference who have genuinely been cleared – not just “found not guilty”, but actually proven to be innocent.
There’s an obvious gray area here and the reason DB cops it is because it is so plausible based on the evidence that it was he that killed his family, and (IMO) far less so that it was his poor old man, who isn’t around to give his two cents. DB supporters just have to get over this reality or otherwise come up with some real evidence that proves RB was the killer and not the killed.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Wonder too how Joe’s defamation suits are coming along. Have not heard anything for a while.
Re compensation – these things proceed at glacial speed. Presumably some QC is working on it now.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
MSM reports that David and his pal Joe Karam will be there together. Whoop dee doo.
No doubt the theme will be “Woe is me / the system let me down etc”.
Irony is that this is the same system that Karam and the (taxpayer funded) legal team used to their advantage to suppress critical evidence from the Court and the Jury.
Karam played the media in a manner that would do a concert pianist proud.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
In one line you have, with pointed humour, summed it up brilliantly.
I had assumed he was going to talk on the injustice of a murderer being let free.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Hey aren’t DB and his sidekick Karam at the wrong conference? They should be at a “Blame Your Old Man for Everything” conference.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Farrar must have an enormous feeling of power. Press a button and the usual suspects salivate, bark and howl in unison. Doesn’t he ever get tired of manipulating the intelligence-deprived?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I don’t know maggie, he seems to manipulate you pretty well. Same shit from you, just a different day.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
As I posted in GD.
http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/
Here comes the story of the hurricane…
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Maggie said
How Phil Goff must envy DPF; all that power…
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
So much for the rule of law that you guys on the right supposedly have so much respect for.
One thing (maybe the only thing) I have respect for Don Brash for is his campaign to clear Peter Ellis. But to do the reverse, as is happening on this thread, and campaign that Bain is guilty when the a jury which has listened to and seen the evidence and has found that there is not sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is reprehensible.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Next thing some of you here will be advocating lynchings because you, who haven’t listened to and seen the evidence presented in Court, can’t trust the justice system to lock away all those you have a suspicion are criminals.
Pssst – haven’t seen David Garrote or Garth McVictim on this thread yet!!! Or are you both here under pseudonyms?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Pssst – haven’t seen David Garrote or Garth McVictim on this thread yet!!! Or are you both here under pseudonyms?
A green party member wouldn’t post under a pseudonym now would they Toad….
Whats you real name again?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
So the rule of law means we cant discuss a completed case Toad?
By that logic Karam should have never been allowed on tv to claim David’s innocence after the first verdict…… right?
Please Ellis was found guilty so you should respect the law and not discuss please
I cant believe they have invited DB to speak…………… has anyone in that organisation done any homework on the case?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
@Bevan 10:10 pm
You miss (or are attempting to divert from) my point.
Anyway, I have no problem with people commenting under pseudonyms. I do so because some people who have some influence on my personal economic position may not be all that happy with some of my comments, and my personal economic position may suffer as a consequence.
BTW, I don’t see a last name, website, or email address associated with your posts Bevan.
Touché!
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
A long way – from the odd behaviour in the St Kilda sand-hills, witnessed by his friends, 1994, to an inaugural International Justice Conference, Perth 2012.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
@Toad – 10.01pm says “One thing (maybe the only thing) I have respect for Don Brash for is his campaign to clear Peter Ellis. But to do the reverse, as is happening on this thread, and campaign that Bain is guilty when the a jury which has listened to and seen the evidence and has found that there is not sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is reprehensible.”
But the last jury did not get to hear ALL evidence as Karam / Bain’s lawyers fought tooth and nail to have some of it it suppressed. Bain was found guilty twice (and on both occasions the evidence suppressed on the third occasion, was deemed admissible). But on the third occasion, not all evidence was allowed to be presented.
Doesn’t that make you uneasy with the verdict in the last trial?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left 10:22 pm
To assert someone who has been found guilty of a crime to be innocent is legitimate, as there are always, right through the appeal process and even to a pardon issued by the Crown, remedies available if it is decided the verdict cannot be sustained.
To assert someone who has been found not guilty of a crime to be guilty is defamatory, and therefore unlawful. A not guilty verdict is end of story in law.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
@Elaycee 10:37 pm
As they are entitled to do. And the Judge agreed with them. I am sure that if the Crown considered the Judge had erred in law in disallowing evidence they would have appealed.
Or are you arguing that the judiciary should act corruptly by allowing evidence that is at law inadmissible?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
“You have to wonder, in this politically correct age, just how much cost the “Injustice Industry” inflicts on society.”
Substitute “society” for “taxpayer” and you are bang on the money. And a shit load of it.
Toad cuddling a not guilty murderer, that’s nice. Invite him to stay and piss him off with a full bladder toad.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
@ Rich Prick 10:51 pm
No, just emptied mine, and off to bed now. Goodnight and sweet dreams RP!
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
@ toad – 10.47pm says “Or are you arguing that the judiciary should act corruptly by allowing evidence that is at law inadmissible?”
I never said that – please read it again. All I’m pointing out is the inconsistency – two juries heard ALL evidence and came up with a guilty verdict. A third did not hear ALL evidence and came up with a different verdict. You may be quite OK with this – but I’m not.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I have hesitated to comment on this thread, partially because (as I have always said) I have no opinion on David Bain’s actual guilt or innocence and, quite frankly, I don’t care, but mostly because of the venom that has been shown in this thread toward David Bain and the trial that acquitted him.
However, I would like to make a few points.
Firstly, and most importantly, I can do no better than to point you all to a post by the great Don Mathias on this topic, commenting on a recent decision of the UK Supreme Court (the former House of Lords, and the body that would make up the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if we still had access to it), able to be found at this
http://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011/05/compensation-for-wrongful-convictions.html
In that post, Don quoted Lady Hale:
“Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is, as Viscount Sankey LC so famously put it in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, at p 481, the “golden thread” which is always to be seen “throughout the web of the English criminal law”. Only then is the state entitled to punish him. Otherwise he is not guilty, irrespective of whether he is in fact innocent. If it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”
I think that her Ladyship makes a very important point there. A person is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial conducted according to law, and then, and only then, is that person guilty at law (rather than in fact) and able to be punished.
I would like to point out that the first Bain trial heard nowhere near all of the evidence either for or against David Bain. Much of it was ruled inadmissible (suppressed, for the laymen here) and much of that suppression was done at the request of the Crown. The Bain case is not one where you will find a nefarious Defence team that used every dirty trick in the book to win. Defence lawyers are not able to rule out evidence on their own, rather they have to ask a judge to do it. In the Bain case, many of those requests went all of the way to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Now, the law, as implemented by our policticians in 2006 decided that only evidence that was relevant could be admitted ina trial. The judges who heard the evidence, all judges with many years of experience, and including the Court of Appeal (which many here like because the are generally pro-Crown) and the Supreme Court (which many here wrong dislike for what they see as the opposite reason) heard the evidence and found that it was not relevant for one relevant for one reason or another.
I know that is simplified, but if the lawyers here would allow me that simplification then I would be most grateful.
The fact is that the first Bain trial was found by the Privy Council to have been a miscarriage of justice. A huge amount of defence evidence that should have been admitted was not allowed to be heard by the jury. I know that many people here don’t care and simply think that because the first jury found Bain guilty then that lends weight to their case. It doesn’t. Taking that view is like arguing that the result of a rugby match where one team with only 11 players played and lost to a team with the full 15 players is a fair result. It is not.
That is not to argue David Bain’s innocence. It is simply to point out that it is very wrong to place any reliance at all on the result of the first trial. After all, A A Thomas was convicted by TWO juries, but I can assure you that in both cases there were miscarriages of justice perpertrated on Thomas by the Court, the Crown and the Police, only subsequently being exposed in the Royal Commission of Inquiry that cleared him.
Secondly, if you have a view based on all of the trial evidence (not the summaries given to you by the media, which are usually skewed by sheer ignorance on the part of the repeater) and form an opinion of guilt or innocence, then fine. BUT, and it is a big but, nobody but David Bain knows, regardless of how strongly you feel. Innocent people have been condemned on what is thought to be the very strongest of evidence. Defences that have been rejected by Prosecutors as preposterous have sometimes been found to be true. The fact is that life is stranger than fiction and we should be careful to say we are certain of a person’s guilt or innocence unless were actually there.
Again, I do not advocate for either his guilt or his innocence. I really don’t care.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Rubin Carter is down as one of the other guest speakers. Was getting OJ just pushing the bullshit too much?
I would bet that the organisers are one of those groups that are pushing their special agenda under the cover of being a neutral, socially responsible independent body.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Oh, and Bain was only found guilty once that I am aware of. Elaycee, can you point out the second time, please, because I am unaware of that one.
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Toad at 10:38
Toad at 10:47
Toad, your first comment relies on there being no possiblity of appealing a “not guilty” verdict, and the second relies on such an appeal being potentially possible. Which one is true?
Vote:May 16th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
The fact is that the first Bain trial was found by the Privy Council to have been a miscarriage of justice.
Principally on the grounds that some questions were not put to him by the prosecution when he was on the stand. That he chose not to take the stand the second time around to avoid answering those very same questions has no bearing on his guilt or lack thereof. Yeah right.
Since you operate on the basis that a not guilty verdict is grounds that we must never assume his guilt and that a guilty verdict is possibly flawed and imperfect and so guilt must also never be assumed in such a case (as you have done with the Barlow case), you can drop your pretense at moral superiority and accept the fact that our presumption of his guilt is in fact justified.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Toad on Frog Blog http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/04/13/three-cheers-for-the-good-cops/ , re the Martin Folan case
Just becasue a jury has not found the allegations of assault proven beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t meant the alleged assaults are deemed forever to have not happenned. Folan still faces an internal Police employment investigation and an inquiry by the Independent Police Conduct Authority – both of which have a lesser standard of proof.
Jeez Toad, casting aspersions on someone found “not guilty” in a court of law? Say it ain’t so!
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Metcalph, I presume your comment was in response to mine. If it is, go and re-read it and you will see that I neither assume his guilt nor his innocence. I don’t care.
Then go and read the Privy Council’s decision and tell me which paragraph supports your assertion re the main reason for the miscarriage is questions not put to Bain at the first trial. I can’t find them on a quick glance through. However I do find the following:
“104. In the opinion of the Board the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the NINE points summarised above, taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case. It is the effect of all the fresh evidence taken together, not the evidence on any single point, which compels that conclusion. But it is necessary to identify the source of the Board’s concern in relation to each point.” (Emphasis mine)
Then look at para 115
“…First, the issue of guilt is one for a properly informed and directed jury, not for an appellate court. Secondly, the issue is not whether there is or was evidence on which a jury could reasonably convict but whether there is or was evidence on which it might reasonably decline to do so. And, thirdly, a fair trial ordinarily requires that the jury hears the evidence it ought to hear before returning its verdict, and should not act on evidence which is, or may be, false or misleading. Even a guilty defendant is entitled to such a trial.”
Which is a good reminder.
Next I am nowhere near naive enough to thing that a not guilty verdict is always correct, nor that a guilty verdict is wrong. I have seen guilty people go free and innocent people convicted. Hell, I helped some of those guilty people to get off myself! But I make no pretense at moral superiority, just a pretense at a closer knowledge of the criminal law than most here. Each is entitled to their opinion, but they should make up their opinion based on proper evidence, not scuttlebutt, hearsay and contra-indicators. However, I will never accept the fact that your presumption of his guilt is justified, because never in a situation like this is a presumption or assumption ever justified.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 12:18 am
And Barlow is one case where I think the introduction of flawed, and now discredited, but damning evidence in the third trial, resulting in a guilty verdict when two earlier trials had resulted in hung juries does lead to the possibliity that the discredited evidence may have been the key factor in the guilty verdict being returned. If so, then that verdict is unsafe. It does not, however, mean he is innocent. I have no idea one way or the other, and obviously with two hung juries, not did at least one person in each of the earlier trials.
I just think that the verdict of guilt is unsafe. It may be correct, even, but still be unsafe in the circumstances.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 7:40 am
To assert someone who has been found not guilty of a crime to be guilty is defamatory, and therefore unlawful. A not guilty verdict is end of story in law.
But I do not defame David Bain when I say he killed his family. Truth is a defence to an accusation of defamation. And regardless of whether he was found guilty by a court or not, he still did it.
The standard for a defamation suit is that David Bain is, on the balance of probabilities, innocent and I am therefore defaming him. But the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly suggests that he did it. My personal view is that he did it beyond reasonable doubt also, and I was disappointed that a jury disagreed. But nothing can alter that fact that the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 7:57 am
@Put it away 11:48 pm
I should have qualified my 10.38 pm comment by adding “…once all appeal rights have been exhausted.”
@Put it away 12:14 am
There is a difference between the standard of proof in criminal law and the standard of proof in civil or employment law. If the cop who was the subject of the thread at Frogblog you link to is found on the balance of probabilities by a Police disciplinary tribunal to have used force that is not reasonable in the circumstances, he could be disciplined or dismissed for that. But that would still not change the fact that in criminal law he is not guilty of assault.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:09 am
toad – which dovetails rather nicely with BlairM at 7:40… if defamation is decided on the balance of probabilities of whether the claim is true, then clearly it’s not defamation to say that Bain is guilty, because the balance of probabilities is demonstrably that he is.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:15 am
@Put it away 8:09 am
I’m just suggesting that it is better to err on the side of caution in that regard. Recall that Helen Clark got herself into trouble for referring to someone who had been convicted of manslaughter as a “murderer”.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:16 am
I have to wonder about a country that clearly only has idiots in its legal system, morons as jurors and the finest legal minds able to make hard judgements on the flimsiest of evidence as blog commenters.
So very sad really.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Toad
Is Bain a Green party member?, I have to ask given your strident defence of the man, you normally reserve such ‘pissing into the wind’ tactics when defending a Green party MP of rorting the electoral system of one found guilty of stealing tax payer dollars.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:22 am
“Recall that Helen Clark got herself into trouble for referring to someone who had been convicted of manslaughter as a “murderer”.
Yep..and let me guess how that one turned out……”while there is a prima facie case for prosecution..etc.etc.etc”
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Toad, do you say things just to be contrary?
David Bain was obviously guilty, how can you hear the evidence and deny this? Why would you support some weirdo who killed his family? It’s perverse.
Do you support Clint Rickards and Tea Ropati too?
Do you just switch your brain off when you read the facts of the case? Or are you just being an argumentative troll? I really hope it’s the latter.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:41 am
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judicial-decisions-david-cullen-bain/Bain-Media-Release.pdf
Just finished reading the above doc, quite interesting. Seems like just one big legal joustling circus, not to throw any aspersions on the fine legal trade. Opinion is dismissed on the basis that bob the builder isn’t qualified to distinguish that joe his apprentice just cut his hand and the wound looks fresh.
Dr. Pryde’s evidence was enough for me to form one of the jury “opinions” to put Bain away.
Speaking of opinions, wasn’t the legal system duped big time by Karen Zelas. Looks like it has happened again with Uncle Joe.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Toad says what hes paid to say tristanb.
Its easier than using his own brain or maintaining any actual principles. Pays better too.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
@Murray
Not a man of extremes are you?
ALL participants in the legal system are idiots
ALL jurors are morons
Wow
A black view on things.
Was Arthur Alan Thomas guilty as well?
Vote:I know some people who think he did it (yea right), mind you I think they can’t tell shit from clay but thats my view.
May 17th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Toad – “Recall that Helen Clark got herself into trouble for referring to someone who had been convicted of manslaughter as a “murderer”
Separation of the powers toad. It’s a bad look for the Prime Minister to act like she knows better than the legal process. As none of us here is the government, the concept doesn’t apply.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:59 am
@ F E Smith says: “Oh, and Bain was only found guilty once that I am aware of. Elaycee, can you point out the second time, please, because I am unaware of that one.”
Bain was convicted in 1995. Guilty.
It was appealed to the Court of Appeal / no reason to overturn the original verdict / appeal dismissed. Bail still guilty.
Appeal then to the Privy Council. Declined to hear the appeal – Bain still guilty.
Petition to the Governer General. Minister of Justice advised the GG to seek the C of A’s view on 4 items of evidence. They did but declined to review the case. Appeal dismissed. Bain still guilty.
In 2006 / 2007 the Privy Council agreed to hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal verdict. They ultimately recommended that there should be a retrial but Bain should remain locked up in the interim.
Retrial. Key evidence deemed inadmissible. Case against Bain not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bain released.
FES – I’m no lawyer so my terminologies may be less than ideal. But Bain’s guilt and the fairness of the trial (or otherwise) was examined without change to the original verdict on at least 4 occasions. Perhaps I could have said that the original verdict was ratified… but maybe thats the wrong terminology too. As I said, I’m no lawyer and if my terminology is incorrect, then I stand corrected.
But I’m still uncomfortable that key evidence was withheld from the last jury. I would prefer any jury to hear ALL evidence – if some parts of the evidence presented is deemed by the judge to lack credibility then surely, if the defence team cannot rebut it, the judge could steer the jury accordingly. But the last jury didn’t hear all of the evidence and perhaps (repeat, perhaps) that influenced their verdict. In the meantime, Karam et al were playing the media at every opportunity and courting sympathy by regurgitating the contents of a book listed in my local Library under “Fiction”.
Unless some new advances in technology emerge, we will never know what really happened. All five witnesses were killed.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:24 am
@elaycee,
“Unless some new advances in technology emerge, we will never know what really happened. All five witnesses were killed.”
It is called waterboarding, works supposidly well for the Taliban. I suspect without Uncle Joe along side him in interrogation that Bain would crack like the feeble spinless cretin he is. Bain is looking too scripted and brainwashed these days. This latest PR foray is another of Joe’s stupid scripted ideas.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:42 am
“Pssst – haven’t seen David Garrote or Garth McVictim on this thread yet!!! Or are you both here under pseudonyms? ”
Toad, you use a pseudonym and accuse others who don’t of doing so. What a hypocrite you are. What is your real full name?
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:43 am
@tristanb 8:37 am
FFS, I don’t support Bain. I never showed more than a cursory interest in his case until his conviction was quashed and people like you refused to accept the verdict.
As for Rickards, from what I’ve read and heard of what Rickards did, it was despicable, and he should ahve been dismissed from the Police if he hadnn’t resigned first. But I don’t go running around referring to him (as some others in the blogosphere do) as a rapist. He was acquitted. End of story, in that regard.
This is not about support for individuals, it is about support for the rule of law.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:47 am
PMSL @ noskire (426) “I certainly wouldn’t join him for shots at the bar afterwards” …Noskire that would be the bain of your life!
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:47 am
@Chuck Bird 9:42 am
I’ve already responded to that at 10:30 pm yesterday:
I wasn’t criticising anyone for using pseudonyms.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Elaycee at 8:59 am: But I’m still uncomfortable that key evidence was withheld from the last jury.
But not so uncomfortable it was withheld from the first trial? Perhaps (repeat, perhaps) that influenced the jury’s verdict.
What is worse – that a person guilty of killing the rest of their family, after years in prison, is found (in court) not guilty and released, or an innocent person whose family has all been killed is kept in prison?
While there is reasonable (and unreasonable) doubt both ways on this case, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for our system of justice to act as it did. If David Bain is guilty I don’t like the idea of him getting away with it, but I like it less that if he is innocent he is forever persecuted having already sufered a hell of a lot.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:53 am
If anyone went to the trial of Rickards they will know he was not a rapist and deserved to be aquitted! Some of us went to see him go down but it became very obvious what a miscarriage of justice that case was… comparing Rickards case with Bain is totally obscure. The only comparison is the HUGE cost to the tax payers for some Police officers incompetence and personal agendas.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 10:12 am
The word missing in this thread is ‘corruption’, the Bain , Thomas, and Ellis cases all suffered because of it.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am
@ Pete George 9.49am. Says: “What is worse – that a person guilty of killing the rest of their family, after years in prison, is found (in court) not guilty and released, or an innocent person whose family has all been killed is kept in prison?”
A similar question to whether you have stopped kissing your sister.
Surely what is really worse, is that juries did not hear all evidence. They had to come to a verdict based on what someone else decided they should hear. Juries are supposed to judge their peers based on weighing up the evidence. I’m saying that they should hear all of it and make their decision accordingly.
As mentioned elsewhere, we will never know the truth. All witnesses were killed.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Lance my comment was an observation of some of the comments here, not actually my opinion.
Assume its irony unless otherwise labelled. You hint was the assertion that everyone here was bloody legal genius.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 11:05 am
We are all a legal genius… its called common law and decency … not a legal system
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I wonder if David will take questions after he has spoken.?
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 11:19 am
If anything was thinking whether this whole conference “speaking engagement” was anything but a publicity stunt, here is your answer:
According to the NZ Herald: “Asked if a film about Mr Bain could be expected, Mr Karam replied: “I imagine a movie will come out in due course. I’m not involved in any planning for a movie but I am just saying there are interested parties.
“I think the funding and all sorts of things take a long time, but I am sure there will be a movie about the case.”
‘Any bets this gem will not be one of the lead items on taxpayer owned TV tonight?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10726094
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Sodding Edit function beat me to it at 11.19am…
Should have read: “If anyone was thinking… “
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Elaycee, I think you should look at the events leading up to the re-trial a little differently that you express in your comment of 8.59. Rather than seeing Bain’s guilt as being found guilty once and then that verdict confirmed three times, you should understand the legal system a little better and see the situation as it was in fact once the PC decision was handed down.
That situation is that Bain was found guilty after a trial that amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Key defence evidence was suppressed and the jury only heard a fraction of the evidence (compared with the second trial). So the verdict was based on a trial that amounted to miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal decision was also criticised by the Privy Council for the approach taken by the CA in upholding the decision. Now, the Court of Appeal does not re-hear the case. It works with the grounds of appeal set out by the appellant and makes a decision based on argument on legal points. So the Court of Appeal upheld a verdict given after a trial that was a miscarriage of justice.
The Privy Council declined to hear the case. This does not mean that they agreed with the verdict. The Privy Council hardly ever agreed to hear criminal cases from New Zealand. That did not ‘confirm’ the verdict, which, as we know now, was given after a trial that was a miscarriage of justice.
The Governor General referred it to the CA, which, oddly enough, declined the appeal. This means they got it wrong, because the original verdict was based on a miscarriage of justice. It in no way confirms the first verdict.
Do you see the problem? The first verdict could not have been a fair or just one because it was made by a jury after a trial process that amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Now, here is the part that non-lawyers don’t always get: the first verdict may have been correct (or it may not have been correct) but it was still a miscarriage of justice because of the trial process. The unfairness and injustice of that process renders the verdict unsafe and it should not be relied on in any way, and it means that the subsequent ‘confirmations’ of the verdict were in fact unsafe and unfair as well.
The problem with saying that the second jury didn’t hear all of the evidence is you have to ask where you finish? If all hearsay evidence is allowed in, then we defence lawyers can get a ton scuttlebutt in about all sorts of things. I have clients who tell me that so and so can say this, and someone else can say something else, all about how bad the complainant is, or the police, or whatever, but none of it is admissible. If you start allowing all of the evidence then you will make criminal trials go much longer than the average 1 to 2 days they do now.
And my issue is that the Evidence Act 2006 expanded the scope of evidence admissible in Court, especially in the area of hearsay, but when defence lawyers take advantage of the widened scope in progressing their client’s defence, they are criticised, vilified and subject to all sorts of abuse. What you, the general public, really mean when you say all of the evidence, is that you want all of the PROSECUTION evidence brought in. You don’t care about whether or not the defence gets a fair go. I can say that because if you did care about whether the defence gets a fair go then you wouldn’t be supporting the first trial, because in that case the defence most definitely didn’t get a fair go.
Murray, I don’t see the irony at all in your 8.16. I think it reads very churlishly. The Bain jury was drawn at random. The lawyers do the job that many (most) other people won’t, but I tell you that if we were to stop doing our job then society would be far worse off.
BlairM: you are correct that the civil test is the balance of probabilities, but don’t forget that it is you that would have to prove the truth of your assertion on the balance of probabilities, not Bain who would have to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities. Now, how are you going to round up all of those witnesses?
Again, I am not defending the jury verdict at all (like Toad, who has been unfairly treated in this thread, I don’t care) but I have no doubt that the second trial was far more fair (and it was fair to both sides) than the first. Especially when you consider that the cops had something like 25 detectives working on their side of it and the defence had 3 lawyers, Karam and (I think) another researcher. When it comes to equality of arms it was completely biased in favour of the Crown.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Bain will eventually judged in a higher court, just as we all must be.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
F E Smith says “I have no doubt that the second trial was far more fair (and it was fair to both sides) than the first. Especially when you consider that the cops had something like 25 detectives working on their side of it and the defence had 3 lawyers, Karam and (I think) another researcher. When it comes to equality of arms it was completely biased in favour of the Crown…”
Really? Five people were killed. The establishment of a benchmark standard of proof (and therefore the likelihood of getting a result of guilty beyond reasonable doubt), sits with the Crown (via the Police and the CLO) and if that meant that they had 25 people working on it, then so be it. I’d expect they have a higher standard to achieve than the defence because, (IMHO) I’d assume that the defence sets about creating doubt in the eyes of the jury by offering as many hypothetical scenarios and smokescreens as possible. But I have no problems with that either and accept that the creation of an element of ‘doubt’ was achieved in the retrial. Hence the verdict.
In parallel, Karam was able to play the MSM better than the wind section of the NZSO. Whether that had any bearing on the deliberations within the jury room, is hypothetical.
But you may well be right – us “non-lawyers” do not always ‘get it’. But, as we are still deemed to be good enough to be the jurors in our legal system, I believe the trial process should ensure that the jury hears the unexpurgated version of the evidence.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Coward Laws was firing on both barrels (or, rather, dribbling down both sides of his chin) on this issue this morning.
Same old stuff from the DPF camp mostly: “I know he’s guilty, and all the sleazy lawyers, corrupt Judges and stupid jurors in the world can’t pull the wool over my eyes” but with a few new gems about the supposed hypocrisy of Bain in speaking to a convention in Perth.
I don’t know how Coward Laws thinks the man is supposed to ever make a living for himself here, now that his name is a household byword for mud thanks to a rotten trial (the result of which has now been thrown out) and thanks to the likes of Coward Laws who have been doing well out of stirring up every Joe Thick’s worldly opinions about it for years…
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“Bain will eventually judged in a higher court, just as we all must be.”
But in the case of Stephen Hawking –
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.
…
In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action.”
It would still be nice for some of us to know here and now if Bain did it or not.
Vote:‘A higher court’ is a cop-out
May 17th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
BTW, I don’t see a last name, website, or email address associated with your posts Bevan.
Touché!
Mate, if you want I can link my name to Tommys Bookmarks if it floats your boat – about as relevant as your link in identifying you.
Email: Where’s yours?
Last Name: And your is?
Hell! At least I’m using my REAL first name. And I’m only here representing my own opinion, not that of a political party.
Q for you toad, are the Greens too gutless to post under their real names? Or would you be too ashamed if your real name was linked to the Green Party?
Wait – are you Nick Smith?
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
RRM – ” don’t know how Coward Laws thinks the man is supposed to ever make a living for himself here, now that his name is a household byword for mud ”
Probably shouldn’t have murdered his family then, eh? Does tend to be a career-limiting move.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
If Robin Bain was the killer, his fingerprints would have been on the computer keys that typed the ‘final message.’ They were not, which is proof of deception. You only have to listen to David’s pathetic 111, it is so fake.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Christopher Thomson asks:
I know very little about the Bain case, but I’ve researched Carter’s and I have to ask, what would satisfy you people who think that a cop laying an indictment is never wrong – never honestly mistaken, corrupt, acting on faulty evidence?
1. Carter and his alleged accomplice, John Artis, had been arrested on the night of the crime because they fited an eyewitness description of the killers as “two Negroes in a white car”.
2. They were then cleared by a grand jury when the one surviving victim failed to identify them as the gunmen.
3. Then prosecutors produced two eyewitnesses, Alfred Bello and Arthur D. Bradley, both petty criminals involved in a burglary (who were later revealed to have received money and reduced sentences from the police in exchange for their testimony). On that basis they got a retrial. However they produced little to no evidence linking Carter and Artis to the crime, a shaky motive (racially-motivated retaliation for the murder of a black tavern owner by a white man in Paterson hours before). There were also questions around shell casings allegedly planted in Carter’s car (shades of Arthur Allan Thomas). Nevertheless, on June 29, 1967, Carter and Artis were convicted of triple murder and sentenced to three life prison terms.
4. It took a full two years after an incriminating tape of a police interview with Bello and Bradley surfaced and The New York Times ran an exposé about the case, for the New Jersey State Supreme Court to rule 7-0 to overturn their convictions.
5. They were released on bail, but remained free for only six months; the state insisted on prosecuting them again and they were convicted once more at a second trial in 1976, during which Bello again reversed his testimony.
So at this point we have a grand jury acquital; no real motive; a conviction based on perjury and gained by bribery and other corruption; and a court willing to convict a second time on the reversed testimony of an admitted perjurer.
6. A long campaign to free Carter followed, supported by a lot of high-profile people who’d have looked pretty damned stupid if they’d backed someone against whom there might simply have been insufficient evidence rather than someone against whom there was no evidence. That’s why Vanilla Ice didn’t write any songs about OJ.
7. Finally in November 1985 a judge freed Carter. The judge said:
8. Sadly the state shared Mr Thompson’s view of things and refused to accept it’s police force might be up to no good rather than simply terribly unlucky in failing three times (four if you count the grand jury) and appealed that decision all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
9. Finally in February 1988, when New Jersey state judge formally dismissed the 1966 indictments of Carter and Artis and ended the 22-year long saga.
But that’s not enough courts, judges and grand juries to satisfy Mr Thomspon, evidently! What would be an acceptable burden for the defence to have met, I wonder? A compelling acquittal on “Sensing Murder” maybe, because I sure as hell can’t think of any other judicial body they could have fought before, and won.
Yes, undoubtedly something insidious and dangerous to the established order like, oh I don’t know… justice perhaps? That you see it as a “special agenda” suggests you think it ought to be reserved for the privileged few while the remainder, like Mr Carter, get scooped up, fitted up and locked up.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Rex you have just spouted the Hollywood ‘movie’ version of events. Rubin Carter was found guilty of murder twice. How exactly did the police ‘fail’??
Vote:You are an intelligent guy, I hope when you say you have ‘researched’ Carter’s case doesn’t mean you have simply watched the Hollywood fairytale movie? Or listened to the gushing Bob Dylan song? Because I don’t see anything in your post about Carter’s history as a violent gang member with multiple convictions for mugging old ladies and Robbery? Nor the overwhelming evidence that he in fact did it.
The ‘racist cop conspiracy’ has been proven to be a fabrication. That evil bigot you saw in the film did not even exist.
He was also, contrary to popular belief, a rubbish boxer.
May 17th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/song.html
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Longknives:
Actually I haven’t seen the film at all and wouldn’t base my reasoning on it if I had since the producers openly admitted to bias. The “evil bigot in the movie” was, the producers said, a single figure made to represent the system so no, I don’t think one cop is responsible – in fact it’d have been impossible for that to occur across multiple trials.
And I like Bob Dylan’s song, but hardly base my beliefs on someone’s lyrics, or I’d have developed an attraction for fat bottomed girls, amongst other unpleasant things.
As for his boxing, that’s a sport, which immediately puts it into my “I couldn’t care less” category of topics, but FWIW the bit I’ve read about his boxing career tends to back your assertion he was better than many but not nearly as good as he’s made out to have been.
AFAIK, Carter’s prior criminal history began at age 12 when he was arrested and sent to the Jamesburg State Home for Boys for six years after he attacked a man (whom he claimed was a pedophile who’d been attempting to molest one of his fiends) with a pocket knife.
He escaped and joined the Army, where he served in a segregated corps and began training as a boxer. He won two European championships and returned to the US to become a professional boxer. However police immediately arrested him and forced him to serve the remaining 10 months of his sentence. In 1957 he was again arrested, this time for purse snatching, and spent four more years in jail.
So a criminal undoubtedly, but “violent gang member with multiple convictions for mugging old ladies” sounds like hyperbole. And even a criminal can be wrongfully convicted.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
If they were looking for someone who has been shafted by the state.
Vote:Peter Ellis would have been a better choice.
May 17th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Careful, Liberty, Peter Ellis was found guilty by a jury, so according to most commenters here that is conclusive evidence of actual guilt. Even worse, Ellis has never won an appeal nor had a retrial, so, again, he must be guilty.
After all, to quote metcalph “Since you operate on the basis that a not guilty verdict is grounds that we must never assume his guilt and that a guilty verdict is possibly flawed and imperfect and so guilt must also never be assumed in such a case (as you have done with the Barlow case), you can drop your pretense at moral superiority and accept the fact that our presumption of his guilt is in fact justified.”
Forget about the fact that almost all defence lawyers in NZ, plus a lot of very high profile people, think that Ellis was wrongly convicted. Ignore the incredible, fantastic, impossible allegations made against Ellis by some children at the Christchurch Civic Creche, allegations that were SUPPRESSED by the Court at the request of the CROWN, who were most definitely not in favour of the jury having ALL the facts when it didn’t suit them. I am afraid that you won’t get any traction here, Liberty.
A jury found Ellis guilty once and that trumps all else….
Next someone will tell me that Arthur Allen Thomas being convicted twice by a jury (hello, Longknives) is more than sufficient to prove anything that happened subsequent to be completely wrong when it comes to showing innocence.
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
@Toad
The verdict was “not guilty”. It wasn’t “innocent”. I’ve been on jury service for two trials. Have you? The difference between the two is a lot. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the crime.
I believe, and still believe, the jury made the right verdict in David Bain #2 because the defense did a good job of creating doubt. But I still think he did it. The Crown was simply unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt he did it.
In one of the trials I was a juror for, we were almost certain one of the four people on trial was also guilty, but we did not believe it beyond reasonable doubt. So he was let off.
In the other trial, we found them not guilty for beating up on their children. Several months later, I read an article in the paper where the same people were found guilty for killing their nephew around the same time. Makes you wonder if we got it right in our trial, doesn’t it?
Vote:May 17th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Totally agree with the above I actually thought he was innocent until I read the full trial transcript and heard evidence that didnt go to court Now sure he is 100% guilty. I wonder if he will take the gun to the conference. Amazing how as soon as he got out he wanted it as a souvenir If it had been me ( and being innocent) I couldnt ever look at it again
Vote:Amazing how he was so ready to blame his father when if he was innocent he would have no idea who was guilty – perhaps an intruder – the amazing father who shot himself and then placed a wiped gun carefully even though he had his brains blown out and of course was able to hide the pillow to kill Laniet etc even though he had no time to do so
May 17th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
“Forget about the fact that almost all defence lawyers in NZ, plus a lot of very high profile people, think that Ellis was wrongly convicted. Ignore the incredible, fantastic, impossible allegations made against Ellis by some children at the Christchurch Civic Creche, allegations that were SUPPRESSED by the Court at the request of the CROWN, who were most definitely not in favour of the jury having ALL the facts when it didn’t suit them. I am afraid that you won’t get any traction here, Liberty.”
Like I said Ellis was shafted by the state.
Vote:Where as Bain got a lucky.
May 18th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Fair Cop Rex. Regardless of our differing stances on his ‘innocence’- I’m glad you based your opinion on something other than that god-awful fairytale movie. It made him out to be a quiet, humble, peaceful man who was set up by one racist cop…which is an absolute fabrication. I read an insightful interview with a Journalist a few years ago who met him (and experienced the madness of the ‘real’ Rubin Carter)- If only I could find it now…
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
FE Smith wrote: “A huge amount of defence evidence that should have been admitted was not allowed to be heard by the jury.”
Rubbish…what is this huge amount of defence evidence that was ruled inadmissible? You’re ignoring the fact that David himself testified at the first trial and didn’t acquit himself well. He couldn’t account for the bruises on his body, nor could he explain why he didn’t go to Laniet’s aid despite hearing her gurgle. Indeed, he didn’t call police until 20 minutes later. Then of course there was the supressed prosecution evidence that the jury never heard.
Martin Van Beynen heard and saw all of the evidence that was presented at Bain’s second trial. He came to quite a different view of Bain’s guilt than did the jury.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict
Vote:May 19th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
> Ellis was shafted by the state. Where as Bain got lucky.
Van Beynen says the same. He also sat through Ellis’s trial and has made it clear that he believes Ellis was wrongly convicted. Unfortunately, the current Justice Minister and his predecessor – the now Labour Leader – have shown a remarkable lack of moral courage to rectify this miscarriage of justice.
Vote:June 2nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
I think that F E Smith is a little slanted in his interpretation of “miscarriage of justice” in respect of the Bain Case. From the Privy Council judgment:
Substantial miscarriage of justice
103. A substantial miscarriage of justice will actually occur if fresh, admissible and apparently credible evidence is admitted which the jury convicting a defendant had no opportunity to consider but which might have led it, acting reasonably, to reach a different verdict if it had had the opportunity to consider it. Such a miscarriage involves no reflection on the trial judge, and in the present case David’s counsel expressly disavowed any criticism of Williamson J. It is, however, the duty of the criminal appellate courts to seek to identify and rectify convictions which may be unjust. That result will occur where a defendant is convicted and further post-trial evidence raises a reasonable doubt whether he would or should have been convicted had that evidence been before the jury.
104. In the opinion of the Board the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points summarised above, taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case. It is the effect of all the fresh evidence taken together, not the evidence on any single point, which compels that conclusion. But it is necessary to identify the source of the Board’s concern in relation to each point.
I think that it is a better interpretation to say that the “miscarriage of justice” occurred when the Appelate Court made decisions that should have been made by a jury and failed to grant a retrial on one of three previous occasions when the case was taken to appeal. The initial trial was not a miscarriage of justice in respect of the evidence that was available at the time and the extent to which it was being promoted.
Any legal case is a bargaining contest between opposing parties and how much money you have to spend plays a significant role (eg $450,000 of legal aid money for the Privy Council hearing in this case). In the Bain case, the legal spin was extended outside the court to a considerable extent and taken into the media. You can talk yourself black and blue about legal this and legal that, but the overwhelming lesson from the Bain case is that good public promotion works and it is fair to say that Robin Bain’s name has been dragged wholeheartedly through the dirt both in the court and in the media. You only have to read Paul Holmes’s editorial written immediately after the retrial and the Close Up programme made after Bryan Bruce’s doco in 2010 to hear and see prominent people state as fact evidence which we know to be only hearsay. This should never have been allowed to happen but it goes to show how much of a publicity campaign this whole case has been to convince not only a jury of 12 but also a population of 4 million. This case has been taken well and truly out of the court room, so F E Smith’s comments can only possibly partially apply.
Vote: