The “Bain” factor

July 5th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Michael Forbes at Stuff reports:

has been acquitted of murder in a court of law but he will still have to overcome the “Bain factor” in the court of public opinion, a top defence lawyer says.

Jonathan Eaton said the best advice he gave clients found not guilty of serious crimes was to accept the allegation would always follow them around.

Mr Eaton had Rex Haig’s murder conviction quashed in 2008 and successfully defended George Gwaze on charges of murder and sexual violation in May.

On Tuesday, Macdonald was found not guilty of murdering his brother-in-law and business partner, Scott Guy, in July 2010 after a month-long trial in the High Court at Wellington.

Mr Eaton said that in Macdonald’s case – where a crime had clearly been committed and police were not looking for anyone else – there would inevitably be members of the public who thought he was “lucky”.

“Regrettably, you’re always going to be tainted; whether it’s applying for employment positions, starting new relationships, moving to a new town – there’s always going to be a Bain factor, which you can’t escape.”

I’m not sure it is a case for regret. I don’t think there is anything wrong with people having an opinion based on balance of probabilities, rather than a criminal sentence which must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On Radio Rhema yesterday it was suggested to me and Sue Bradford (the panelists) that all defendants should receive name suppression until they are convicted, so they don’t have to wear the stigma of being accused but found not guilty. It was a rare issue where Sue and I both agreed – we were against.

I actually think it reflects well on our society, that we understand the difference between thinking someone did it, and the legal need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I see the Macdonald case as somewhat different from the Bain case, which suggests to me that Macdonald may face much more hostility than . They are:

  1. In the Bain case, there was a plausible (to some anyway) alternative explanation for the killer. In the Guy killing, there has been no alternative explanation.
  2. David Bain actually served over a decade in prison for the murders, so even those who think he did it, recognise that he in no way “got away scot-free”,
  3. If David Bain did not do it, he was the horrible victim of a framing by his father. With Ewen Macdonald, he has admitted to a campaign of harrassment, vandalism and arson against Scott and Kyle Guy. So regardless of (1) and (2) above he will rightfully be judged badly for the crimes he has admitted to.

It will be interesting to see what sentences are handed down for the six charges Macdonald has admitted to.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “The “Bain” factor”

  1. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    That he did do what he did will make it harder to throw off the tag that he did it and got away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. HB (332 comments) says:

    another difference is the other six charges, including arson and vandalism which were aimed at the victim.

    ETA: should have read to the end of the post. DPF has mentioned this already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    If David Bain did not do it, he was the horrible victim of a framing by his father.

    Well at least Macdonald didn’t try to implicate anyone else. Bain did which makes him the bigger arsehole imo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    I suspect he will be sentenced on the other 6.
    What concerns me a little as that there are very few people surprised by the verdict. The crown case was so full of holes just about all the people I spoke to about the case were expecting McDonald to walk away. Surely the Crown must have known that they had little chance of a conviction based on the evidence or lack of it that they had so why proceed before they could shore up the case with something more concrete.

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

    Has the suppressed question asked by the Jury and the suppressed answer given by the Judge and the reason for the suppression disclosed yet, or is it destined to remain a filament of our secret Justice System.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulP (156 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to find out what the three or so charges are that have also been suppressed until his next caught appearance. They might create a bit more pressure on him if they were relating directly to the murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. JC (951 comments) says:

    “so why proceed before they could shore up the case with something more concrete.”

    Both McD and Callum Boe have admitted guilt in the vandalism, arson and deer poaching issues plus McD has had further “serious charges” added to the list that were suppressed from the jury and not yet made public.

    It strikes me that the police could hardly hold back on the murder hoping for some future breakthrough and leave the other charges against the men to pend (possibly) forever as well. My thought is the police decided to go for a murder charge and hope to get lucky, but have the other case as a backup to “park” McD for a year or three.

    JC

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

    I have not talked to one person who thought he would get convicted, but virtually all of them think he was guilty. Good luck finding a life with everyone reminded that he is a self confessed thief, stalker, vandal and arsonist. Oh yeah – and he probably got away with murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. HB (332 comments) says:

    maybe some evidence was suppressed that police were expecting to be able to use in the prosecution?
    this could explain why evidence was flimsy in the prosecution.
    why was Callum Boe not called as a witness? He could give insight to Ewen and his motivations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I have not talked to one person who thought he would get convicted, but virtually all of them think he was guilty.

    How do your correspondants explain away the alibi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    maybe some evidence was suppressed that police were expecting to be able to use in the prosecution?

    If it was suppressed, it would have to be unlawfully obtained (doubtful) or irrelevant. How exactly are the police going to get a conviction on irrelevant evidence?

    why was Callum Boe not called as a witness?

    Perhaps there was a likelihood he would recant his confession or otherwise fuck around on the witness stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    It strikes me that the police could hardly hold back on the murder hoping for some future breakthrough and leave the other charges against the men to pend (possibly) forever as well.

    There’s no rule that says the murder charge has to be heard at all before any of the other charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. flipper (4,332 comments) says:

    It would be interesting to see a transcript of written/verbal communications between Vanderkolk, the prosecutor, and Schwalger the DI in charge, when the decision was made to formally charge McDonald. Was one or the other gung ho? D id one recommend caution? Or did both, as one correspondent suggested, try to “get lucky” ?

    That decision (to charge and prosecute) must have been made PRIOR to the 4.5hr interview he gave to Police, during which time two detectives had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to cross examine him – without legal counsel present.

    Did Mconald do it? Only he knows. And before anyone thinks trhe Crown will catch up as a result of the charges to which he has pleaded guilty, AND other charges whiuch may or may not be successful, or have the appearance of a vendetta, I doubt any New Zealand Court would countenance such an approach. On the charges he has admitted he will get the tariff sentence – less time served. The other charges? Well, the Crown is spending our money on prosecution/defence. And then there would be the cost of further incarceration – up to $100,000 per annum..

    Then there is also the question of costs to date.
    The Crown (us) will face a massive bill from Vanderkolk. And did McDonald have legal aid (from us)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > In the Guy killing, there has been no alternative explanation.

    What a strange comment. It clearly shows you didn’t take much notice of the trial, where the defence named a suspect who didn’t have an alibi. And you have conveniently ignored the evidence which pointed away from Macdonald, such as the 3 shots that witnesses heard, shots which couldn’t have been made by the gun owned by Brian Guy. Then there’s the boot evidence which is unhelpful to the Crown case, and the timing of the shooting, which suggests that Macdonald was still at home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Three of the four crown witnesses heard shots at about 5am…when Macdonald was at work.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7213148/Scott-Guy-murder-trial-in-summary

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. HB (332 comments) says:

    maybe some evidence was suppressed that police were expecting to be able to use in the prosecution?

    “If it was suppressed, it would have to be unlawfully obtained (doubtful) or irrelevant. How exactly are the police going to get a conviction on irrelevant evidence?”

    why would something be suppressed if it is irrelevant?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Dan (39 comments) says:

    Being affected by the “Bain” factor is obviously undesirable.

    But surely labelling the condition ‘The “Bain” factor’, as Eaton does, only perpetuates the “Bain” factor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “Police also appealed for information about two vehicles seen driving on Aorangi Rd between 4.30am and 5am on July 8…the drivers of those vehicles have never been identified.”

    So if Macdonald is guilty, the drivers of the two cars are presumably innocent. Why haven’t they come forward?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. HB (332 comments) says:

    why was Callum Boe not called as a witness?

    “Perhaps there was a likelihood he would recant his confession or otherwise fuck around on the witness stand.”

    His confession to crimes that EM has also already confessed to?
    fuck around on the witness stand? Aren’t there often people called to the witness stand who don’t want to be there?
    Can potential witnesseses be stopped from giving evidence by the defence? Was this something also suppressed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Why the ‘Bain Factor’? Why not the ‘Scott Watson Factor’? Just because Michael Forbes expresses an opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. projectman (232 comments) says:

    In the Bain case, there was a plausible (to some anyway) alternative explanation for the killer.

    No there wasn’t.

    In the Guy killing, there has been no alternative explanation.

    So what. That just means the Police didn’t find plausible evidence pointing to the killer. But, remember, the defence for Macdonald did present a couple of scenarios that would have involved other people (but they don’t have to present evidence to back their assertions).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    why would something be suppressed if it is irrelevant?

    Because it could bias the jury into making the wrong decision if heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    His confession to crimes that EM has also already confessed to?

    If he recanted, then that could be used in an attempt to vacate Ewen’s guilty plea on the grounds that it was obtained through false pretenses. I doubt it would be successful but it’s a pain in the arse the crown can do without.

    Can potential witnesseses be stopped from giving evidence by the defence?

    Only if they convince a judge.

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

    why would something be suppressed if it is irrelevant?

    Just a point to everyone: the word ‘suppressed’ has no legal procedural meaning other than in reference to not reporting something.  Evidence that is unable to be used during a trial is termed excluded or inadmissible.  They have very different meanings and reasoning behind them.

    Secondly, the Evidence Act says that if evidence is irrelevant then it is inadmissible.  Only relevant evidence may be put before the finder of fact.

    Witnesses like Boe cannot be called to give ‘insight’ into McDonald.  The fact that McDonald had admitted the offences made it unnecessary to prove them.  They were not concerned directly with the alleged offence before the Court so they did not need to be the subject of a witness. Unless Boe had some evidence that went towards the actual murder then he wasn’t really needed.  Personal opinion is not allowed in Court unless it is expert opinion.

    I also think that it is wrong to suggest that if Robin Bain did kill his family then he also framed David Bain.  Suspiscion was always going to fall on David as the only survivor in the family.  If Robin Bain did do it then what happened subsequent would not have required any intent to frame.

    Scott Chris, don’t be stupid.  Of course David had to say it was Robin if it wasn’t him.  The Crown said the same thing as well.  Don’t try this ‘protect the reputation of the dead’ line again.  It is a really dumb idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. HB (332 comments) says:

    thanks for the answers FES and metcalph

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Of course David had to say it was Robin if it wasn’t him.

    That statement is illogical…David would know if he hadn’t slaughtered his family. The fact that he seemed to be unsure says a lot. There is considerable evidence implicating David…but almost a complete absence in the Macdonald case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Day in day out, the reasoned, intelligent and principled contributors of Kiwiblog rail at the lies, contradictions and misinformation perpetrated by the pinko brigade. Its ignoring of facts that don’t suit the agenda, the substitution of innuendo, obfuscation, disingenuous propaganda and outright lies to support their warped view of the world. The expression of opinions that have no basis in fact or reality. Imagine the ridicule if Mallard said Key had travelled back in time and fiddled his wealth on the sharemarket!!

    I guess Kiwibloggers are slow learners but they seem to have caught quickly in the last few weeks. And if Macdonald can in fact pedal his bicycle back though time holding 3 puppies and a shotgun, maybe Key really did rort his share wealth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    He wasn’t unsure ross69, get a grip. He simply agreed with the obvious, a detective saying to him that it must have been one or other – the father or the son.

    Eaton is using the ‘Bain’ factor inappropriately, by doing so he’s giving legs to something which in the next breath he suggests is inevitable. EM has other convictions. 100s of thousands of nzers have convictions – it is, as this case shows, not necessary to have led a blameless life to be not guilty of a crime. I’m more sympathetic to those such as Watson and Haig whose ‘pasts’ have taken relevance over proof of their guilt.

    DPF is still confused about the MacDonald case. EM, has King said, didn’t have to show who the killer was. In fact there are other suspects.

    Flipper above is knocking on the right door here. The decision to prosecute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “He simply agreed with the obvious…that it must have been one or other – the father or the son.”

    Yeah I’m sure Lindy Chamberlain told police – “it’s either me or the dingo”. Too funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    ross69

    Yes, I’m sure you believe what happened to Lindy Chamberlain was too funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    I can’t see how twelve people, after all the cruel things MacDonald did to Scott Guy, could have a reasonable doubt that he did the murder. What else do they think could have happened?

    Are country-folk all psychopaths who torture each other in nasty ways, and then murder each other?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In the Bain case, someone who actually sat through the re-trial said there were at least 20 pieces of evidence which pointed to his guilt. Hmmm you’d struggle to get 5 pieces of evidence in the Scott Guy case pointing to Macdonald’s guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/6440170/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing

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

    tristanb,

    The jury was down to 11 at the end, but although I (and seemingly a lot of people) think Ewen very probably did it, the verdict was the right one to my mind because the police and witnesses haven’t got the story fitting quite tightly enough to be absolutely sure.

    It’s unlikely someone else did it, but not entirely implausible or impossible. Other cars for example were seen.

    Personally I think it’s possible the police have the murder weapon completely wrong – either that or the witnesses can’t count gunshots accurately first thing in the morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    tristanb

    Congratulations.

    That is quite possibly the most stupid comment on this subject in the last three days and it’s not as if you haven’t had some pretty stiff competition. Give yourself a special treat tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    Rather that argue about what somebody else ‘wrote’ let’s see where Justice Binnie goes with his decision. My confidence remains high, whilst yours apparently doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I can’t see how twelve people, after all the cruel things MacDonald did to Scott Guy, could have a reasonable doubt that he did the murder. What else do they think could have happened?

    It isn’t their job to put forward what else they think could have happened. It’s their job to determine whether what the crown argued was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    Given the nature of the alibi, I think it far more likely than not that somebody else committed the murder. If you disagree, please try riding a bike carrying a loaded shotgun and three puppies in pitch darkness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    tristanb

    I’ve read that the house which was set alight had already been sold for $8.000 which is the reason it was ready to move. It was a bloody stupid thing to do none the less, because the house trailers involved are each valued at around $500,000 new. I don’t see how that arson could be personalised as against anybody expect the house moving company, or simply that the idiots that lit it couldn’t see the overall consequences. But as we know one man is serving time for that, and another is to be sentenced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. HB (332 comments) says:

    are we allowed to know what sentence Boe is serving for his part in the arson and vandalisms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > let’s see where Justice Binnie goes with his decision

    My crystal ball says Joe Karam won’t be at all happy when he reads Binnie’s decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Heard the first Ewen McDonald joke this morning, I must say for a high profile case it took a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nookin (3,571 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    And….?

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

    I can’t see how twelve people, after all the cruel things MacDonald did to Scott Guy, could have a reasonable doubt that he did the murder. What else do they think could have happened?

    And that, ladies and gentlement, is precisely why there is a strong presumption against allowing the previous convictions of a defendant into evidence.

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

    are we allowed to know what sentence Boe is serving for his part in the arson and vandalisms?

     Possibly.  So long as a) he has actually been sentenced, rather than waiting to sentence them together, and b) there isn’t a suppression order on it until after the McDonald trial.

     It could just be that nobody has reported it. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    An interesting take on the trial from Scott Yorke, critical of a Herald column, and commenting on why the defendant shouldn’t have to take the stand and the imbalance of prosecution versus defence.

    The Macdonald Trial: Did The System Work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    From what I can remember last week, Boe was sentenced to two years on the arson charges. I do not remember if that involved all the charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    either that or the witnesses can’t count gunshots accurately first thing in the morning.

    David, as another commenter observed earlier, two shots may sound like three if you have two shots and two echos, but the first echo masked by the second shot. And Guy only had two shotgun wounds, one in the throat to stop him yelling ‘Ewan!’ and one in the face to finish him off so I’d say the farm gun was the likely murder weapon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    Jimbob 2.38pm I both read and heard of a similar length sentence. I’m sure someone will confirm it before long.

    Scott Chris: You’re a nasty bit of work at times. Did you not note in the trial that 3 shots couldn’t have been ruled out, or do you just ignore what doesn’t fit your fantasies and opportunities of invention. How do you explain the pellets retrieved from his forearm, and what proof do you have that the gate was locked that morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. projectman (232 comments) says:

    How interesting it is that many of the posters here are convinced Macdonald is guilty, despite not having sat through the trial and heard all the “evidence”.

    One could pose many alternative scenarios, in addition to what has already been said. Here’s one just to show how “creative” one could be: possibly for the first time, NZ has a psychopath out there who 4 years ago shot farmer Jack Nicholas at his gate in the early morning and in 2010 decided he/she needed another fix and shot farmer Scott Guy at his gate in the early morning.

    Crazy eh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Did you not note in the trial that 3 shots couldn’t have been ruled out

    According to whom and using what rationale?

    How do you explain the pellets retrieved from his forearm

    Well what do you do when someone points a gun at you? You raise your arm to protect yourself. Duh.

    And try and be a big boy and leave the insults out eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    And try and be a big boy and leave the insults out eh?

    What a tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    Why don’t you read the evidence before you spit your nonsense out Scott Chris. You simply show, again, that you don’t know what you are talking about and fill the gaps from your imagination.
    I have had guns raised at me Scott Chris and I didn’t go raise my arm to protect myself because skin and bone are no match for a shot pellets or a bullet, also I didn’t go ‘duh.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    For you Scotty: I’ll indulge you this one time.

    ‘During the internal examination Dr Rutherford said one pellet had gone up through the mouth, cheek and eye to the brain.

    The bulk of the pellet mass was found in the mid to lower portion of the neck, he said.

    Under cross examination he told defence lawyer Greg King it was his view that all the injuries could be explained by one shotgun discharge but said he could not exclude more than one discharge.

    The pellet marks to his arm could be explained by throwing his arm up during the incident.

    Dr Rutherford said there could be three impacts as all the pellets look the same.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Longknives (4,962 comments) says:

    “1.In the Bain case, there was a plausible (to some anyway) alternative explanation for the killer. ”

    By “some” I presume you mean batshit insane conspiracy theorists??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > According to whom and using what rationale?

    According to 3 of 4 Crown witnesses who heard the shots. That begs the question: why didn’t police look for a gun which could fire 3 shots in quick succession? Seems the cops had made up their mind to fit the evidence with their main suspect. Similarly police didn’t do a thorough search of all the boots that could have made the impression at the crime scene, nor did they adequately re-create the killer’s footsteps. So the police do a half-arsed job and expect a guilty verdict? You’d think they might have learnt something since the Bain case…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Scotty the legend says…………….Well what do you do when someone points a gun at you? You raise your arm to protect yourself. Duh.

    Only on primetime TV , what you do is find a big fucking hole and try and climb into it but I suppose with your vast experience you know better, like on everything

    Or he could have thrown up his arm because he had a bright light shined in his face prior to being shot or he could have been lasered by aliens or a large dog raoming the moors could have been involved

    Two people know and one is dead, I struggle to see how people take this so personally and how all the experts on here seem to know- the experts couldn’t fucking prove it – so I struggle to see how some halfwit at a computer reading a newspaper knows.

    King is a good barrister , not a big noter ,just solid and meticulous and it appears weaknesses in the prosecution were exposed and the defence got the result, happens every now and again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    ross69

    There are sand shoes with the same pattern sole. Also when the witness checked databases for matches that completely overlooked the ‘copy’ market rife in parts of the world who don’t database their reproductions. The importer of the boots conceded that there may have been parallel and other imported boots he didn’t know about – even if the fact that the pattern was used on other types of shoes didn’t dilute the inaccuracy of the Crown’s claim anyway. Additionally it seems the size wasn’t recorded on the paperwork attending the sale. However, the Crown stuck with s 9 because that it was EM volunteered to a constable when asked on the day of the shooting. The Crown could have possibly recovered some ground on that, (worn with extra socks and so on) but Vanderkolk made no attempt to, instead sticking with ‘evidence’ seemingly destroyed in cross examination. I don’t think the boots evidence was conclusive anyway, certainly could never incriminate EM, but I was a bit surprised by the pedestrian response from the Crown that their ‘expert’ evidence was full of holes. Of course there could be some other explanation but I’d expect we’d have heard about it a couple of weeks ago at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Only on primetime TV , what you do is find a big fucking hole and try and climb bla bla bla

    No you fucktard I’m going by experience. A dickhead like you at school shot one of the juniors with a crossbow. I can picture him doing it just as I can picture the junior’s instinctive reaction.

    And Nostalgia you idiot. Once again you have produced testimony which proves my point not yours.

    Bah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    At school Scotty well well, did this happen this last term or what.

    Well in the real world when you are shot at by a firearm standing with your arm in front of your face is just fucking stupid

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    According to 3 of 4 Crown witnesses who heard the shots.

    See my 3.03 and tell me if you think it is a plausible theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Well in the real world when you are shot at by a firearm standing with your arm in front of your face is just fucking stupid

    Which part of ‘instinctive reaction’ don’t you understand? But being open minded I wouldn’t exclude your torch in the face theory either. No doubt pigs use that a lot. Going by experience eastbay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Of course David had to say it was Robin if it wasn’t him. The Crown said the same thing as well. Don’t try this ‘protect the reputation of the dead’ line again. It is a really dumb idea.

    Smith, don’t patronize my you pompous git. Bain staged the scene to implicate Robin. Macdonald didn’t try to implicate anyone else specific. That was solely my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    ‘See my 3.03′ my goodness there’s no need to be so gross Scotty, anyway I’d hardly call that size an endowment of note.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    No doubt pigs use that a lot. Going by experience eastbay?……

    You are a sad little man Scotty and you have the termity to call call FES pompous.

    and Scotty you may not have noticed but over your 4400 comments in the space of about 8 weeks, no one gives a fuck what you think

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

    Bain staged the scene to implicate Robin

    Y’know, you really should offer your servics to the Ministry of Justice.  You obviously know more about the circumstances that lead to every major trial that takes place in NZ just by sitting at your computer than anyone else!

    Which is another way of saying ‘you are kidding me, right?’.  You really need to stop using whatever illicit substance it is that you are taking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Y’know, you really should offer your servics to the Ministry of Justice.

    I think you’ll find that the MoJ thought David staged the scene, which is why it thought David’s conviction was safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Y’know, you really should offer your servics to the Ministry of Justice.

    So we get to the crux of the matter. You can’t think in terms of anything other than the legal context. I don’t give a fuck about the legal context. I’m talking about what I think probably happened. Why is that so hard to understand?

    You really need to stop using whatever illicit substance it is that you are taking.

    Speculating Smith? Good for you. As it happens you’re completely wrong. I’m tee-total. The psychosis is all natural.

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

    Psychosis? You are obviously psychic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (12,412 comments) says:

    There’s a physic for that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Well there we go then we throw out hundreds of years English law and debate things on what a narcissistic self admitted psychotic thinks, that makes sense

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > we throw out hundreds of years English law and debate things on what a narcissistic self admitted psychotic thinks

    That’s no way to talk about about David…just because he stalked the house and intimidated his family with a gun, he was really a big softie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    Get a bib change rossy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    I think you want the boner for Bain thread sport.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Thanks, Cha.

    Yeah it’s weird that David detested his father yet at a recent conference for victims of miscarriages of justice – why was David there? – David told a completely different story. Robin all of a sudden was the father of the year. One of the many things that David will hopefully put right when he talks to Justice Binnie later this month. And poor old Joe Karam won’t be able to interrupt proceedings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    I can already hear you crying and bleating about the report ross69, and the payout. Stock up on tissues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Put it away (2,872 comments) says:

    The bain factor, aka the guilty-as-all-fuckery factor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > and the payout.

    You must be feeling lucky, I suggest you buy a Lotto ticket.

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

    Just because somebody leaves home on a bike, doesn’t mean that they could not have been picked up by a vehicle. Also, love to know if the police looked into the idea, that somebody close to Ewan saw his boots, and bought a pair just like them> Maybe we need a set-up closer to the FBI, a very experienced A team to assist, advise, and overlook difficult cases and prosecutions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (3,829 comments) says:

    Macdonald has implied that those puppies were stolen by someone who may have murdered Scott Guy. They were last seen on the night before the murder.
    So we have to believe that
    [1] That puppy stealer just happened to be on the property when Scott Guy was getting up.
    [2] That the puppy stealer instead of just making his getaway decided to shut the gates[presumably to slow Guy down].
    [3] That the puppy stealer then decides that instead of taking off down the road he will confront Scott Guy and kill him,using a shotgun he just happened to have in car.
    [4] That the puppy stealer just happened to be wearing dive boots.
    Now anybody who believes all of the above must be a member of the Flat Earth Society.
    This is a classic case of someone [Macdonald] trying to lay a false trial. Now why would he do that,if he is innocent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. muggins (3,829 comments) says:

    I firmly believe the right to silence must be abolished.
    I don’t know if Macdonald had had to take the stand that it would have made any difference to the verdict.
    Macdonald would have been asked about the arson and graffiti. He no doubt would have apologised for that.
    He would have been asked about his dive boots. He probably would have said they must have been tossed out by his wife,but one would have to wonder why he would have allowed them to be tossed out,if he is still hunting.
    He would have been asked why he thought those missing puppies were linked to the murder. I don’t know how he would have explained that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. muggins (3,829 comments) says:

    I am pretty sure that if David Bain had had to take the stand at the retrial he would have been found guilty.
    There were some questions that he would have been asked that he could not have given satifactory answers to.
    Like why he lied about those glasses.
    Like why he can’t explain those scratches on his torso.
    Like why he called a family meeting that he insisted Laniet attend,even though she didn’t want to go to it. A family meeting he never mentioned in his depositions.
    Etc.,etc.
    No doubt Justice Binnie will be asking him those questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (3,829 comments) says:

    I wonder if Justice Binnie will be asking David Bain about that cup of tea he said he was going to make for his mother.
    In his latest book Karam said that Bain saw his mother’s light on when he came back up the stairs and thought he would make her a cup of tea.
    But when speaking at that conference Bain said he saw his mother’s light on BEFORE he went downstairs and that is when he decided to make that cup of tea.
    And in his depositions Bain did say he saw a sliver of light coming from his mother’s room when he arrived home.
    So he goes downstairs to wash his hands [maybe],he puts the washing on[he had already done that before he went out on his paper round] and he makes a cup of tea for his mother. But what did he do with that cup of tea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. muggins (3,829 comments) says:

    A defence witness at the David Bain retrial said that the blood in the barrel must have come from the last person shot,because each bullet fired would clear any previous blood from the barrel.
    This is incorrect. In a case in the US a rifle was test fired to try to match the bullets found at the murder scene. The scientist carrying out the test firing was unable to match the bullets. However it was noticed,after three test firings,that there was blood in the barrel,and this was matched to the victims.
    So that blood in the barrel may not have been from Robin Bain. That may not have been a close contact wound to his head.

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

    So….where is Boe now? Is he in custody?

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

    A lot of people have an opinion of David, but have they actually met him? Judging one another (having an opinion) is a pitfall, and promoting judgmental attitudes is a clever means of division and diversion. I have met David – after chatting with him for awhile as to his need of my services, I paused and said, “Having had the benefit of meeting with and talking with you, how on earth did anyone ever figure you for a murdering psychopath?”

    Thinking over how many NZ’ers have been sacrificed by the real rulers of this realm, and being cynical of this and every Govt, it did occur that a dysfunctional Christian family such as the Bain’s, would make an ideal sacrificial victim to start a pot-boiler to keep the punters all wrapped up in their own pretensions and judgments while the country is stolen out from under them.

    The arguments over whether David or Robin did it, in fact the whole sad scene, might be easily explained by the presence of an evil little ferret on a mission. Funny how often these things happen in Dunedin – Aramoana, Hubbard…try and get a view of the death certificate for Alan Hubbard or reconcile all the versions of his death.

    David was a living sacrifice, simply because he was Christian and vulnerable and available to serve a much deeper, darker and sinister purpose, as were the Pike River miners and every other soul sacrificed in the service of those who reign and rule over us. Google “Murder at Pike River Mine”, and wake up! They are dividing your country for spoil while you are arguing over whodunits!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (13,571 comments) says:

    Judging one another (having an opinion) is a pitfall,

    Having made that comment you then go on to judge others and give your opinion.

    This is not a personality contest Malthius, it is about the facts. How you found him personally is purely subjective. Where is the evidence to support your position?

    Vague references to sinister hidden forces do nothing to bolster your opinion and probably detract from it in the minds of more considered readers.

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