Has Bain been found innocent on balance of probabilities

September 10th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

NewstalkZB reports:

Confidence the report into ’s compensation claim will be well thought out, and thorough.

It’s understood retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, Ian Binnie, who’s reported back to the Government on David Bain’s claim over wrongful imprisonment, has concluded that on all probabilities Mr Bain is innocent of the 1994 murders of his parents, two sisters and brother.

I have long had the view that David Bain did kill his family, based on evidence at all the trials, plus having read both books on the family and the killings.

When he was acquitted at his second trial, I accepted that the jury found reasonable doubt but always maintained that is different to whether or not he probably did it.  Just like the Ewen Macdonald case.

I have to say I was doubtful a claim for compensation would ever be filed as I thought that having a report reach a conclusion on balance of probabilities would not be in David Bain’s interests.

If NewstalkZb is correct, and Justice Binnie has concluded that on balance of probabilities David Bain did not do it, I am staggered.

However Justice Binnie, a former member of Canada’s Supreme Court, has spent months going through all the evidence in this case. I am not so arrogant that I prefer my opinion on some of the evidence to his considered opinion on all the evidence. If he has concluded that it probably was not David Bain, then I for one will respect that.

And while I instinctively do not like the thought of my taxes going to David Bain as compensation, when I have suspicions he was the killer, I do think it is important we have due process. If Justice Binnie has concluded that Bain was innocent on balance of probabilities, and should receive compensation, then that should occur. The upholding of the principle is important.

Also if the report is correct, one has to acknowledge Joe Karam for his tenacity. He managed to get the Privy Council to order a new trial, helped get an acquittal and now has had Bain found innocent on balance of probabilities. An incredible achievement.

Assuming the report is released eventually, I look forward to reading it, and especially Justice Binnie’s conclusions on what evidence he found most persuasive.

Tags:

226 Responses to “Has Bain been found innocent on balance of probabilities”

  1. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    Judges are only human like all of us, and make mistakes. Regardless of what his findings are, I think the Bain case is best left equivocal until later better science can prove the killings one way or another (as fingerprinting and then DNA has done subsequently for historic crimes). Like you DPF, I have been confident of Bains’ guilt, so await the Judges conclusions with interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    My thoughts exactly: *if* the reporting is correct…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    That recording where he calls the ambulence and (allegedly) mutters “I killed the bastard” is interesting. I listened twice and heard it the second time. That wouldn’t stand up as evidence though, the dispatcher should have said “would you repeat that last bit more clearly please”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    Kite flying for the stand for nothing National Party as usual.

    David Bain did it. You know that Mr. Farrar. The National Party knows it.

    Before they act on the recommendations of this Canadian idiot and pay out millions in what is basically an act of fraud, they should take Ministerial action to institute a review of his findings.

    They won’t though.

    They’re just laying the groundwork for the usual lame surrender.

    Bain will get his fraudulent millions, and it will be John Key who gives it to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Contrary to DPF I have always inclined to the side of believing David innocent. After the appalling Peter Ellis fiasco I had no confidence whatsoever in the original trial judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    hj: It’s one of those things were you hear what you want to hear.

    Much more convincing is that Bain was able to remember his own address without trouble. Emergency services recommend you write it by your phone because under the sort of stress that leads you to call 111 you forget a whole lot of things.

    Then there’s the way he faked a seisure when they arrived and all the rest of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lance (2,451 comments) says:

    By thunder;
    If redbaiter was the autocratic ruler of NZ he would bloody well fix things. Fuck due process I say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lance (2,451 comments) says:

    @scrubone
    Are you serious, you think the most damning fact against David Bain was that he could remember his address during the emergency phone call?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (7,624 comments) says:

    Excluded evidence in my opinion was very important. It was what the jury did not hear.

    Telling someone you wanted to rape a woman and use your paper round as an alibi is pretty daming stuff.

    Perhaps it’s time to review the rules around evidence. Too much gets excluded and justice is not served. Lawyers always benefit though while the public doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    Holy cow!
    Im interested to see how someone could assume on the balances of possibilities that anyone would leave the silencer on the gun and use a chair to hold the gun while they shoot themselves in the opposite side of the head than would be expected……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Amen DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Lets assume the ‘leak’ is correct, just for a moment.

    Why did I just know red would have been through the evidence, and have formed a guilty opinion where a trained and highly experienced retired judge, fully cognisant of beyond reasonable doubt, may have determined otherwise. How many months off work did you take to do that red?

    Or are you just an opinionated blowhard who refuses to change their view becuase you cannot stand being wrong or changing your mind?

    Not having sat through either trial, I dont have an informed opinion. But Im glad we have reasonable doubt. You should be too red. But then you wont be, becuase it doesnt fit your prejudices does it?

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

    Under the compensation rules, Bain isn’t eligible for compensation. He doesn’t qualify.

    I’d be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and award him $2 million, less deductions for time spent in prison at taxpayers’ expense, the huge legal bill for the re-trial and his earlier appeals. In other words, I’d suggest that he receive nothing. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    LOL at Redbaiter… “the National Party knows David Bain did it…”

    If only you could see what a big-government authoritarian leftist you are, you’d shit bricks. :-)

    No-one’s further left than the extreme right. And either you honestly can’t see it, or else your hypocrisy is simply staggering..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    Lance, since that’s not what I said, obviously no.

    My point was that if you’re going to take something away from the phone call, that’s what I’d take over something muttered under someone’s breath. The comment from the trial was that it was quite rare for people to remember their own address while talking to emergency services. That he could is syspicious, but it’s only one aspect of the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    Heh, never thought I’d say this but I agree with ross69. Particularly the part about him not qualifying – he clearly does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    HmmohanidiotIamforsure- Why did I just know red would have been through the evidence, and have formed a guilty opinion

    Damn right I have formed an opinion, because I’m a rationally thinking human being and not some brain damaged liberal sponge soaking up every piece of weak shitty improbable propaganda the liberal mainstream media puts out there. On this issue or any issue.

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

    I felt there was enough doubt of his guilt for acquittal to be appropriate. By the same token, I feel there’s enough doubt of his innocence not to pay him compensation. Will be very interested to read the formal report regardless of what it actually recommends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lance (2,451 comments) says:

    @scrubone
    I have called 111 on 3 occasions, 2 of them very stressful. I had no problem whatsoever remembering my address.
    I hope that doesn’t make me a sociopath? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mjwilknz (612 comments) says:

    Well said, DPF. An honourable take on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Think of all the awesome discussions we can have when he kills again!

    When we find out he has another paper run, we know it’s getting close……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    As one who has always been a doubter I’m not surprised. Lots of lousy police work and an indecent haste to burn the building down coupled with considerable questions on the propriety of a number of policemen at the time left me decidedly uncomfortable with the guilty verdict.

    Looking at the family history also raised doubts and to this day I am of the opinion that the wrong person was charged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The important thing to remember folks, is not whether he did it or not, but how David feels about what happened.
    Feelings are very important in modern society.

    Very important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    I hope that doesn’t make me a sociopath?

    Did you mutter “I killed the bastard” under your breath? :D

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

    Shunda

    Well, what we know is that David has spoken glowingly of his father….not sure I’d speak so glowingly about someone who has murdered my mother and brothers and sisters. Of course, David might speak so fondly of him because he knows Robin didn’t do it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Aww, poor red, did someone have the temerity to question you? Poor wee diddums, but you made fun of my handle, that must have made you feel big, and bwave and stwong, right?

    So, you formed an opinion based on…

    Im sure you will tell me it was sitting in the courtroom every day, or, having being a part of the Crown case team, or, part of the police team involved…

    or similar. Or was it through the press, like the rest of us? Surely not, not the dreaded leftist, marxist, stalinist, trotskyist press???

    I laugh in your general direction. Kyle Chapman, right???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    Lots of lousy police work

    Some, but not as much as people make out.

    and an indecent haste to burn the building down

    Yea, a few more looters through the place and it’d be just right to show the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. redeye (631 comments) says:

    Viking2 @ 12:40 pm;

    Ditto. I also find it strange that someone capable of killing his mother and siblings, not in a rage but in a planned calculated action, could then go on to show not one shred of psychopathy. I believe he was a model prisoner for the 13 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    It was either David Bain or his father, and if those who say that the case against David Bain is weak were to apply the same scrutiny to the evidence that says the father did it, they’d quickly drown in their own shit.

    Therefore it has to be David Bain.

    Simple enough for all you lame limp wristed navel gazing self hating internalising liberals??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Simple enough for all you lame limp wristed navel gazing self hating internalising liberals??

    Oh, alright then. That last line convinced us. You must be right.

    You’re still a closet statist in deep denial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    I’m only slightly surprised by this. I’ve always had doubts on both sides of the argument.

    I rate the opinion of a completely independent judge (who presumably had very little if any prior knowledge of the history of the case) on the weight of probability a lot more than almost anyone in New Zealand – including a few opinionated blog commenters.

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

    “I also find it strange that someone capable of killing his mother and siblings, not in a rage but in a planned calculated action, could then go on to show not one shred of psychopathy. I believe he was a model prisoner for the 13 years.”

    Are you serious? Plenty of killers are model prisoners – John Barlow springs to mind. Why do you think so many serial killers get away with murder for so long and some never get caught? Because of their normality…mass murderers don’t have horns on their heads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    PG, if you say he is innocent then the man is automatically, by dint of the fact that you are always completely wrong about absolutely everything, totally and irredeemably guilty.

    Case closed completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    LOL, nicely put RRM.

    I suspect behind the red monikor there is a small person trying to reach the rice bubbles on the shelf to complete his picnic…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    The report is going to be released after it has been to Cabinet, some identities may not be revealed.

    The flow chart for such applications indicate that it was clear from the Minister’s comments last Monday that the finding was innocent on the balance of probabilities or otherwise the application would simply have been declined and not forwarded to Cabinet through the minister. For others not swallowing crap about was what said in phonecalls, or what they might of done in Bain’s case etc it was always a foregone conclusion that Binnie would see Robin’s suicide for what it was.

    DPF looks at Karam’s role as significant but in a way that he ‘managed’ to do something extraordinary – but in many ways while his efforts are to be applauded that is a distorted view of what Justice is. Karam simply showed that David couldn’t have, and didn’t commit, the crime something – that was obvious from the outset at trial #2, and from the PC decision. I thought that DPF might have more generous in admitting that his previous views were unfounded and that he hadn’t understood the case. But there you go.

    Of course ross69, showing no embarrassment for his distortions of the case over a very long time, introduces that an innocent man, falsely imprisoned should pay for the ‘pleasure.’ Some kind of weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (6,417 comments) says:

    hmmo: No, I think Kyle’s spelling would be much worse…he’s a classic though, ain’t he?

    [Yes Red, I DID find it very difficult to handle when I lost my career, and I DID "run away" rather than have the jackals camped out at the end of the driveway bothering my kids]

    Sorry to everyone else, but whenever I comment on anything the frothing one is interested in I get rabid accusations of being a “crybaby”…I just thought I would get in first.

    My one and only comment on this is I also will be very interested in the good Judge’s conclusions as to how and why Robin went into contortions to shoot himself rather than removing the silencer…one thing’s for sure, the report will be a best seller, and become the second biggest selling half read book since “A brief history of time”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Oh god red stop it, enough comedy for one afternoon…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. redeye (631 comments) says:

    “Plenty of killers are model prisoners” and they are diagnosed as psychotic by prison psychiatrists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    DG, methinks red doth protest a teeny bit too much. I suspect someone needs to get laid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. redeye (631 comments) says:

    If you looking for another suspect in this case follow Ian Wishart’s story on the Dunedin Police.

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

    “Of course ross69, showing no embarrassment for his distortions of the case over a very long time, introduces that an innocent man, falsely imprisoned should pay for the ‘pleasure.’ Some kind of weird.”

    Well, it’s your opinion that he’s innocent, but from previous discussions you have failed to address to a number of issues that point away from that conclusion. And as I’ve said, he doesn’t qualify for compensation.

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

    A good doco on the case, showing how utterly improbable it was that Robin slaughtered his family.

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

    Quote:
    Justice Binnie has concluded that on balance of probabilities David Bain did not do it, I am staggered.

    Probability has been misused and misunderstood by both the general public and the legal profession and Justice Binnie is no exception.

    The author of the following paper quoted:
    it is clear that the legal profession remains generally fairly ignorant of Bayesian (probabilistic) reasoning.

    Read it here:
    The “Jury Observation Fallacy” and the use of Bayesian Networks to present Probabilistic Legal Arguments

    Here is another paper on using BBN (bayesian belief network) in legal reasoning.

    Use of Bayesian Belief Networks in legal reasoning

    Had BBN software been allowed in courts, then David Bain would have been found guilty. Mathematical algorithm doesn’t have emotion. Its conclusions is solely based on evidence (input prior probabilities). However some jury members may sway their decision making to “not guilty” based on emotion rather than evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    It is incredible that Bain may receive a large chunk of tax payer money after killing his entire family. He is also free to move around in society with no restrictions.

    I note that this situation does not prompt the same hysteria we have seen over Wilson. Both cases feature “trial by media” with differing outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. david (2,539 comments) says:

    Only one thing is certain.

    Only David Bain and his God(strike out if not applicable) know for sure if he did or didn’t do it.

    Everything else is an expression of opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    David “Johnny Ray” Garret- “My one and only comment on this”

    Thank Christ for that. The point could have been made in one short sentence rather than about 150 words and four fucking paragraphs.

    david- “Everything else is an expression of opinion”

    Wow, Kiwiblog, where all the budding Einsteins hang out. That was so worth reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    And so, children we introduce the concept of irony…

    “Wow, Kiwiblog, where all the budding Einsteins hang out. That was so worth reading.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    “Plenty of killers are model prisoners” – yep. my former best buddy is a good example. he went from maxi to minimum security really quickly. may have even set a record. only problem is hes out now and is clayton weatherston jr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. flipper (3,557 comments) says:

    If Binnie has found for Bain he will have set out his reasoning in detail, without fear of “retribution” from “brother” judges.

    The pressure (attempted improper influence), albeit it subtle and on a “nudge, wink” basis at the Northern Club, attempted in respect of Williams, Gordon and Johnston on Thomas has been avoided. That sort of pressure, but from another direction, was also applied to Mahon on Erebus.

    Binnie owes nothing to the New Zealand judicary. He is a highly qualified professional, schooled in the British legal system. Whatever he concludes and recommends after all this time is OK by me.

    For all those who might reject any pro-Bain report/recommendation by Binnie, I suggest you consider carefully the earlier published views of Justice Thorp on the frequency of miscarriages of justice in NZ resulting in imprisonment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. The Peanut Monster (19 comments) says:

    Paying out Bain compensation is frankly one of the worst uses of tax-payer money I could fathom. The fact that Bain (read Karam) continues to push this through, even though we are all sick of it, shows how “personal” this has become. He needs to move on, the country needs to move on.

    If the government actually pays this, I will be disgusted and appalled. I’d be interested in a poll on how many people aside from the jurors at the retrial, actually think he is not guilty. Then again, who are the Nats to listen to public opinion. As a lawyer, and former public servant in the justice sector, I find this deeply, deeply troubling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    flipper,

    Good point. However, and in my opinion, Justice Thorp underestimated the frequency, and from memory he did not include summary matters, where miscarriages are far more likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    As a lawyer, and former public servant in the justice sector

    MoJ or Crown Law? 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Of course Binnie having to read 10,000 pages of evidence and a lot more as well, and with vast experience over a number of years wouldn’t qualify as a cackling hyena either. He should have done what ross69 did and watched a documentary or exaggerated the difficulty of a common suicide stance while contemplating why Laniet gave David an alibi years before her death. An alibi the police didn’t investigate because they were too ‘busy.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    If Binnie’s report has been leaked,and I for one think that it may well have been,then I just can’t believe how Justice Binnie has come to the conclusion that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. These are my reasons for saying that.
    [1] David Bain hasn’t got a good explanation as to why his brother’s blood was found on his clothes.
    [2] He hasn’t got a good explanation as to why he had those bruises on his head.
    [3] He hasn’t got a good explanation as to why he had those scratches on his torso.
    [4]He hasn’t got a good explanation as to why that pair of his mother’s glasses that he said he had used before when his were unavailable were found in his room. Plus the fact that Bain’s lawyer at the first trial had told the Crown prosecutor that Bain had told him he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday. Plus the fact that his aunt gave evidence that David had told her that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were in being repaired. They weren’t perfect,he told her ,but they got him by.
    [5]He can’t explain that stain on his Gondolier’s T-shirt that he said wasn’t there when he was wearing it on the Sunday prior.
    [6]He hasn’t got a good explanation as to why a pristine set of his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
    [7] He can’t explain why he said all his family were dead when he phoned the emergency services and then,not long afterwards,told a detective that he had only seen his mother and father.
    [8] He can’t satisfactorily explain why there was a twenty minute delay between when he discovered the bodies and when he dialled 111.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Peanut Monster not least as troubling as wanting things decided by polls of the uninformed and misinformed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    I see a certain poster,whose pseudonym I am not allowed to mention,in case it upsets him or her, has mentioned a flow chart.
    I have to tell that poster that flow charts mean nothing. After Hon Robert Fisher advised the then Minister of Justice,Simon Power,that Rex Haig was not innocent on the balance of probabilities, Simon Power then discussed Fisher’s findings with cabinet, and it was only after that discussion that a decision was made not to pay Haig any compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins, do I remember someone promising to move to North Korea if Justice Binnie decides as he seems to have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kowtow (7,624 comments) says:

    flipper
    The British tradition has gone down the gurgler of siding with the accused (they are now the victims of…..insert favourite cause)

    Burglary takes courage says this British judge!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198621/It-takes-huge-courage-burgle-somebodys-house-What-judge-told-intruder-raided-homes-letting-walk-free-court.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    I must have been asleep for a 100 years. Haig wasn’t innocent on the bop but he didn’t get compensation – how illogical!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. flipper (3,557 comments) says:

    kowtow
    Did you have to inject crap into this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    The British tradition has gone down the gurgler of siding with the accused

    Yes, because the old days where the accused was not allowed to give evidence, where the accused was not allowed a defence lawyer, where a judge could (and often did) bully the jury into returning a verdict favourable to the Crown, and where there was no chance of appeal, even for a death sentence, were so very good…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ said

    For others not swallowing crap about was what said in phonecalls, or what they might of done in Bain’s case etc it was always a foregone conclusion that Binnie would see Robin’s suicide for what it was.

    Robin’s suicide? How about some evidence to back up that claim; and by evidence, I do NOT mean the verdict of a jury that was against the weight of the evidence put before it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Sorry Keeping Stock I can’t really be bothered.
    Suffice to say innocent of the bop is absolutely no surprise to me.
    I look forward to the publication of the report. Particularly so, not because the case was in anyway complicated from my point of view, but because I enjoy reading the product of sharp legal intellect and the rendering to common sense of facts which I expect will be contained in Binnie’s report of what went wrong and caused this MOJ. Memory escapes me at the moment but I think it was Lord Diplock of the PC who had huge powers of logical interpretation that I most often read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (762 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ translated – “I can’t”

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

    flipper

    Funny you should mention Justice Thorp. He concluded that David Bain was guilty. Obviously an erudite judge :)

    http://beehive.govt.nz/release/bain-matters-referred-court-appeal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    The point I was trying to make to a certain poster whose pseudonym I cannot mention is that Simon Power discussed the outcome of Haig’s claim with cabinet after he was told by Hon Robert Fisher that Haig was not innocent on the balance of probabilities. So if Judith Collins were to do the same if Binnie has found that Bain is not innocent on the balance of probabilities then that flow chart that certain poster mentions means absolutely zilch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Message to Kanz,who I am sure won’t mind me mentioning his or her pseudonym. I think it might have been Outer Mongolia.
    But the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins, have you not heard the news media today or read the above article by DPF? If not I will fill you in. It has been leaked to the Herald that Justice Binnie has found David Bain innocent on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/i-was-wrrr-wrrrooo-not-right

    Andrew Geddis shows what he’s made of with out a hanky in sight. Good on him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    No, it was definitely North Korea. I have a copy of it here, but if you would prefer Outer Mongolia, then who am I to stop you? along with the friend who was going with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. Ups to Andrew Geddis, along with DPF, for being the bigger men and admitting when they are wrong. I think there will be more of it from the real men in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    BTW, Kanz.
    When we were last exchanging messages I believe the subject of an appointment that Robin Bain had on the Monday morning that he died came up. I can now confirm that he did have an appointment with an Education Board official that morning. No time was given but one would presume he was going to go in before he went to school. He would probably have rung the other teacher to say he would be a bit late coming in,had he had the chance to do so.
    And that is probably why he still had those old clothes on,instead of his school clobber. He wouldn’t have needed to get his school gear on as early as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    I agree Kanz.

    It’s also a point to note the Jury who copped flak for doing their job, they’re vindicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins, who cares? A better man than you has looked at all of the evidence and found David Bain to be innocent on the BOP. Better men than you have admitted that they don’t presume to know everything and may just have been wrong in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Kanz,if you had read the first message I posted on this thread you would know that I have read that leaked report.
    But what Binnie may have said and what the government may decide to do are two different things.
    That is why I am saying there is no certainty at this point of time what the final outcome will be.

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

    muggins…
    I have to tell that poster that flow charts mean nothing.

    How does human mind evaluate evidence? Yep, flowchart? Sequential or conditional probability, that’s exactly how the human mind works.

    muggins…
    After Hon Robert Fisher advised the then Minister of Justice,Simon Power,that Rex Haig was not innocent on the balance of probabilities

    Now, can you define what do you mean by balance of probabilities?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. backster (2,077 comments) says:

    Another travesty…..I would like Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox) to review the evidence and the conclusion this Binnie character came to. Red summed it up better than I can.

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

    > It’s also a point to note the Jury who copped flak for doing their job, they’re vindicated

    That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while. Still, as long as they enjoyed hugging David and drinking with him, that’s all that really matters, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Mark (1,362 comments) says:

    Sometimes the law, the courts and due process give us the answer we dont want to hear or accept but we have to suck it up because the alternative is not something we want to think about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Kanz,how do you know that Binnie knows more about the case than I do?
    I doubt very much if Binnie listened to the speech Bain made at that Injustice conference. If he had he would have wondered why Bain didn’t make his mother that cup of tea that he said he was going to make when he went downstairs to do the washing.
    Had Justice Binnie heard Bain say that he might have wondered why he didn’t make that cup of tea.

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

    Absolutely unbelievable!!! That decision goes against all logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    Incredible that a retired judge could go through all the evidence, speak to witnesses, and yet still arrive at a conclusion that is entirely contrary to the thousands of experts who read about it in the paper. How did they find this guy and even more incredibly, how did he manage to even find his way onto the right place to get down here? Wow.

    Anyway, it will make a nice change from the expert discussion on same sex marriage and the underlying causes of homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    To that certain poster whose name I cannot mention. Perhaps I should have quoted the full sentence from the letter I received from the Minister. It reads as follows.
    “A fundamental principle is that compensation is only paid to persons who can prove they are at least innocent on the balance of probabilities of the crime for which they were convicted”. I hope that answers your question. If it doesn’t,please feel free to contact the Minister.
    And I will again make the point. That flow chart you refer to is only a guide. Simon Power obviously ignored it so far as Rex Haig was concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    can you define what do you mean by balance of probabilities?

    Generally speaking, it is described as being ‘the preponderance of the evidence”.  

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Incredible that a retired judge could go through all the evidence, speak to witnesses, and yet still arrive at a conclusion that is entirely contrary to the thousands of experts who read about it in the paper. How did they find this guy and even more incredibly, how did he manage to even find his way onto the right place to get down here? Wow.

    Classic!  :D And very true…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. kowtow (7,624 comments) says:

    FE Smith

    I’m talking a mere 50 years ago not 150,.

    And does it take courage to burgle someone’s house. I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. flipper (3,557 comments) says:

    Muggins…
    Just think.
    If (I repeat, if) Binnie has found for Bain and the Cabinet rejects his independent recommendation they will be hoist by a petard that will be-devil the New Zealand legal system for years to come.

    (Clark and Wilson conspired to remove a pretty impartial review system that cost us not a dollar. Instead they set up Fletcher/Elias et al in a spider web palace in Wellingtn.)

    It really is time to stop this crap and recognise that this is will not be a popularity contest, and that our opinions do not count..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    davinci,I have to tell you very little of my reading about the case came by way of the newspaper. I have a number of other sources. If you would like to ask me any questions please feel free to do so.

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

    This person sat through the entire trial, heard from all the witnesses (except David of course, and the guy who told how David had planned to rape a jogger and use his paper run as an alibi), saw all the exhibits, listened to all the experts, and concluded that Bain shouldn’t get any compensation. Wow.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6472004/Don-t-pay-Bain-compo-juror

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Imagine how many heads would explode if David Bain got a gay marriage… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    Muggins
    “If you would like to ask me any questions please feel free to do so.”

    Who did the Crewes and Jennifer Beard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    muggins

    Only one. Who did it?

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

    Funny isn’t it that a letter from a juror was not being passed onto the Judge but a book full of proven errors was.

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

    > Funny isn’t it that a letter from a juror was not being passed onto the Judge but a book full of proven mistakes was.

    Well, it would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    flipper, the Cabinet are going to be hoist by a petard whatever they decide to do. I don’t quite know what you mean about this not being a popularity contest. And please don’t try to tell me what ,in your opinion,it is time to do. I am quite capable of making up my own mind.
    And I am saying that I find it very hard to believe that Justice Binnie has found that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. James Stephenson (2,029 comments) says:

    the Cabinet are going to be hoist by a petard whatever they decide to do

    Did we ever see the terms of reference for the review, because I believe Binnie was going to set them after discussion with Bain’s lawyers?

    I can only conclude that what actually happened, was that Power said to Binnie “Look, everyone knows that he’s guilty as all get out, but for christ’s sake find an excuse to bung him a couple of Mil compo, otherwise this is never going to go away.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Nookin,you are naughty,but I like it. However I only said “If you would like to ask me any questions please feel free to do so”. I never said I would answer them.

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

    Was the evidence given to him the total, full and complete evidence? Or had it been censored? Was undue influence brought to bear?? Who knows, because we sure as hell don’t.

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

    muggins, I agree with you that Justice Binnie has got it wrong, but I was quoting the use of flow chart is not entirely useless if it is a causal probability flow chart. I think that the flow chart that Nostaligia quoted above is not a causal probability chart, which I agree with you that it is useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    wink, wink, nudge, nudge I know more than Justice Binnie. But what I know is a big secret, so secret that Justice Binnie couldn’t be told even though it was his job to investigate the application. So that’s the explanation.

    How about a secret handshake. A nod’s as good as a wink.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Firstly – if the police presented all the evidence as they are supposed to then there wouldnt be any arguements these days, and if then police didnt act from the first minute as though Bain was guilty then we might have a more accurate picture.

    But more important – we have developed in the society of ours that its always someone else fault (ie: the nit wits always fail to put the blame where it should be and like to blame systems and culture etc, etc) so I have no doubt that Bain will get a payout because there is this underlaying belief that no one is actually ever to blame – its always got to be shared around – so thus bain cant be guilty (even if he did do it)

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

    “Did we ever see the terms of reference for the review,”

    Now that is an interesting question, because I know that when I was the subject of a Commission of Enquiry, the terms of reference were so tight and structured that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. And it was wrong that time too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    Bugger. What about JFK?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    And does it take courage to burgle someone’s house.

    I presume that there is supposed to be a question mark after the word house?  If so, then my answer is yes, it does take courage to burgle another person’s house.  A misplaced, misused and completely screwed uset of courage, but courage nonetheless.

    Courage is defined by the OED as being

    the ability to do something that frightens one:

    and does not involve a moral judgment.  Therefore, I can say that it can take a great deal of courage to carry out a burglary.  I, for one, do not have the courage to risk arrest, conviction, potential imprisonment, plus the effect on my career, to carry out a burglary. Sadly, others appear to be more courageous than I when it comes to doing wrong.

    That in no way makes burglary right, nor do I approve of it, nor does it mean that we should laud such courage.  It also took a great deal of courage for the Rosenbergs to pass secret information on to Soviet Russia, but that wasn’t laudable either (unless you are left wing, obviously).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    @ muggins – the Herald has noted today that the decision on Justice Binnie’s report will once again polarise NZ’ers on the Bain case. The Government is on a hiding to nothing.

    As far as I am concerned, if he wanted a financial windfall, David Bain should have gone out and bought a Lotto ticket after the second verdict; his luck was in that week. If anything, the Crown’s case against him was even stronger the second time around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    I have it on the best of authority from a devout conspiracy theorist that Binnie has written two reports, one saying he is innocent and the other saying he is guilty. One report has been floated to test the water. The reaction will determine which report is adopted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (338 comments) says:

    Imagine how many heads would explode if David Bain got a gay marriage…

    … to whom? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    “And does it take courage to burgle someone’s house.”

    Not if you’re a psycopath with no moral base or any ability to rationally assess risk.

    IOW the kind of brain damaged dipshit we’ve been breeding by the thousands over the last few decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Not if you’re a psycopath with no moral base or any ability to rationally assess risk.

    That is a fair point.  But it would be an exception to the usual sort of burglar that I have met in my practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    F E Smith- “But it would be an exception to the usual sort of burglar that I have met in my practice.”

    Really?

    I’m genuinely surprised to hear that.

    I would have thought that to commit burglary in the first place one would automatically need to be suffering from those mental defects. Or something like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    davinci ,on the balance of probabilities David Bain,in my opinion,which is based on all the evidence.
    I will be very interested to see what Justice Binnie has to say,as will many other people.
    But I tell you what,if I find he has missed something in coming to his conclusion Judith Collins won’t hear the end of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    I would have thought that to commit burglary in the first place one would automatically need to be suffering from those mental defects. Or something like that.

    Sadly, the two most common drivers are usually either a) drug addiction or b) greed.  Those in the latter group can be broken down into 1) professionals, who see it as a job and are consciously taking the risk based upon a (generally) subconscious cost/benefit analysis, and 2) occasionals, who do it either on an opportunistic basis (saw an open window, made a decision) or when they need a bit of extra cash, etc.

    Almost all of them are aware that what they do is wrong, but are selfish enough to put their own needs/desires ahead of their victims. My view is that the sort of person that you describe is generally found more in the violent offending area, rather than property offending.

    Those are generalisations, however, so there are most definitely exceptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    Actually, on second thoughts maybe they’re not so wrong on risk analysis.

    I read today that (IIRC) of 200,000 property offenses in NZ per annum, only 20% are solved.

    Cops are too busy solving the talking on cellphone while driving problem I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. thedavincimode (6,532 comments) says:

    FES

    Do you not think though, that there are elements of psychopathic characteristics revealed in committing a burglary, or is it just that burglars don’t think as far as the consequences for the victims; as distinct from simply being incapable of empathy? (I probably haven’t expressed that distinction very well, but I’m sure you will get my drift.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Grant Illingworth QC on Radio Live saying that the recommendation, if confirmed, is huge for David in Law, and accordingly the expectation of a pay out would be high, or similar such words.

    He didn’t appear to know that the recommendation is due to be released after the cabinet decision. However he pointed out that, in his opinion, the guidelines needed work and that David’s situation should have fitted within them rather than under ‘exceptional circumstances.’ I would have like to have heard more on that because while I agree with his interpretation that the guidelines ‘need work,’ I doubt that Illingworth would agree with me that they breach ‘natural justice’ and usurp the power of the Courts in a manner that contradicts the Magna Carta. Anyway, small steps. He pointed out that those of his profession would be greatly interested in seeing various points of evidence that seemed to be against David analysed by Ian Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Keeping stock. Yes,I thought the Crown’s case was a little stronger at the retrial.
    I mean the jury heard from David’s aunt about David telling her he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend. The first trial jury didn’t know for sure he had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room.
    And then we had those people who met up with Laniet when she was going to work on the Sunday afternoon. They said that Laniet had told them that David had called a family meeting and that he was going to make sure she went to it come what may. She didn’t want to go,she said he was freaky. I doubt there was any family meeting. If there was one David Bain has never said anything about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. kowtow (7,624 comments) says:

    If you take the focus off the burgler ,which FES has done and place it back on the judge who said burglary takes courage,we are left with the fact that that judge is a complete tosser.

    And yes there shold have been a question mark there,thanks for pointing that out FES,your attention to detail is commendable,though rather anal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    I read today that (IIRC) of 200,000 property offenses in NZ per annum, only 20% are solved.

    Yeah, that is a really disappointing figure.  PEB would probably be the better person to comment on why that is.  I do know that a fair number of those supposedly solved cases involve custody clearances, so the 20% figure does not necessarily mean convictioned and punished. 

    As an example, I had one client who went away for 4 burglaries but cleared another 20 or so through a custody clearance. There are rules to custody clearances (from memory, the police are not allowed to custody clear when they already have evidence to convict, or something like that) but those can be applied flexibly at times.

    A bloke I know had a handful of shops about 15 years ago that were losing an average of $10,000 a month to shoplifing.  They were based in malls, so they were high traffic areas, but even so.  Eventually he just decided that he had lost too much and closed the shops down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    place it back on the judge who said burglary takes courage,we are left with the fact that that judge is a complete tosser.

    Yeah, it was a dumb thing to say.

    your attention to detail is commendable,though rather anal.

    And my clients have often thanked me for it over the years!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    Why not go the whole hog- How about ‘Sir David Bain’??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    tdm, I get what you are saying; No, as I said to Red, I personally don’t think that it is so much a psychopathic element

    a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, nonplanfulness, impulsivity, and antisocial behaviours such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality [thanks, Wikipedia]

    as a simple prioritising of their own needs ahead of their victims.  The word I generally use for this is selfishness.  I think that sums up the motivating factors of many crims around the world.

    I think that, while a number of behaviours attributed to psychopathy are evident in burglars, as well as most regular crims, many aren’t, especially

    Lack of remorse or guilt
    Emotionally shallow
    Callous/lack of empathy
    Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

    or

    Social influence
    Fearlessness
    Stress immunity
    Machiavellian egocentricity
    Rebellious nonconformity
    Blame externalization
    Carefree nonplanfulness
    Coldheartedness

    apply as much as I have seen them in violent offenders.  In addition, professional burglars are often very organised and plan quite well.  Most regular property offenders are very aware of the harm that they do.  They just see their own needs as being more important.  (Which is, I think, my answer to your question)

    Ironically, they take great offence at being wronged themselves, often having a very finely honed sense of justice as it applies to themselves.  If it wasn’t so tragic then it would be seriously funny. The weird thing is that they don’t see the irony in their complaining about the police/crown acting in an unfair manner towards them when they themselves have been out committing burglaries.

    Again, that is a generalisation.  Others accept it as just being a part of the game.  Those sorts of clients are much easier to deal with, but are less common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Mirror-me (7 comments) says:

    How many people here have read all the trial transcripts?
    Viewed the available evidence first hand?
    Spoken to the detectives in charge of the case?
    Ignored biased media reports and instead referred to first hand information on the case?
    Spoken to David Bain?

    Judge Binnie is highly acclaimed and experienced. If he is staking his excellent reputation on Bain’s innocence, then that is good enough for me.

    It’s amazing how many armchair experts there are. People who aren’t even prepared to wait for the report, before dissing it.

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

    As a matter of interest, if compensation is awarded, how much will Joe Karam get, given his agreement with David Bain over income from David Bain Inc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Mirror-me,

    Dave A will probably be along soon. Apparently there is no-one in the world who knows more about the Bain case than he does… (according to him).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    “Judge Binnie is highly acclaimed”

    By who exactly??
    I know a few ‘Kool Aid’ drinking David Bain supporters were wetting themselves over him when he arrived but….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Mirror-me.
    I would very much like to interview David Bain,but realistically that is never going to happen.
    So far as ignoring biased media reports go,well I have already said most of my information has not come via the media. Anyway the media can be biased both ways.
    I won’t comment on the retrial transcripts.
    I have spoken to one detective who was on the case.
    However,I have to agree with you re Justice Binnie and I am certainly not dissing his report before I read it.
    But I don’t know if I agree with you re him staking his excellent reputation. He is a Canadian. I doubt whether he would be too worried about what New Zealander’s have to say about his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Mirror-me (7 comments) says:

    Longknives – The media reports at the time he was selected gave his experience and the reasons for his selection. It was very impressive, and his selection was because it was felt an outsider was needed to avoid bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    It’s amazing how many armchair experts there are. People who aren’t even prepared to wait for the report, before dissing it.

    or

    It’s amazing how many armchair experts there are. People who aren’t even prepared to wait for the report, before supporting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    “It’s amazing how many armchair experts there are. People who aren’t even prepared to wait for the report, before supporting it.”??

    Surely, knowing Justice Binnie’s credentials, one should support his report whether or not it reinforces what we think? Ah, but not for those arrogant enough to think they know better, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    Well,I for one am not dissing Justice Binnie’s report before I have read it. Nor am I going to agree with what he says until I have read his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Surely, knowing Justice Binnie’s credentials, one should support his report whether or not it reinforces what we think? Ah, but not for those arrogant enough to think they know better, huh?

    Kanz: Appealing to authority does not make a valid argument. I do not care about Binnie’s “credentials”, only his reasoning. If everyone had your grovelling and pitiful acceptance of authority figures, then the sentence of the original Judge would never have been challenged.

    You go onto suggest that people support the report without reading it (even if they disagree with it) to avoid being “arrogant”

    I suggest you move to your spiritual homeland of North Korea. They are big on your type of thinking there.

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

    But what were his terms of reference???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Kea, sorry there are a couple of VERY nasty people already planning to move there, so North Korea is certainly not for me.
    I don’t have any “grovelling and pitiful acceptance” of any authority figure, but am however willing to accept some are greater experts and have more information than I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. MH (624 comments) says:

    Possible stitch up,but if he’d put his jersey on Trade and Exchange he’d probably raise $2 mill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (2,983 comments) says:

    A couple of very nasty people are planning to move to North Korea,according to Kanz. So which two of David Bain’s supporters would would they be,I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    Can’t stop laughing at the ‘Wild-eyed’ and exceptionally weird David Bain supporter One News rolled out tonight- Jesus that lady has had a glass too much of Karam’s ‘Kool Aid’…
    I’ll stay in the sensible camp thanks very much- The one that knows the difference between a suicide and getting blasted in the back of the head…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I see your point Kanz.

    However, I stand by my observation that if everyone thought that way the original sentence would have not been challenged and this whole debate would not be happening. I think we should always regard authority figures with a healthy suspicion and ask questions of their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    I agree with you Kea, but for people to contend he is wrong, without seeing what his reasoning is, most certainly is arrogant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. RF (1,271 comments) says:

    If this dirt bag is compensated for the “alleged” killing of his family the country is well and truly fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RF, I don’t think it will be that bad. I just hope this social misfit does not feel emboldened enough to carry out his Rape Fantasies next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    “I just hope this social misfit does not feel emboldened enough to carry out his Rape Fantasies next.”

    According to Joe Karam such fantasies are simply a normal teenage “infatuation”…
    Hell I never fantasised about abducting and raping joggers…I must be an exception. (But then, I never had a paper-run either..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. RF (1,271 comments) says:

    I figure that now his embarrassing family is no longer a problem for him he will be content to live the life of luxury. I can see a book coming out soon or he will hook up with one of the Ridges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Hell I never fantasised about abducting and raping joggers…I must be an exception

    You pervert. Clearly you did not have “normal teenage” infatuations Longknives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Why did NZ go to Canada for a judge to review the case?

    Wimpy, ultra-liberal, welfarist, bleeding-heart, excuse-us-for-being-Western, five-star accommodation for jail birds, “Jesus we’re sorry it’s so cold for black people”, “Here Indians and Eskimo, have a bit more back and we’re sorry we’re not more sorry”. That’s Canada. Why would any NZ government that wasn’t Labour or Green get an opinion from that sheet of ice?

    Hiriung a Canadian judge for the Bain case review seems to me to be as loopy as granting the decision on cigarette packet advertising to officials from cigar-mad Cuba.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    ‘corrigenda (49) Says:
    September 10th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
    But what were his terms of reference???’

    How stupid is that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. RF (1,271 comments) says:

    I still like the suicide by holding the rifle complete with silencer in a very strange angle. Position 99 in the Karma Sutra.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    ‘Jack5 (2,615) Says:
    September 10th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    Why did NZ go to Canada for a judge to review the case?

    Wimpy, ultra-liberal, welfarist, bleeding-heart, excuse-us-for-being-Western, five-star accommodation for jail birds, “Jesus we’re sorry it’s so cold for black people”, “Here Indians and Eskimo, have a bit more back and we’re sorry we’re not more sorry”. That’s Canada. Why would any NZ government that wasn’t Labour or Green get an opinion from that sheet of ice?

    Hiriung a Canadian judge for the Bain case review seems to me to be as loopy as granting the decision on cigarette packet advertising to officials from cigar-mad Cuba.’

    Yes the NZ judges had only f’d it up from minute one. Why not return there, that would be smart. We could have used the COA Judge who wrote about the exit wound from Robin Bain’s head – you know the one don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    ‘RF (258) Says:
    September 10th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    I still like the suicide by holding the rifle complete with silencer in a very strange angle. Position 99 in the Karma Sutra.’

    Research that once you get your foot out of your mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Why did NZ go to Canada for a judge to review the case?

    I presume becaue the Supreme Court of Canada, of which Mr Binnie was a member until last year, is seen as being a very strong Court among the Common Law jurisdictions.  SCC decisions are very influential, and the reputation of the Court currently is probably on a par with the UK Supreme Court, and definitely above the High Court of Australia and our own Supreme Court. 

    I am sure that there were other reasons, but that is one that I can think of as an immediate and reasonable answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. RF (1,271 comments) says:

    I bet he pulled the trigger with this third big toe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Mirror-me (7 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter if the person conducting the review was a judge from Canada or outter Mongolia. The job was to examine the evidence and conduct an enquiry, not based on NZ points of Law or any other such restrictions, but to examine whether David Bain was innocent or not, based on the balance of probablities, without prejudice. A more extensive and explorative enquiry than anything conducted before in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    Only David Bain knows if he is guilty or not, so he is either a) a brilliant actor worthy of an Oscar or, b) he isn’t the killer. Without knowing what is contained in Binnie’s report, I will say this.. I would put more weight on the opinions of an individual (be it layman or a judge with life experiences and who is possessed of an enquiring and dispassionate mind), reviewing mountains of evidence in the cold, hard light of day, than I would over the findings of any other persons (or, group of persons). In other words, someone with a cool, analytical mind who can sort the wheat from the chaff, away from the pressure of courtroom antics and prejudices. Accounts given in court are more often than not, not the full truth and/or, where there is often mountains of evidence, key points maybe missed.

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

    But Paul, Justice Thorp reviewed the evidence in the cold, hard light of day. He concluded that Bain’s conviction was safe. As a retired High Court judge, Thorp is no idiot. In fact, he wrote a book devoted to miscarriages of justice in NZ. He seemed to doubt that Peter Ellis’s conviction was safe, but he thought Bain’s was.

    I suggest that Binnie’s report at least be peer reviewed. It would be highly embarrassing for Bain to be compensated only for it to be revealed later that Binnie’s report was shoddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    294 hours of inquiry or 37 days by an account given as to Ian Binnie being paid around $133,00 at 450 per hour plus costs. He had the power of interview and absolute full disclosure. There are no complaints about material with held, or about material despatched for not being relevant or from an appropriate body that could not have reached the table through a Government office.

    His inquiry, I am sure has been complete, unabridged and unobstructed – I look forward to the release of his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    ross69, the expert on shoddy because he or she saw it on TV.

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

    > His inquiry, I am sure has been complete, unabridged and unobstructed

    Yeah something similar was said about the Ministerial Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case, chaired by former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. Alas, that inquiry was nothing but a sham, a sick joke. For David Bain’s sake, I hope you’re right.

    http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007_francis_new_evidence.pdf

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

    > ross69, the expert on shoddy because he or she saw it on TV.

    I’m saying Binnie’s report should be peer-reviewed. Surely if it as accurate and thorough as you suggest, a peer review would simply confirm that, so all for the best?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. RF (1,271 comments) says:

    I guess those that find the report too difficult to understand will have to hope there are pictures. I love those arm chair critics who read boys own and get excited. The most serious injury they suffer is a paper cut from the morning news paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    September 10th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    But Paul, Justice Thorp reviewed the evidence in the cold, hard light of day.

    What does that mean?? Did he meticulously go through and read every word given in evidence? Did he collate, examine, cross-check and conduct his own analysis into the evidence presented or, did he rely solely on what was presented in court? Besides (and without been disrespectful),Thorp J is (was) a member of the NZ judiciary and that (in my book), automatically red flags his opinion in the matter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    A second big question is whether there will be another celebratory piss-up, and if there is, will a prominent Canuck be invited? Would he attend? What would he drink? Canadian Club? Or would the Bain camp have to buy in a crate or two of Molson?

    The third big question is whether Bain would join the Mounties. He likes horses, doesn’t he? Or could he buy a paper run up Yukon way?

    Would Bain like it in the People’s Republic of Canuckistan? Would Canuckistan like him?

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

    I’m not sure why people are doubting this judge.

    He’s read all four of Joe Karam’s books, and has even met with David and his supporters. Plus he’s a judge – NZers should have learnt we can always depend on judges to make sensible decisions without worrying about their ideological biases.

    He’s worth every penny we paid him. I mean, why wouldn’t Robin Bain do some washing before killing himself? Clearly that’s why there was only his own blood on his clothes. And of course why not wear your son’s clothes to do the murders. Those bloody fingerprints from David on the gun? Animal blood, yeah, that’s it. And what old man in 1994 wouldn’t type up his suicide note on a computer – it’s much easier than using a pen.

    It’s nice to know NZ judges aren’t the stupidest in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Scott Chris (5,878 comments) says:

    If true, I’d suggest that Binnie is senile.

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

    > Thorp J is (was) a member of the NZ judiciary and that (in my book), automatically red flags his opinion in the matter

    You ignore the fact that he has written about miscarriages of justice in the country. He has been highly critical of the Justice Ministry for blocking attempts to establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Thorp is an advocate for the wrongly convicted, not an opponent. Yet he still thought Bain was guilty…makes you think.

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

    Anyone else creeped out by Bain’s fiance? What kind of mother sets her daughter up with a convicted murderer.

    And is it just me, or does she look like she could be Bain’s sister??

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

    > What kind of mother sets her daughter up with a convicted murderer.

    To be fair, his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council, and a re-trial saw him acquitted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Dazzaman (1,123 comments) says:

    Good grief, I think NNZ’s intransigent belief in the purity & innocence of the Bain is going to threaten to make this thread another record breaker…lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    ross69 Good to see you being fair.

    Something here clarifying the parameters of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ from someone experienced in the field, Robert Fisher QC

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bain-compensation-a-humanity-question-says-former-judge/tabid/309/articleID/268848/Default.aspx

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

    Is the Justice Minister already getting cold feet about Binnie’s recommendation?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7652137/Collins-Bain-report-recommendation-not-decision

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    The faintest glimmer of hope for the disaffected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Mark (1,362 comments) says:

    I suggest that Binnie’s report at least be peer reviewed. It would be highly embarrassing for Bain to be compensated only for it to be revealed later that Binnie’s report was shoddy.

    Would there be the same call for a peer review if the Binnie report had suggested Bain receive no compensation and do we review again if we dont get the answer we want.

    My concern here is that we have a process that has been embarked upon and a recommendation made. I dont like the answer any more than the next man but I also do not want to have a situation where having engaged in this process Collins decides she doesn’t like the answer so we cast aside the process and make a decsion based on what she wanted in the first place.

    It is important that we have these safety checks in our system to ensure that there those who are wrongly convicted can get compensation and that there is faith in the independence of the process.

    If Cabinet overtrun the recommendation then there may as well not be a process such as this and Cabinet should simply form a view based on what advice it receives from the Crown law Office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    I suggest that Binnie’s report at least be peer reviewed

    I think that a lot of people here understand the concepts behind this report.  By its nature it cannot be ‘peer reviewed’ without the reviewer undertaking exactly the same research all over again.  This is not a situation where there are other people in the legal profession also undertaking research into whether or not David Bain is or is not innocent. 

    I suspect that the requests for a ‘peer review’ really means “I don’t like this result, can we have a second opinion, please?”. 

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

    “By its nature it cannot be ‘peer reviewed’ without the reviewer undertaking exactly the same research all over again.”

    I totally disagree. A reviewer can look at many things without reviewing the entire evidence. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court don’t look at all the evidence when it hears appeals. Witnesses don’t get questioned etc. Does that make the judgments of the CA and SC worthless? Of course not.

    A simple review of Sir Thomas Eichelbaum’s inquiry into the Peter Ellis case shows that there were many flaws, so many in fact that its conclusions cannot be relied upon. One does not have to review all of the evidence in the Ellis case to show just how flawed Eichelbaum’s inquiry was. One only has to look at the way his inquiry was conducted, the various assumptions he made, his secret meetings with officials (for which records were seldom kept), his narrow terms of reference, his appointment of experts, and – most importantly – his egregious errors of fact, to see that he presided over a sham. One of the most curious questions was how Eichelbaum – a close friend of the Ellis trial judge – was even appointed to chair the inquiry. If a former Chief Justice can get it so horribly wrong, don’t you think that a Supreme Court Judge from Canada – who was never a judge before being appointed to the SC – could also?

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

    “This is not a situation where there are other people in the legal profession also undertaking research into whether or not David Bain is or is not innocent.”

    In fact, Sir Thomas Thorp did exactly that. Out of interest, did Justice Binnie speak with Justice Thorp about the latter’s report into the case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. big bruv (13,280 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    “I suspect that the requests for a ‘peer review’ really means “I don’t like this result, can we have a second opinion, please?”.

    Yes, a bit like Bain and Karem had a second crack when they were not happy with the first result. Should be just accept the result without question when Bain and Karem did not?

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

    big bruv,

    Bain had a number of appeals before successfully appealing to the Privy Council. I do find it interesting that F E Smith thinks that one appeal should be enough. If that were so, Bain wouldn’t be in a position to be asking for a $2 million handout.

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

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

    And here’s another point that F E Smith might like to consider. Last year Justice Binnie was quoted as saying:

    “It is a fact of life on the Supreme Court that you are dealing with eight other people, week in and week out, year in and year out. You have an institutional responsibility to try to generate as much clarity and solidarity in the law as you can. It is extremely frustrating when you feel you have written an elegant and clear exposition of the law, to have your colleagues jump all over it and complain about this, that and the next thing. But on the other hand, it is a great comfort when a judgment is released that eight other people have been pounding away at it and pointing out the gaps in what you thought was a seamless piece of great scholarship. So, yes, it is frustrating. But the whole point of the Supreme Court is you are not dealing with individual judges penning their own thoughts.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/justice-ian-binnies-exit-interview/article555452/?page=all

    He seems to be saying that he may have written rubbish occasionally while a SC judge, but it didn’t matter because he had 8 other judges to put it right. So if his report into the Bain case is rubbish, who (if anyone) is going to put it right, or does it matter if he’s got it wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    A reviewer can look at many things without reviewing the entire evidence. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court don’t look at all the evidence when it hears appeals

    Of course they don’t.  Indeed, it is very rare for evidence to be reviewed.  Appeals are about law, not evidence.  This report, however, is about evidence, not law.

    Witnesses don’t get questioned etc. Does that make the judgments of the CA and SC worthless? Of course not.

    The CA/SC get a full transcript of the trial along with the written submissions of both sides.  So the judges are actually aware of any parts of evidence that are in dispute in legal arguments.  So your point doesn’t really apply in this context.

    A simple review of Sir Thomas Eichelbaum’s inquiry into the Peter Ellis case shows that there were many flaws, so many in fact that its conclusions cannot be relied upon.

    That was more because of the terms of reference.  Those alone ensured the outcome of the report.  The ‘guidance’ of Val Sim also helped, I am sure.  In this case, Mr Binnie was not hampered in any way.

    a Supreme Court Judge from Canada – who was never a judge before being appointed to the SC – could also?

    That is a complete irrelevancy.  Judges are appointed all the time to highest courts wihtout having previous judicial experience.  In the US especially, previous experience is the exception, not the norm.

    In fact, Sir Thomas Thorp did exactly that. Out of interest, did Justice Binnie speak with Justice Thorp about the latter’s report into the case?

    At the appeal of the Guildford Four, Lord Devlin (from memory) told the appellants that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for impugning the good names of outstanding British policeman by accusing them of falsifying evidence.  The only problem was that those outstanding British policemen actually had falsified evidence, as revealed a few years later.  Do you think that Lord Devlin’s opinion was sought when the subsequent appeal was considered?

    Bain had a number of appeals before successfully appealing to the Privy Council.

    Yes, and the decision of the Privy Council showed that each of those appeal decisions was wrong. 

    I do find it interesting that F E Smith thinks that one appeal should be enough

    Please don’t falsely put words in my mouth.

    bruv,

    Yes, a bit like Bain and Karem had a second crack when they were not happy with the first result. Should be just accept the result without question when Bain and Karem did not?

    As the law allows them to.  The Parliament and legal profession are concerned with doing their best to ensure that as few miscarriages of justice go uncorrected as possible.  The public, on the other hand, do not seem to have that same view.  

    We allow multiple appeals for a reason.  Reports by independent figures are not in the same category and should not be equated.

     

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Wake up ross69 anybody convicted of a crime is entitled to petition the Governor General by the very reason evidence can arise after a trial, or appeal which casts doubt on the verdict. In the Bain case there was evidence with-held and fresh evidence that eventually was ruled to show a miscarriage of justice by the PC. On the basis of that evidence he was later acquitted. No doubt that evidence has been scrutinised by Ian Binnie the result of which, at least in part, is that he has apparently made a finding that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    So in order after the NZ COA ruled against Bain by in part putting themselves in the position of a jury and misunderstanding the evidence to the extent they wrote about an exit wound from Robin Bain’s head when there was in fact there was not one, the PC quashed the conviction allowing the decision of a retrial to be made by the NZ authorities. Bain was then acquitted at a re-trial, now has apparently been found to have been innocent by a Jurist who you want to criticise and bleat about before even reading his report. The isolated event in this case was the first conviction which relied on a miscarriage of justice, since then it has been poorly handled by the COA but was however corrected through a thorough analysis by the PC. But anyway don’t in anyway feel disinclined to criticise something you have yet to read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Well said, Nostalgia.

    I think that we shouldn’t forget that Binnie wasn’t, from memory, restricted in his options when it came to reviewing the evidence. Therefore I would assume that he had access to the evidence from both trials, as well as evidence that the SC ruled inadmissible for the second trial.

    If I have that correctly, then that should give both doubters and supporters confidence that Mr Binnie would come to at least a conclusion that is arguable, even though it might offend one or the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    I don’t think he was restricted in options regarding viewing the evidence F E Smith, nor should any inquiry of this type. He certainly needed evidence from both trials, the first trial in particular because it was ruled an MOJ. He needed to be able to assess the contribution toward that MOJ by police and Crown Law and I think that is the reason he interviewed 2 detectives involved in the inquiry – both retired now I think. Part of that would go to considering quantum, but I hope for the benefit of the rest of us was to possibly identify and isolate the ingredients of the MOJ. Why for example there were no misgivings by the police OIC of the apparent after hours discovery of the lens as one example, how witnesses could be misled into believing their briefs had been changed and their corrected version was to be read to the Court.

    I am looking forward to reading the decision for reasons that extend beyond David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    I just want to know how in the hell Jurors (who are supposed to be IMPARTIAL) celebrating with David Bain after the second trial isn’t considered a “MOJ”….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Because it isn’t an MOJ, the trial and the deliberations were over.

    I know what happened iwas exaggerated by a certain reporter who was later ordered to stay away from jurors in response to a complaint by a juror who said they were being harassed. I think there might have been an accidental crossing of parties after the trial from which the Bain crew withdrew, certainly the mood was jubilant.

    To this point that reporter hasn’t apologised for the unfounded allegations he made about the jury who are now, after all, vindicated. The same man sat through the trial and later made observations about the Jury in the media after the case, on which he claimed to be an expertise, didn’t go his way. He didn’t report a single one of the ‘events,’ he decided to create controversy over, to the Registrar or the Judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Longknives (4,456 comments) says:

    “I think there might have been an accidental crossing of parties after the trial ”

    You and I both know that is bullshit Nostalgia. How the hell do you “accidentally” turn up at a private party for a guy like David Bain?? Bit of a bloody coincidence that you were the juror on his trial THAT DAY!

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bain-juror-had-theft-convictions-complaint-laid/tabid/423/articleID/164913/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    Nice to see David has a lovely fiancee. Hope she is a better knitter than his Mum.

    Nothing makes a man more crazy than having to wear really ugly sweaters. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Obviously nothing became of that complaint because it was considered irrelevant. A ‘private’ party in a pub, after the trial, desperation at it’s best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    Hate to tell you Johnboy, his mum didn’t knit that sweater, but don’t let minor details get in the way – plenty of others have fantasised over that pullover as you may have done yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    I never let facts, truth, or the weight of others opinions ever get in the way of a good punchline Nostalgia! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Griff (6,763 comments) says:

    it will be a lovely wedding a wonderful honeymoon back to reality and then David peddles of on his paper run……….!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    I just want to know how in the hell Jurors (who are supposed to be IMPARTIAL) celebrating with David Bain after the second trial isn’t considered a “MOJ”….

    Because, like Nostalgia said, the trial was over.  There was absolutely nothing wrong with the jurors feeling that way if they thought that Bain was completely innocent (which is what their behaviour suggests).  

    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the jury was not impartial when the trial began.  How they felt at the end of the trial may be easily explained by the course of the evidence at the trial.  I know of a trial where the jurors refused to find an obviously innocent person not guilty simply because they took a dislike to the defendant.  It sucks, but there you go. 

    The actions of the jurors were certainly unwise, but in no way were they wrong or inappropriate.  And the reaction of the defence team was entirely proper- to vacate the room.

    Unless you are alleging that the jury was in fact corrupted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    ………….Wearing his really lovely, multi-striped socks, THAT HE REALLY LOVES, that his little woman has just knitted him!!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    I was on a jury once where we found the defendant guilty because we all took an utter dislike to his lawyer. :)

    Aberrations happen I guess! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Griff (6,763 comments) says:

    That would be a valid defence then JB I would run amok if you made me wear that sort of stuff

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    FES,

    There was absolutely nothing wrong with the jurors feeling that way if they thought that Bain was completely innocent (which is what their behaviour suggests).  

    Fair point – semantically, I believe. Just as (equally semantically) it would hold that any statement made by a juror prior to the trial is not absolute proof that they are predetermined to come down on one side or another.

    The difference? You can’t challenge a juror after the trial…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    I don’t mind what I wear Griff as long as its wool! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Reid (15,943 comments) says:

    I know of a trial where the jurors refused to find an obviously innocent person not guilty simply because they took a dislike to the defendant.

    Just out of interest FES, I understand the Judge can overrule a jury if s/he has grounds to believe their decision goes against the weight of the evidence. I assume that argument is not available to counsel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Yvette (2,691 comments) says:

    Johnboy, Where does virgin wool come from? The sheep that runs the fastest

    And the thread …
    Don’t worry about Bain. He will do nothing wrong now …
    Or Joe Karam would fucking kill him where he stood

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    reid,

    Not one little bit! But oh, how I wish…

    bhudson,

    We haven’t a clue what a juror has said prior to trial either. All we get is their name and occupation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    bhudson

    ‘The difference? You can’t challenge a juror after the trial…’

    Yes, and also the Crown bring the charges and in so much as that, they also bring a pool of potential jurors.

    I don’t like to see a Jury attacked because it is an attack on the system of Justice – a whole lot of difficulties and misconceptions pass from that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    How fast can you run Yvette? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Yes, and also the Crown bring the charges and in so much as that, they also bring a pool of potential jurors.

    The nature of the charges has no bearing on the potential jurors. (Prior to challenges)

    I don’t like to see a Jury attacked because it is an attack on the system of Justice…

    I, for one, am not challenging the jury on this. I merely pointed out that the post-verdict images, being accepted as completely reasonable, would not be accepted if they were evident prior to jury selection.

    Can I also point out that if you truly believed that a Jury should not be attached then you would struggle to support any appeal to the original verdict..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    FES

    We haven’t a clue what a juror has said prior to trial either.

    Surely one shouldn’t have to point out the obvious that the comparison assumed that the prior statement by the juror was known – maybe Kiwiblog, a TradeMe forum, or such like?

    Were it known beforehand, the potential juror would be challenged post haste. And officials should, and do, recuse themselves due to a number of connected possibilities.

    My point was not an accusation, but merely that it is possible that post-trial behaviour could be seen as equally prejudicial as pre-trial statements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    bhudson,

    Any such statement would of course be a challenge for cause. Beyond that, I think that to say more would not be so much drawing a long bow as trying to draw a bow that isn’t there to be drawn. It just isn’t something that we can know with any certainty.

    reid,

    oh, a judge cannot overrule an acquittal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    bhudson

    The nature of the charges, as you say, has no bearing on potential jurors – regardless of that the jury pool was vetted and introduced by the Crown before the trial took place.

    A Jury being ‘attacked’ for corruption, which is essentially the argument in some quarters here, is different from a presentation that a Jury’s decision ought to be displaced because of reasons removed from the weight of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Beyond that, I think that to say more would not be so much drawing a long bow as trying to draw a bow that isn’t there to be drawn.

    To the knowledge of counsel, absolutely. I was not suggesting that anyone deliberately, or negligently, overlooked anything. Not at all. My simple point was that post-event behaviour could possibly evince prejudices that, in pre-trial behaviour, would result in a jury selection challenge.

    Not an attack on the verdict, nor counsel, nor Justice Binnie. But a thought, nonetheless, on post-verdict images.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    A Jury being ‘attacked’ for corruption, which is essentially the argument in some quarters here, is different from a presentation that a Jury’s decision ought to be displaced because of reasons removed from the weight of evidence.

    Sorry N-NZ, but that reads as “any jury verdict I agree with is as solid as our whole judicial system, but any that I disagree with is open slather based on [my version of] the truth”

    Your opposition believe, equally, in the oppisite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Yvette (2,691 comments) says:

    Johnboy, cela dépend de ce qui est derrière moi

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. MH (624 comments) says:

    have we finished trying Mr Smith? Is he guilty or not guilty? Sine die.
    jury I was picked for all the surnames selected from the revolving box were lettered only up to D,and nearly all the women’s names called were absent. Had to call 88 names to get sufficient bodies. I didn’t even get a free lunch,the blighter changed his plea to guilty after 10 mins. Ah well,back to the paper run. I wonder if a juror can insist on hearing the evidence in Maori, or will he/she be excused?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Nick K (1,068 comments) says:

    I refuse to accept someone who typed a note on a computer telling the world it was him also wore gloves to keep his fingerprints off the murder weapon. That’s just bullshit and fails all smell tests.

    Why would Robin Bain wear gloves to keep his fingerprints off the murder weapon and then reveal to the world it was him and David was the only one “who deserved to live”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Mk2_Zephyr (3 comments) says:

    So he read all the evidence ?

    don’t f think so …

    We could look at all the bloody evidence all over davids clothes, but nah, lets try ..

    By suggestion as to dbs innocence, Robin fought with Stephen and then executed his favourite son and had no bruises or blood on his body or clothes ? … seriously, have you seen the photos of Stephens room !

    or
    The computer message, “YOU are the only one ….” So david was more popular with his father than Arawa (the apple of Robins eye), Stephen (successful student) or even Laniet ! … seriously the only person who could have thought that, was david himself !

    and even easier, these were not random killings but EXECUTIONS, think about it …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Reid (15,943 comments) says:

    I wonder if a juror can insist on hearing the evidence in Maori, or will he/she be excused?

    It would probably be fairer if the counsel and Judge got to set a mystery test each juror had to perform as they approached the box. Like: “pretend you’re an autumn leaf, fluttering to the ground then swirling round and round in a sort of whirlwindy thing as autumn leaves sometimes do.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. MH (624 comments) says:

    LOL yeah get in touch with your inner truth,express yourself, pick a costume from the rack. If you turned up dressed as Monty Python’s the Grim Reaper,possibly be challenged…and the scythe confiscated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Mk2_Zephyr (3 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, you fighter for justice ….

    My cousin was Ronald Stephen Blyth, you remember him ?

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

    “The Parliament and legal profession are concerned with doing their best to ensure that as few miscarriages of justice go uncorrected as possible.”

    Parliament is also concerned that they don’t give a $2 million handout to a mass murderer. I am sure you can understand why they would want to be sure that they get that right and why they shouldn’t necessarily rely on the word of a former SC Juge from Canada. As you’ve correctly noted, judges can sometimes get it horribly wrong.

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

    > There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the jury was not impartial when the trial began.

    So could you explain why 3 jurors – during the trial – went to visit the site of the murders of their own volition?

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

    > anybody convicted of a crime is entitled to petition the Governor General

    Of course they are Nostalgia, and I totally agree that that should be so. But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You’re saying that a convicted murderer should be able to appeal repeatedly but when a report is produced about his possible innocence, that should be the end of the matter! What breath-taking arrogance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    redeye (529) Says:
    September 10th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    “Plenty of killers are model prisoners” and they are diagnosed as psychotic by prison psychiatrists.

    Funnily enough Ewen MacDonald is considered a model prisoner by prison guards, staff and inmates also. He hasn’t been diagnosed as psychotic either.

    “Only David Bain knows if he is guilty or not, so he is either a) a brilliant actor worthy of an Oscar or, b) he isn’t the killer”.

    Sorry for the parallel again but Ewen MacDonald also managed to fool all who knew him post carrying out all his acts of violence.
    Most likely he would have continued to do so had his mate not dobbed them in.

    Plenty of apparently good and normal people can carry out all sorts of horrific activities and carry on with their daily life as if nothing untoward had happened. Call it great acting if you will but they are very, very good at it. It happens all over the world every day and we all know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    So could you explain why 3 jurors – during the trial – went to visit the site of the murders of their own volition?

    In what way does that show partiality?

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

    In what way does it show impartiality? It’s about 370 kilometres from Christchurch to Dunedin, so not a short drive. Why would 3 jurors, in the middle of a trial, decide to swanny off on such a trip, presumably without notifying the judge? Jurors aren’t permitted to undertake their own investigations into a case. I wonder if any of these jurors also happened to fall asleep during the trial or couldn’t bear to look at some of the evidence. There were certainly issues with the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    You still haven’t shown how that shows partiality (not impartiality, btw). It certainly shows overzealousness, but I cannot see how it calls the jurors initial impartiality into question.

    So far there is nothing that shows that any of the jury went in with predetermined views, and then managed to convince their colleagues to agree with those views. Moreover, I actually disagree with your view that there were issues with the jury. I haven’t heard of any, nor seen any evidence of issues. Stephen Franks even has a blog post supporting the right of jurors to conduct their own inquiry (which was a part of the jury’s role almost 1000 years ago!), although I disagree with him on that point.

    Whether you agree with the verdict or not (and an acquittal was always a possibility), there is no evidence of juror bias. A couple or three jurors turning up to the defence celebration post-trial doesn’t allow an imputation of pre-trial bias, there just isn’t enough evidence with which to make that conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Winston (43 comments) says:

    For F E Smith, who has been inadvertently unfair to one of the finest English judges in living memory. It most certainly was not Lord Devlin who said that at the appeal of the Guildford Four. Lord Denning, a completely different animal, did say after the sentences were quashed something to the effect that we all knew they were guilty anyway. Shades of David Bain here. In his retirement, Lord Devlin campaigned for the release of the Guildford Four, and urged an overhaul of the appeals system, suggesting an independent tribunal to investigate questionable cases. As recently as 1966 he wrote the classic “Trial by Jury”, in which he says “So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” So obviously we need to do away with it, because, let’s face it, the commenters here are obviously far better placed to reach an informed decision than twelve random people who’ve actually sat through the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Winston, thank you. My apologies to Lord Devlin. I knew it began with a ‘D’ and took a guess, but got it wrong!!! Serves me right for not confirming by Google. Or going and picking up my copy of ‘Trial by Jury’ off the bookcase.

    So obviously we need to do away with it, because, let’s face it, the commenters here are obviously far better placed to reach an informed decision than twelve random people who’ve actually sat through the evidence.

    Now, hold on: logic is compeletely unacceptable when we are talking about David Bain!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostalgia-NZ (4,910 comments) says:

    I think I used Diplock but was referring to Lord Devlin earlier. I think he might have written about the history of execution in England and perhaps the Commonwealth among a host of other things which seemed to cement him in a class of his own.

    I think the Bain Jury was down to 11 after a few days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Mk2_Zephyr (3 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, do you remember Margaret Bell ?

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

    zephyr today, bicycle tomorrow, morris minor yesterday

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Johnboy (14,980 comments) says:

    “Or going and picking up my copy of ‘Trial by Jury’ off the bookcase.”

    Right next to “Fee’s and Disbursements available from the Stupid People.”

    Which on your bookshelf FESter, would of course be right next to “Dramatic acting for Dummies.” :)

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.