let me assure you that I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the Bain murders,so I reckon I definitely am qualified to express an opinion.

I imagine that invite to the House of Lords is in the mail as I type.

ross69

One of the points I was making is that you feel eminently more qualified to express a view on this than the people who are in fact more eminently qualified than you. The PC said the case against Bain was a fuckup and that evidence before them didn’t warrant a guilty verdict or words to that effect. That is not equivalent to saying that he was not guilty. It is in fact only saying it was a fuckup. The final not guilty verdict does not mean he didn’t do it. It means that the case was not proven to the requisite burden of proof. Whatever Binnie has said has clearly not come up to scratch, which does not surprise me because my impression is that the Canadian judiciary can be a bit flighty and tends to sit outside the Comonwealth mainstream. Binnie was a very odd choice by Power – Lord only knows what possessed him to go there. The Aussie judges are all pinkos and like to give others’ money away so in the circs, the only sensible place to go once it decided to go overseas was the UK where their population base and legal tradition has produced jurists of far superior quality than anywhere else in the Commonwealth.

This obsession of unqualified couch potatoes in debating this issue ad nauseum might be a bit of sport but is ultimately a bit pointless – like the so-called AGW debates here or me playing with Redbaiter. Interesting it might be for some, even those who haven’t been in the trial, but it is laughable to go on to assert a point of view contrary to those that have been part of the process and who are eminently more qualified to express a view about these things or, through networks arising from previous employment might know things that we may not. This is a judicial process that has rules. Those rules are there to protect each of us. Whatever decision is reached, it is decided in accordance with the rules. The compensation issue however, IMO, ought to deviate from the trial rules in that there ought to be some basis upon which credible evidence found inadmissable at trial can be included in any consideration. I don’t know if that is the case, but the fact that Binnie read Karam’s book, which incidentally, I find extraordinary, suggests that he at least felt able to caste his evidenciary net wider. Talking to Bain without the benefit of cross-examination doesn’t meet what I would regard as an evidentiary threshold. However, he did it so it remains to be seen what happens to his report. Collins is clearly unimpressed by it and his re-submission of it seems almost bizarre but nevertheless indicative that it wasn’t done properly in the first place. However, enjoy yourselves by all means and if it makes you feel good by disagreeing with more competent people than yourselves by all means be my guest. I’ve at least got the courage to say I don’t have a clue whether he did it or not and that I’m not prepared to put myself above those who have far more expertise than me – oops, that would be all of you guys wouldn’t it!

That explains your mistakes, then.
All that you have studied is old information, such as the PCA report, when was that written again?
What you really need to study is the fresh information as given in the retrial. You really need to read the retrial transcripts and see the photos presented to the jury. If you could do that, you would know better than to scoff at , for example, that there was fresh blood including clots found on jeans in Robin’s caravan.

You were defending the Privy Council while ignoring what it said. That doesn’t seem terribly helpful. It’s like saying that Binnie is an independent high falutin former judge so must know what he is talking about. Appealing to a higher authority doesn’t cut the mustard.

3 Law Lords + 3 QCs (approx 180 – 200 years of law experience)

The Law Lords are experienced in Law, not justice. The Law may, or may not, fit with the public perception of justice.

There are two different approaches taken on this topic. One is the legal approach, which attempts to be objective. The other is our subjective view of what is justice.

I consider him guilty. But legally this is not proven, so I think he should be compensated. It is not my idea of “justice”, but it is consistent with the Law.

I’m genuinely surprised that some people believe he’s an angel. Then again, it never ceases to amaze me that some people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and that their belief is so strong and convincing.

Would you care to explain how those comments are in any way relevant to the point I was making. Are also inferring that I am a Bain supporter or was that just gratuitous drivel? Care to cite any comment that I have ever made on this issue that evidences my support for Bain?

Unlike you and others here who ought to know better, I’m not prepared to express an opinion about Bain’s guilt or innocence because I didn’t sit through any of the trials or hear any of the evidence. But then the rule of law or the integrity of the judicial system is hardly likely to sit close to the bosom of someone such as yourself is it ross? Given your propensity to deal with people on the basis of that they all represent the lowest common denominator.

You’re missing the point, deliberately I suspect. The Privy Council never said Bain was innocent. Indeed, it said there was sufficient evidence for him to be tried for slaughtering his family. I’m genuinely surprised that some people believe he’s an angel. Then again, it never ceases to amaze me that some people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and that their belief is so strong and convincing.

3 Law Lords + 3 QCs (approx 180 – 200 years of law experience) v inane questions from compulsive repeaters and cut and pasters

Pretty well sums up this so-called “debate” really.

One of the great advantages of the Privy Council is that it remained, self-evidently, outside the sphere of social and political influence and was able to look at issues and evidence completely dispassionately. For example, how could they be influenced by armchair experts in NZ who didn’t sit through the trial and see the evidence presented.

On the other hand, we could save squillions on the justice system if we simply implemented a process whereby the Sunday Star Times summarised its version of events here and guilt or innocence was determined by way of popular vote of our resident legal experts. Alternatively we could just alter the burden of proof to “yeah, kind of looks about right. I think he’s a bit of a creep anyway”. That way we wouldn’t have to suffer being confronted with cases such as that of Arthur Thomas who was framed by the police who were complicit at the top level. After all, ya can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

Muggins- For the first time I disagree with you. That ‘Jury’ would NEVER have found their beloved David guilty under any circumstance. The fact that members of the jury were partying with Karam and Bain after the trial confirms this. The Prosecution presented a case packed with overwhelming evidence against Bain and this starry-eyed bunch of Woman’s Day reading morons ignored every piece of it. The Crown stood no chance against media-driven brainwash stupidity….

“The Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is certainly a tenable one based on the evidence. Indeed,in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s room where he was killed,the Crown thesis is a strong one.”.

Just as well David Bain exercised his right to silence at the retrial. he would never had stood up to cross-examination regarding those glasses. The jury would have found him guilty,and that would have been the end of the matter.
Of course I have no doubt that that David Bain supporter will still bury his head ostrich-like in the sand and continue to perpetrate the myth that David Bain wasn’t wearing those glasses that weekend.
What can one expect from someone who went on for years insisting those blood spots on Robin Bain’s shoe came from one of his children. And now he is saying Robin Bain had a nosebleed. Whatever myth will he come up with next?

Joe Karam has said a lot of things. Anyone would think he was there that fateful morning…what’s significant is that he thought Bain was innocent before he (Karam) had looked at any of the evidence. What does that say about him?