No compensation for Bain and Karam [Archive]

kirky

25-08-2009, 10:01 AM

Around 70% of people posting on the Bain case thread think David Bain killed his family, the case is now over but the fight led by Karam for more of your hard earned tax dollars in compensation to be awarded to David the most likely killer and David's business partner Karam, has begun.

I personally will be making hopefully a powerful and informed argument against compo to Simon Power the minister of justice, although we have heard that David may be unlikely to be able to get compo, the government just loves giving away your tax dollars so that may happen anyway. What I am looking for here is some good argument from other posters opposing wasting of public funds in this way. The travisty of a killer escaping justice is bad enough geting paid our hard earned tax money in compo is unbearable.:(

Below is a tiny portion of the argument I will be sending to Simon Power.

If Robin Bain shot his family what would he have had to do?
David’s testimony is that he left the house at 5.45am to do his paper round he arrived back home by his own admission just after 6.40 lets say 6.42 that gives Robin 57 minutes, first of all Robin would have had to have been watching from the caravan where he had been sleeping for David to be departing from the house for the paper run, problems arise straight away with this scenario, as Alister McConnell, managing director of distribution for the Otago Daily Times at the time, told police he would drop off bundles of papers for David to deliver, but sometimes had to wake him up when he didn't turn up to do his run and sometimes Robin Bain or David's sister Laniet would do the round for him, Mr. McConnell said. So if Robin had planned to kill the whole family that morning it would have hinged on David not sleeping in. Robin must have been listening to the radio because the police found it still blaring when they entered the caravan later; Robin had a watch and an alarm clock that was set for 6.30am so the radio was not necessary for waking. Testimony at court showed David was pretty erratic with his paper run, sleeping in etc, so David has left, Robin now makes his move into the house presumably with his shoes on, he goes quietly into David’s room and somehow finds the spare key for the trigger lock, “David testified that only he knew where the spare key was kept” the other key for some reason David kept on a string around his neck, but the day before David and Steven and with Dad watching participated in a mid winter swim, David gave the key to Robin and Robin put it in his Jacket pocket the jacket was found by the police with the key still in the pocket in Robins caravan. But Robin doesn't use this key he finds the spare key in David’s room in a jar on the dressing table he then gets the 22 rifle and ammo out of David’s wardrobe unlocks the trigger lock and leaves it on the floor with a few 22 rounds, he then looks for and finds David’s opera gloves in a drawer puts them on and then presumably takes off his shoes as the bloody prints found later were made with sock clad feet, he then walks down the hall turns left and enters Laniet’s room, first shot to her is probably through her cheek then she is shot above her left ear and the third shot to the top of her head, Robin then exits Laniet’s room and enters Margaret’s room on the other side of the hall, she to is asleep in her bed he shoots her in the eye and then walks next door to 14 year old Stevens room, based on what we know the killer Robin in this version of events raises the rifle to shoot Steven in the head but Steven wakes and puts his hand up and grabs the silencer at the end of the rifle barrel leaving fingerprints there but Robin shoots at the same time the slug goes through Stevens hand and grazes his head, he starts to bleed profusely as the fight for his young life begins, the killer and Steven wrestle from one side of the room to the other, there is blood going everywhere and at one stage Steven is forced hard against the handles of a set of drawers, we know this because the pathologist found indentations on his back matching the shape of these handles, eventually the killer strangles Steven with his own T shirt incapacitates him and attempts to shoot him but at this stage the gun jams as it was prone to do so Robin is forced to take off David’s opera gloves to dislodge the jammed round, the gloves drenched with blood are later found by police under Stevens bed, another round is then fired into Stevens head finishing him off, Robin now covered in blood exits Stevens room bumping into and leaving blood on the door frame, down the hall he goes he then turns right down the stairs, at the bottom of the stairs he turns right again and walks into Arawa’s door way also bumping into the door frame and leaving blood stains there, Arawa is up she was probably awoken from the commotion upstairs, Robin fires at close range but misses Arawa, the slug recovered later in the wall, the next shot hits her forehead just above the right eye, she is later found slumped backwards with her legs folded beneath her, so that is all the family killed except for David who is on the paper run, if Robin is the killer he now has to wash the blood off his hands, but testimony from the trial is that there was dirt in the creases of his hands so the washing of his hands was unlikely, he now has to remove all his blood splattered clothes because when the police find him later shot dead he only has his own blood on his clothing. Robin walks down the passage and enters the laundry he removes his bloodied clothing and puts it into the clothes basket, Michael Reed David’s lawyer at trial said Robin changed into completely blood free clothes to meet his maker, so bearing that in mind, to meet his maker, he chose an old pair of light-blue tracksuit pants, an equally dilapidated T-shirt, an old business shirt, a brown woolen jersey and a thick hoodie he also donned a green knitted beanie and put on clean socks and shoes, but no underpants. This clothing looks more like the gear one would put on for a freezing winters day rather than what you would wear to meet your maker, he then heads for the lounge at the front of the house, his normal routine in the mornings was to bring in the newspaper “not delivered by David but another paper boy” and leave it on the hall sideboard to read after he prays in the front lounge room this morning is no different as the police later find the Otago Daily times paper dated 20th June 1994 in the hall, so an odd thing for someone who’s “going to commit murder, suicide, also very strange to wear gloves as gloves are only worn in cases like these to avoid leaving fingerprints and hide ones identity when you are committing an offense "What on earth are the gloves for if you're going to commit murder then suicide and tell the world David is the only one who deserves to stay” Crown prosecutor Mr. Raftery asked the court at trial. So Robin now enters the lounge, it is very dark at this time so presumably he turns on the light and goes into the computer alcove in the lounge where he turns on the computer somewhere between 6.40 and 6.45 he waits at least another 40 seconds for the old computer to boot up with some appropriate word program, he then types in the words “SORRY YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY” he then goes through the curtains grabs the rifle again and shoots himself in the left temple even though he is right handed “the statistics for this method with a rifle when you are right handed are extremely unsupported” he falls down beside the been bag and when he is found there is a ten shot magazine standing on its thin edge near his right hand, the measurements of this magazine were; [average length is about 77mm and its average height about 28mm. Its width is just a little over 8mm.The narrow width of the magazine makes the fact that it ended up on its edge very strange, the more so because of the convex nature of the edge on which it came to rest. Its convex shape results in the edge’s bearing surface being significantly reduced, experiments later were to show the odds of a magazine landing on its edge after being dropped were zero, but if you believe that David was the killer who held this spare 10 shot magazine then maybe he planted it beside his fathers outstretched hand to reinforce the suicide scenario. There was another magazine in the rifle and it obviously would have contained the fatal bullet. Two more live rounds were left in that magazine.
At the post mortem Dr Dempster found that Robin’s bladder contained about 400ml of dark, relatively concentrated urine. He regarded that as a normal overnight collection, saying that it was “the amount an individual would pass on getting up in the morning”. A curious feature of the case is that Robin had not passed this urine on getting up in the morning, and if Robin was the killer this means he would have been up even before David left on the paper run at 5.45 and of course we know because of the computer turn on time at approximately 6.43 that this scenario means that Robin held off going to the toilet for quite some time at least an hour. Whereas if David was the killer of Robin and the one who turned on the computer at approximately 6.43 with Robin entering the lounge at his usual time just before 7am after waking and walking from the caravan, then it is more understandably why he was found with a full bladder simply because he would have only have been up for a short while. If we are to say Robin committed suicide another question one could look at would be why did he go to the lounge to do it, if David shot him he has a reason for being in the lounge as it was stated by at least two people that he always went there first thing in the morning to pray, but if as the defense says he shot himself, then obviously there was no reason to shoot himself in the lounge.

Yossarian

25-08-2009, 10:37 AM

Tom Hall

25-08-2009, 12:04 PM

shasta

25-08-2009, 12:27 PM

The solution to the compensation of David Bain is simple. Joe Karam has now pronounced that David Bain is innocent not only beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities. So as honest Joe wouldn't lie to us, since he has pronounced, it is up to Joe Karam to determine a suitable level of compensation for Bain fils and for Joe Karam to pay that compensation, on behalf of all of us.
Problem solved!

Joe will need some seed funding to get his next book published.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't David (who is currently travelling around the UK) have to be here to make his case for the compensation?

I hope he doesn't get any taxpayer funded compensation, but perhaps he should be allowed his inheritance/whatever funds are left over.

I'm not usually a fence sitter - but this case is a one of a kind!

belgarion

25-08-2009, 12:34 PM

The travisty of a killer escaping justice is bad enough geting paid our hard earned tax money in compo is unbearable.:(

As you're convinced he's guilty - how can you say he "escaped justice" given the number of years he spent in prison?

Skol

25-08-2009, 12:52 PM

Placebo

25-08-2009, 01:04 PM

my suggestions is use more paragraphs.

Also I'm not sure there's a lot of point in going over the minutiae of the case again - Power will (I imagine) accept the jury's verdict, and therefore David's innocence, before he even starts.

Correct. You need to argue the legal basis for compensating or not compensating. Not try to re-litigate the case. That ship has sailed, Kirky. Get. Over. It.

There are a few things you need to know.

Firstly, when you write to a Minister, the Minister doesn't pick up his crayon and respond to you himself. He (or rather his staff) passes it on to the relevant department (in this case Justice), who will compose a reply. The Minister may or may not read the reply before signing it out. Most Ministers, to be fair, read them. But don't bank on it.

Bureaucrats aren't silly. They can spot madcap ranting crusaders a mile off. And you, Kirky, are a madcap ranting crusader. So the first thing you need to do is tone down your emotional involvement. Present cogent, rational arguments. In fact, before you even start to write, you need to think `what am I wanting to achieve? What points do I want to make? How can I concisely present my arguments to best effect?

Then write.

Then edit

Then give it to someone else you trust to tell you what they think of it.

Then edit it again.

Then send it.

What you have posted here would be counter-productive to your cause.

Tom Hall

25-08-2009, 03:05 PM

Joe will need some seed funding to get his next book published.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't David (who is currently travelling around the UK) have to be here to make his case for the compensation?

I hope he doesn't get any taxpayer funded compensation, but perhaps he should be allowed his inheritance/whatever funds are left over.

I'm not usually a fence sitter - but this case is a one of a kind!

My response should only be read as that of a non -legal expert. but I can't see any reason why an application can'rt be made in his name with his authorisation. Personally I'm waiting until David Bain actually applies to believe that he will.
The inheritance issue seems legally the more interesting issue. He was found not guilty so obviously he should be in line tio inherit. But his relatives received the money in good faith and may not be in a position to repay even if they are obliged to.
It would seem to be fairly unusual although before Al Megrahi was released in Scotland, He was on appeal and it would be interesting to contemplate what would have happend if he was found not guilty on appeal. But Libya did technically admit to the crime, so I think it wouldn't be the same.

kirky

25-08-2009, 03:26 PM

my suggestions is use more paragraphs.

Also I'm not sure there's a lot of point in going over the minutiae of the case again - Power will (I imagine) accept the jury's verdict, and therefore David's innocence, before he even starts.Yossarian the first thing you have to understand is if you are found not guilty in a court of law it does not mean that you are innocent.

kirky

25-08-2009, 03:31 PM

As you're convinced he's guilty - how can you say he "escaped justice" given the number of years he spent in prison?OK maybe he didn't escape justice completely but 13 years for 5 murders is a little light in my book 100 years is getting closer to the mark.

kirky

25-08-2009, 03:39 PM

DB has been shunted out of the country because he's got a short fuse and a big mouth and is liable to prejudice his case if he opens it and says what really happened.
Anyone who kills that number of people shouldn't do 13 years they should do closer to 100 years.
You can bet your life there are those in high places who reckon he did it too, so it's not going to be easy.
This is one of the few times in my life I feel like donating some cash-to stop DB getting compensation.Well said Skol I think you are probably right about him being shunted out of the country, I really can't see Bain living in NZ after this trial with every second person he meets looking at him with suspicion, and as there being people in high places who think David did it you can bet your bottom dollar on that at least 50% of people think he did it! his support now is less than before the trial many people were truly stunned at the outcome of the trial given the evidence against David and the almost complete lack of evidence implicating Robin.

shasta

25-08-2009, 03:58 PM

Yossarian the first thing you have to understand is if you are found not guilty in a court of law it does not mean that you are innocent.

Kirky

Take a deep breath!

The DB case is kind of like the OJ case (ok, there are a few similarities)

Found Not Guilty* of the Murders in court, then found guilty of being involved in there deaths in a civil case & was sued. :eek:

Clearly the US laws that allow that do not operate here, but the issue of compensation for DB (like OJ) seems to bare no relation to the outcome of the original case.

* He's since gone & robbed someone & is back in jail :rolleyes:

kirky

25-08-2009, 04:06 PM

Correct. [QUOTE]You need to argue the legal basis for compensating or not compensating. Not try to re-litigate the case. That ship has sailed, Kirky. Get. Over. It.Placebo I am not re-litigating the case simply calling for ideas from people to stop Bain and his business partner getting more money, if I are to send a protest to the minister of justice I need to put something in print the bit about Robin Bain is not fantasy it is what he would have to have done to be the killer and is based on the accepted facts of the case by the defence and the prosecution, and I think if you read it as I hope other people including the minister do it will help to demonstrate just how implausible it was for Robin to be the culprit.

There are a few things you need to know.

Firstly, when you write to a Minister, the Minister doesn't pick up his crayon and respond to you himself. He (or rather his staff) passes it on to the relevant department (in this case Justice), who will compose a reply. The Minister may or may not read the reply before signing it out. Most Ministers, to be fair, read them. But don't bank on it.So what makes you think you are the only one who understands how things work, I am well aware of what you are saying here and I know I am probably fighting an uphill battle but sometimes people in high places do listen yes sometimes we can make a difference.

Bureaucrats aren't silly. They can spot madcap ranting crusaders a mile off. And you, Kirky, are a madcap ranting crusader. So the first thing you need to do is tone down your emotional involvement. Present cogent, rational arguments.I am passionate about this issue but there is no need to start name calling Placebo you are not in the school playground now:rolleyes: And as for Presenting cogent, rational argument what part of my post about Robin Bain is not cogent or rational.

What you have posted here would be counter-productive to your cause. Why is that Placebo, I think it quite clearly shows how very improbable it would have been for Robin to do the crime.

kirky

25-08-2009, 04:18 PM

The inheritance issue seems legally the more interesting issue. He was found not guilty so obviously he should be in line tio inherit. But his relatives received the money in good faith and may not be in a position to repay even if they are obliged to.
.Yes it is interesting and I can not shed any legal light on what the law says in regard to Bain now getting his inheritance, but I know for sure knowing what his relatives especially the uncles and aunties know I think they will be fighting tooth and nail to stop David from profiting from crime.

kirky

25-08-2009, 04:28 PM

shasta; Kirky

Take a deep breath! Done That ' Ah thats better

The DB case is kind of like the OJ case (ok, there are a few similarities)

Found Not Guilty* of the Murders in court, then found guilty of being involved in there deaths in a civil case & was sued. :eek:

Clearly the US laws that allow that do not operate here, but the issue of compensation for DB (like OJ) seems to bare no relation to the outcome of the original case.

Most of the legal experts in the news media seem to think that David will be fighting an uphill battle to receive compo as the level of proof is much higher than convincing some weak minded jurors. All I am trying to do is help in some small way.

minimoke

25-08-2009, 04:53 PM

[quote=Placebo;270480]
And as for Presenting cogent, rational argument what part of my post about Robin Bain is not cogent or rational.

Kirky, I hate to burst your bubble but when the Ministers staff recieve your no doubt larger submission they will be reaching for the "Nutcase Response" template letter.

If you are looking for feedback on your post I'm afraid you lost me on the first paragraph - there were hints of irrationality there all ready. As for cogent argument - there is none if you are relying on the views of posters on a sharetrading forum.

In addition to Palcebo's useful advice I might add trying to get your letter to one page, perhaps two. The use of paragraphs is obviously essential but some bullet points are also an attractive way of making a point quickly. Rather than dwelling on the case you might want to be researching the Cabinet manual and how a request by DB will be handled - this way you can express your view on how that decison should be made along with supporting evidence. Your evidnce probably needs to be on compensation precedent rather Bains trial. Ministers do quite like being alerted to "unintended consequences" so you might like to consider what these might be and bring them to the Ministers attention. Cabinet advisors will be doing this so you're probably going to have to be a bit creative

You're also probably going to need a Plan "B". If Plan A suceeds and Bain doesn't get compo you'll sleep easy at night knowing you did your bit. But if Bain does get compo you are going to need your backup plan.

Nita

25-08-2009, 04:55 PM

Kirky. Yes mentioned 70% of pposters on here found him guilty. The most important thing is that 100% of the jury found him not guilty. also just under half the kiwi population also beleive he is not guilty. based on those stats alone it is clear that there are some things are a miss. either the prosecution did a terrible job or the defense did a wonderful job or a bit of both.

ps. i could read the first post as it was too long and no paragraphs. But i do enjoy your enthusiasm and whatever happens i hope some good comes out of it.

On a slightly different note, my biggest gripe with the justice system is allowing convicted criminals get away with blue murder (excuse the pun). We need to simplify the prison system especially for life sentences (and make them life) and let criminals understand that there is a strong deterrent from commiting crime. We are too soft here in NZ

kirky

25-08-2009, 06:32 PM

[quote=kirky;270534]
[QUOTE]Kirky, I hate to burst your bubble but when the Ministers staff receive your no doubt larger submission they will be reaching for the "Nutcase Response" template letter.Ok MM I am trying to be fair here, my posting is going to be just a part of a submission, you have said they will be reaching for the "Nutcase Response" template letter, you have made this comment, can you go on and tell me why this small part of my submission would bring on a "Nutcase Response" as you put it.

If you are looking for feedback on your post I'm afraid you lost me on the first paragraph - there were hints of irrationality there all ready. Again can you tell me what those hints were.
As for cogent argument - there is none if you are relying on the views of posters on a sharetrading forum.Well in your case you may well be right:D but really I think the posters on the Bain tread yourself included are better qualified than most average kiwies, several posters were attending the trial regularly and the knowledge of the facts and evidence of the case is of quite a high standard which is why I believe 70% of the posters believe David is guilty, and no doubt don't want to waste further tax money on him with 50% going to his partner Karam.
I might add trying to get your letter to one page, perhaps two. The use of paragraphs is obviously essential but some bullet points are also an attractive way of making a point quickly. Rather than dwelling on the case you might want to be researching the Cabinet manual and how a request by DB will be handled - this way you can express your view on how that decision should be made along with supporting evidence. Your evidence probably needs to be on compensation precedent rather Bains trial. Ministers do quite like being alerted to "unintended consequences" so you might like to consider what these might be and bring them to the Ministers attention. Cabinet advisers will be doing this so you're probably going to have to be a bit creativeThanks for that I will bear that in mind, my post is a bit rough IE no paragraphs etc but it will look better when I have finished with it having said that I think the post is preety logical and it is designed to show the implausibility of Robin being the killer.

You're also probably going to need a Plan "B". If Plan A succeeds and Bain doesn't get compo you'll sleep easy at night knowing you did your bit. But if Bain does get compo you are going to need your backup plan.Plan B is "I still own a 22 MM".

cantab

25-08-2009, 07:03 PM

Tom Hall

26-08-2009, 05:57 AM

Kirky, if he was to get say $2m that's only 50 cents for each man, woman and child so hardly worth getting worked up about. I'm happy to let the government of the day decide.

One could make the argument that he should have been found not guilty right from the beginning, in which case he deserves compensation.

That's my 50 cents worth.

You can only make the argument that he should have beeen found not guilty at the first trial, if you assume that the first Jury made the wrong decision.
That hardly seems consistant with the claim by the pro-DB camp that the jury gets the best look at the evidence, and therefore makes the best decisions. Its curious how that line of reasoning, sems to be a very movable feast.
The evidence art the first trial wasn't that different from the evidence at the second trial.
Nor is it hard to make an argument that the first trial Jury got a lot more accurate look at the evidence of the glasses (with some deceptions) than they did at the second. In which, on the back of JK's long running campaign, the defense was able to make outragious alligations, about the the lens, that probably wouldn't have worked at the first trial.
So my guess is no that won't make a strong line of argument should DB/JK claim for compensation. but please feel free to send your $1.50 to JK.

kirky

26-08-2009, 09:00 AM

The evidence art the first trial wasn't that different from the evidence at the second trial.
Nor is it hard to make an argument that the first trial Jury got a lot more accurate look at the evidence of the glasses (with some deceptions) than they did at the second. In which, on the back of JK's long running campaign, the defense was able to make outrageous allegations, about the the lens, that probably wouldn't have worked at the first trial.
Our justice system has been steamrolled by an insistent, dedicated and persistent individual on a single minded mission to achieve their own personal goal, regardless of the truth.

The Defence corrupted the evidence and stooped as low as accusing hard working cops of planting evidence without any reason apart from corrupting the evidence enough to further there cause, and the weak minded jury bought into it enough to get Bain off.

This piece of evidence below which is word for word from the 2003 Court of Appeal shows David to be a calculating Liar and by itself is almost enough to find him guilty.

The green jersey. The green jersey must have been worn by the killer, it was found by the police in the laundry. It had no blood staining on it having just been through the wash. The link between the jersey and the killer is provided by the fact that fibers taken from under Stephen’s fingernails matched those out of which the green jersey was made. It is a compelling and uncontested inference that the killer wore this green jersey. David initially told the police the jersey belonged to Arawa. He confirmed that to be the case in his second statement. But at the first trial, and for the first time, David said the jersey belonged to Robin, although Arawa wore it on occasions around the house. At trial David claimed, again for the first time, that Robin had been wearing the jersey over the weekend.

minimoke

26-08-2009, 09:43 AM

[quote=minimoke;270544][quote=kirky;270534]
Ok MM I am trying to be fair here, my posting is going to be just a part of a submission, you have said they will be reaching for the "Nutcase Response" template letter, you have made this comment, can you go on and tell me why this small part of my submission would bring on a "Nutcase Response" as you put it.
Its off topic (the topic being that on the balance of probability david is not innocent); rambling and not formatted

Again can you tell me what those hints were.Your very first sentence manages to cover
- a sharetrader forum
- a concluded court case
- a campaign by an ex footy player
- compensation
- tax
- an assertion on someone being a killer
- a business partenership.

Moving to your second paragraph there are hints of delusional thoughts ("powerful and informed arguments") and some irrationality ("govt just loves giving away your tax dollars" - have a look at the Rex Haigh compo claim).

If your post is a "tiny' part of an overall submission then this suggests a lack of awareness of due process and natural justice as well as perhaps a touch of obsessive-compulisiveness

Plan B is "I still own a 22 MM".not quite what I had exepected but in hindsight not surprised. I had been thinking more along the lines of some mental health plan.

Placebo

26-08-2009, 10:47 AM

Kirky. You are getting some good advice here. I suggest you take it.

1 page letter

One thought per sentence.

The case specifics of R vs Bain are not relevant to the question of compensation. He has been found NOT GUILTY by a jury. That is a non-negotiable.

What is relevant is whether there is precedent for awarding or not awarding compensation for miscarriages of justice. That is where you need to do your research. Whether Robin or David or the Tooth Fairy did it doesn't matter.

If you send anything resembling your opening post, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot. Don't do it.

kirky

26-08-2009, 11:14 AM

[QUOTE=minimoke;270636][quote=kirky;270572][quote=minimoke;270544]
Its off topic (the topic being that on the balance of probability David is not innocent); rambling and not formatted
Your very first sentence manages to cover
- a sharetrader forum
- a concluded court case
- a campaign by an ex footy player
- compensation
- tax
- an assertion on someone being a killer
- a business partenership.The first paragraph I thought would have been patently obvious that it was addressed to only other posters on this web site 70% of them being in the Bain is guilty camp.

Moving to your second paragraph there are hints of delusional thoughts ("powerful and informed arguments") and some irrationality ("govt just loves giving away your tax dollars" So you think its irrational to think the government of the day does not waste your hard earned tax dollars { How very delusional of you MM} I will be starting another thread soon to discuss the over taxing of people here in NZ. Again this was just addressed to posters on this forum the only piece of my post that I would send to the minister would be the bit titled {If Robin Bain shot his family what would he have had to do?}
And the reason for doing this is to show how implausibly it would have been for anyone other than David to be responsible.

minimoke

26-08-2009, 11:40 AM

[quote][quote=minimoke;270636][quote=kirky;270572]The first paragraph I thought would have been patently obvious that it was addressed to only other posters on this web site 70% of them being in the Bain is guilty camp.

Kirky - you are mangling my responces.

For the sake of clarity, when you asked why I thought you would get a Nutcase response the first line of your letter ("If Robin Bain shot his family.....") is off topic. All content after that is rambling and not formatted.

When you asked for hints on your post (rather than your letter to the minister) I gave you feedback on your first paragraph. I can't give you hints on the contents on your letter because, as I previously mentioned, I didn't read it due to the comment I've made immediatly above.

I'll look forward to your thread on waste of governemtn spending. Perhaps you could start by the waste the Crown created by deciding it was in the public interst to send Bain to trial again. Or was that not a waste?

kirky

26-08-2009, 11:51 AM

[QUOTE]Kirky. You are getting some good advice here. I suggest you take it.I will be the judge of whether it is good advice Placebo and coming from MM that is highly unlikely.:D

[QUOTE]What is relevant is whether there is precedent for awarding or not awarding compensation for miscarriages of justice. That is where you need to do your research. Whether Robin or David or the Tooth Fairy did it doesn't matter.If the experts think that on the balance of probabilities David did it then the current law says no compo the not guilty verdict becomes irrelevant its the balance of probabilities that count.
The case specifics of R vs Bain are not relevant to the question of compensation. He has been found NOT GUILTY by a jury. That is a non-negotiable. non-negotiable "my Arse" What you have said here is completely incorrect I suggest you have a little read of what the law experts have to say on the subject of compo below.

Auckland University associate law professor Scott Optican said acquittal was a "far cry" from proving innocence on the balance of probabilities, because the burden of proof was now on Mr. Bain rather than the prosecution.

Mr. Bain would find it difficult to seek compensation unless he could find "a real silver bullet piece of evidence that could definitively establish his innocence," he said.
Lawyer Murray Gibson said Mr. Bain would find it difficult to get compensation because he was required to prove his innocence "on the balance of probabilities".

"It's an extraordinarily high test to have to achieve," Mr. Gibson told the Weekend Herald.

In 2001, Mr. Gibson secured almost $900,000 in compensation for David Dougherty, who was acquitted of the rape and abduction of an 11-year-old-girl on the basis of DNA evidence.

While Mr. Dougherty had science on his side, Mr. Bain would find it difficult to prove his innocence because his case rested on doubts as to who committed the crime, Mr. Gibson said.
"Compensation is not an automatic right by law. I don't think people understand that. The government always has discretion," says Professor Mark Henaghan of Otago University.
"The Bain camp needs to put forward a compensation claim. It would then be considered by an independent Q.C. who would give advice to the Cabinet of whether they believe he is innocent. It's a different test to the one that was in the court," says John Key.
To gain compensation for wrongful imprisonment, Bain would need to prove he was more than likely innocent rather than the lesser jury test of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

kirky

26-08-2009, 01:11 PM

[QUOTE=minimoke;270659][quote=kirky;270651][quote][quote=minimoke;270636]

For the sake of clarity, when you asked why I thought you would get a Nutcase response the first line of your letter ("If Robin Bain shot his family.....") is off topic.

I can't give you hints on the contents on your letter because, as I previously mentioned, I didn't read it due to the comment I've made immediately above.You are incorrect the bit about Robin bain is completely relevant just read the post to Placebo and you should realize that all the evidence pointing to David and excluding Robin is relevant when dealing with the possibility of David getting compo you can go back now and read {If Robin Bain shot his family}

I'll look forward to your thread on waste of governemtn spending. Perhaps you could start by the waste the Crown created by deciding it was in the public interst to send Bain to trial again. Or was that not a wasteIt was not a waste whenever there is plenty of evidence that a person has commited a crime then the Police and government have no option but to go to court.

minimoke

26-08-2009, 01:53 PM

[quote=kirky;270662][quote=Placebo;270648]I will be the judge of whether it is good advice Placebo and coming from MM that is highly unlikely.:D
[quote]
Fair enough! The journey you are embarking on is fraught with difficulty and I fear you have taken a wrong turn right at the start. Your approach is bound to lead you way off your destination - but that will be something you will need to find for yourself.

It strikes me that you haven't made the shift from the criminal court process to the Cabinet one involved in determining firstly if an applicant is elligible to apply for compensation under certain criteria and secondly what that compensation should be.

You might like to also consider the hurdles you face by reflecting on previous compensation claims. Haig was convicted of one murder and missed out. Dougherty had one victim; the school girls had one victim and the un-named man had two rape victims and was still able to prove his innocence. Assuming he is elligible to apply, it is liekly Bain has to show his innocence in just one of the five charges he was found guilty of and subsequently found "not Guilty" on to get compo. This is unchartered territory for the QC and Cabinet: tomes of relitigation will not serve you well because you aren't focussing on the key issues.

minimoke

26-08-2009, 02:01 PM

It was not a waste whenever there is plenty of evidence that a person has commited a crime then the Police and government have no option but to go to court.
It appears you haven't been following the anti smacking campaign (quite wisely too!) which gives police statutory discretion not to prosecute a crime. (and how lucky are ACT today!)

Placebo

26-08-2009, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=Placebo;270648]I will be the judge of whether it is good advice Placebo and coming from MM that is highly unlikely.:D

I think we are lucky that you are not A Judge.

Auckland University associate law professor Scott Optican said acquittal was a "far cry" from proving innocence on the balance of probabilities, because the burden of proof was now on Mr. Bain rather than the prosecution.

Mr. Bain would find it difficult to seek compensation unless he could find "a real silver bullet piece of evidence that could definitively establish his innocence," he said.
Lawyer Murray Gibson said Mr. Bain would find it difficult to get compensation because he was required to prove his innocence "on the balance of probabilities".

"It's an extraordinarily high test to have to achieve," Mr. Gibson told the Weekend Herald.

In 2001, Mr. Gibson secured almost $900,000 in compensation for David Dougherty, who was acquitted of the rape and abduction of an 11-year-old-girl on the basis of DNA evidence.

While Mr. Dougherty had science on his side, Mr. Bain would find it difficult to prove his innocence because his case rested on doubts as to who committed the crime, Mr. Gibson said.
"Compensation is not an automatic right by law. I don't think people understand that. The government always has discretion," says Professor Mark Henaghan of Otago University.
"The Bain camp needs to put forward a compensation claim. It would then be considered by an independent Q.C. who would give advice to the Cabinet of whether they believe he is innocent. It's a different test to the one that was in the court," says John Key.
To gain compensation for wrongful imprisonment, Bain would need to prove he was more than likely innocent rather than the lesser jury test of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Reading these comments, the onus seems to be on the appellant (Bain) to prove innocence - NOT on others. So perhaps the correct approach is to await the compo case, then attempt to drive a truck through it.

In any case I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Or just plain barking. :D

You remind me of this bloke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

brettdale

26-08-2009, 04:05 PM

Bain shouldn't get one cent, he didn't take the stand, he didn't answer his critics, he hasn't proven he didn't do it.

kirky

26-08-2009, 05:32 PM

[QUOTE=kirky;270662]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Reading these comments, the onus seems to be on the appellant (Bain) to prove innocence - NOT on others. So perhaps the correct approach is to await the compo case, then attempt to drive a truck through it.

In any case I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Or just plain barking. :D

You remind me of this bloke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4Very funny haven't looked at Monty Python for years.

miner

26-08-2009, 07:09 PM

I just feel sorry for miss Kirky.

Onthemoney

26-08-2009, 08:21 PM

I value your intentions and certainly support your intent Kirky....

Skol

02-09-2009, 06:43 PM

Something on the news tonight about the Bain camp wanting to take possession of all the exhibits. Missed the main part of it.

fungus pudding

02-09-2009, 06:52 PM

Something on the news tonight about the Bain camp wanting to take possession of all the exhibits. Missed the main part of it.

You missed TV One making fools of themselves, and nothing else. Their promotion screamed of important new development in David Bain saga, which turned out to be that Bain's lawyer had applied to have the exhibits handed over. It was truly pathetic and on par with those dopey woman's magazines which put dopey headlines on the cover for dopey women.

shasta

02-09-2009, 06:57 PM

Something on the news tonight about the Bain camp wanting to take possession of all the exhibits. Missed the main part of it.

He wants his rifle back...:eek:

TV3 should have a podcast of the news highlights

Skol

02-09-2009, 07:11 PM

You missed TV One making fools of themselves, and nothing else. Their promotion screamed of important new development in David Bain saga, which turned out to be that Bain's lawyer had applied to have the exhibits handed over. It was truly pathetic and on par with those dopey woman's magazines which put dopey headlines on the cover for dopey women.

Why do they want the exhibits handed over?

Steve

02-09-2009, 07:37 PM

Why do they want the exhibits handed over?

Easiest way to get rid of the evidence! ;)

Tom Hall

02-09-2009, 07:53 PM

He wants his rifle back...

He's probably thinking about startting a family.

fungus pudding

02-09-2009, 08:11 PM

He's probably thinking about startting a family.

Or finishing one ......

shasta

02-09-2009, 08:35 PM

Or finishing one ......

Hmm & to think that very large gun shop is opening up in Christchurch...

Maybe DB wants to return to NZ & settle down?

Anyone wanna be his neighbour, i'm sure he'll be your paper boy :D

rev

02-09-2009, 09:37 PM

Stuff David, what miffed me was the reporter didn't try and get a 'moving forward' in the live cross.

fungus pudding

03-09-2009, 07:39 AM

Stuff David, what miffed me was the reporter didn't try and get a 'moving forward' in the live cross.

But there would have been a 'the reality is', an 'as we speak' or at the very least a 'to be fair'.

duncan macgregor

03-09-2009, 09:49 AM

evilroyrule

03-09-2009, 09:53 AM

i agree re all available means/methods shld be used. In this case I believe the only evidence that was needed to be put before the jury was the alleged conversation with his friend re committing sexual attacks and manipulating time in relation to his paper round to generate an alibi. why that wasnt put before them beats me. in my opinion he will never commit another crime as he all he ever wanted was to rid himself of his family.

Placebo

03-09-2009, 11:13 AM

Stuff David, what miffed me was the reporter didn't try and get a 'moving forward' in the live cross.

A live cross to a dead story?

minimoke

03-09-2009, 11:15 AM

Every means of getting to the truth should be used.
1, Lie detector tests
2, Past criminal history presented to the jury.
3, Hypnosis to relive the time of the event in front of both lawyers.
4, Three verdicts guilty, not guilty, not proven,
The jury should have all the facts out in front of them not this namby pamby double talk bull that goes on for months on end just to line lawyers pockets. Macdunk
Good ideas except:
1) polygraph tests are not reliable. At best they are OK in about 90% of cases. Trouble with the remaining 10% is that you could have innocent people appearing to be guilty and guilty people appearing to be innocent.
2) Past criminal history is not a reliable predictor of future criminal activity let alone guilt. For example there aren't too many people who do more than one murder. A person who pulls wings off flys and kills cats has a propensity to violent acts - but this doesn't mean he did an actual assault. In Bains case there was no previous criminal history. There are certain demographics that could be used to look at recidivism - but that is a tool probably better used by the probation service. If we were to use prior criminal records I'd also have to go for prior hospital records - there are some good predictors in there.
3) Hypnotically enhanced memories are again not that reliable. As for memories, you just have to look at the Peter Ellis case to see how dodgy these techniques are. Furthermore juries are somewhat skeptical of evidence gained under hynosis so such evidence could be more disruptive than benificial. Waterboarding seems like an alternative but is a bit frowned upon at the moment.

Juries will never have all the "evidence" in front of them to work out the facts. Just imagine in the Bain/Cosgrove trials if his barristor had introduced their pleasant and non agressive behaviour while at kindergarden. Trials would go on for eternity. Hence there are pre trial arguments on what evidence should be introduced and both sides get to see that evidence before hand.

The three verdicts has merit. Perhaps a step in that direction was us moving to a non-unanimous jury verdict.

Tom Hall

03-09-2009, 11:30 AM

Lets just presume he is innocent for a moment to reflect on the ordeal he has been through. He would deserve every cent he gets. If however he actually did this crime he will no doubt commit another in the future. Its a case where police blundering followed by a stupid justice system has left a result where we are left paying a probable murderer a huge sum of money for the wrongs we have inflicted on him. In Scotland he would have had a verdict of not proven at his first trial. He would have had to be found guilty beyond all doubt before a guilty verdict was reached. He then could be charged with the same crime if new evidence was presented. Arthur alan thomas would not have gone to jail or received a large tax funded payment for being wrongfully convicted as your stupid system was left to fork out. Under your system David bain can now come out and say he did it and get off Scot free [excuse the pun]. Every means of getting to the truth should be used.
1, Lie detector tests
2, Past criminal history presented to the jury.
3, Hypnosis to relive the time of the event in front of both lawyers.
4, Three verdicts guilty, not guilty, not proven,
The jury should have all the facts out in front of them not this namby pamby double talk bull that goes on for months on end just to line lawyers pockets. Macdunk
Once again we have the same Demented poster trying to argue without reason or evidence that we would be better under the Scots system.
By the same logic NZ might as qwell revive the old Scots law banning McGregors.
In the First Trial David Bain was found and let me type this so that D MacG can understand it, G.U.I.L.T.Y. There is no, repeat no reason to assume he would have been found not proven. Not even under the Scots system which is attracting so much international ridiccule at present. (Presumably under the Scots system David Bain would have been identified by a witness who was ahem.....present at the shooting, who would later turn out to have been paid several millions to identify him. and expert witnesses who were later disbarred for faking evidence) and DB would now be being released on compassionate grounds due to extreme acne after a nice visit from the Minister of Justice.

Tom Hall

03-09-2009, 11:41 AM

Good ideas except:

The three verdicts has merit. Perhaps a step in that direction was us moving to a non-unanimous jury verdict.
If the Three verdicts system had merit, Other juristictions than the scots would have adopted it, and someone would be able to define what those merits are.

minimoke

03-09-2009, 12:16 PM

If the Three verdicts system had merit, Other juristictions than the scots would have adopted it, and someone would be able to define what those merits are.
In a sence we already have it so it could have merit in opening up discussion on it as an option. Take for example murder (like the trial of Ferdinand Ambach) - he was found "Not Guilty" of the murder of Ronald Brown, (presumably because there was not enough evidence to prove the charge, thus its "Not Proven") but since he was clearly involved in the death there was enough evidence to find him guilty of a lesser charge of Manslaughter.

We then have the opportunity for another "verdict" if for example Bain goes for compensation where Cabinet on the advice of a QC can say he is "innocent" - so we now have "guilty", "not guilty" and "innocent".

Case law in NZ is a bit thin, especially since ACC prevents litigation, but theres probably potential for someone to sue an accused with the resulting verdict being in addition to the standard two Guilty / Not Guilty options.

Tom Hall

03-09-2009, 12:41 PM

In a sence we already have it so it could have merit in opening up discussion on it as an option. Take for example murder (like the trial of Ferdinand Ambach) - he was found "Not Guilty" of the murder of Ronald Brown, (presumably because there was not enough evidence to prove the charge, thus its "Not Proven") but since he was clearly involved in the death there was enough evidence to find him guilty of a lesser charge of Manslaughter.

We then have the opportunity for another "verdict" if for example Bain goes for compensation where Cabinet on the advice of a QC can say he is "innocent" - so we now have "guilty", "not guilty" and "innocent".

Case law in NZ is a bit thin, especially since ACC prevents litigation, but theres probably potential for someone to sue an accused with the resulting verdict being in addition to the standard two Guilty / Not Guilty options.
To open up a discussion requires more than someone saying The scots system has merit we should do that here ., then me replying what are those merits?, then the first person responding with silence. or in Mc dunk's case with gibberish. So thank you for replying.
None of your examples is the same as the scots system most of them are common ( in the western world at least) and none of those examples requires the three verdicts system as an addendum.
The three verdicts system seems to envision the Police bringing charges where there is enough evidence to indict but not enough evidence to convict. Rational solutions to this, would seem to be better police resourcing and making it more difficult to indict. The three verdicts sytem would seem to raise the possibility of the police using the courts to test cases, if they are prepared tro risk a not guilty verdict.
Either way its hard to see anyone recommending the Scottish Justice system right now.

duncan macgregor

03-09-2009, 01:24 PM

Tom Hall

03-09-2009, 02:15 PM

Pointless debating with anyone with a biggeted childish attitude like you posses tom. If you look back in history you will find that your law system is very much based on the Scottish system especially land law. Where do you think the meaning of land and curtilage comes from?. Open your mind you twit dont go throwing your toys about like a spoilt brat.
The three verdict system has many advantages.
1, The innocent have a lessor chance of being found guilty.
2, The jury have an easier decision with the three verdicts.
3, The guilty if found not proven can still be recharged with new evidence.
4, Arthur alan thomas, David Bain, are two examples of why Scottish law is far better than what you have here.
5, David Bain will get his compensation even although its a fifty fifty call on his innocence under your stupid system.
6, Your education system was based on the Scottish system Tom, but then you sound more like a pom than a Kiwi to me. Macdunk

Curiously enough,My Childishness has goaded you like a cornered rat into making a case for thee three verdict system. Something that you immediately preface your argument with as being pointless. I would have thought , in my childishness that contradicting yourself as a start wasn't the most adult thing for you to have done.
It seems to have escaped your notice that we are not discussing law development history or your already acknowledged incompetence as a historian.

1.)Not Proven mostly would cover an area where the Jury thinks the defendant is guilty but doesn't have the evidence, This is covered by the not guilty verdict at present so the chances of rescuing an individual from a false guilty verdict are minamal.
2.)Its not clear that a jury would have an easier time with a triple choice as opposed to a two part choice. that is a simply an allegation.
The guilty may can be re-charged but that requires first that a not proven verdict be reached by the jury then the new evidence to be found and bought forward Few countries seem to find this trivial benefit worth persuing by adopting a triple verdict system.
3.)Your Claims regarding specific cases are speculative and dishonest as there is no evidence to support your claim that either defendant would have been found not proven. Guilty was the chosen verdict in several trials. Is it your idea of being an adult that compels you to ignore counter-argument?
4.)I doubt that David Bain will get his compo. If your accuracy about the past is any guide, throw away your crystal ball.
If you want to pretend that Scots Justice is better shhow me one part of the Al Magrahi case that isn't open to riddicule
5.)Scotland was the only addition to the English empire that was saved from bankrupcy, You should be grateful to the English, they bailed out the Scots from Scots mis-management. If it were up to the Scots you wouldn't be able to afford an education system that would even train you lot to were pants.

kirky

03-09-2009, 10:11 PM

duncan macgregor;271906]Lets just presume he is innocent for a moment to reflect on the ordeal he has been through. Well we could presume the moon is made of cheese but we would be wrong because the evidence is not there for that belief, so why would you want to presume Bain is innocent when there is very little evidence that anybody else was involved.
Its a case where police blundering followed by a stupid justice system has left a result where we are left paying a probable murderer a huge sum of money for the wrongs we have inflicted on him. If you have a really close look at the evidence and statements the police put together at the time you will realize they did a pretty good job, and also an independent police enquiry cleared the police of any wrong doing in regard to the Bain case investigation. I do agree that the justice system is a bit stupid , but we have got rid of the privy council now so it must improve. And exactly what wrongs have we inflicted on poor David.
In Scotland he would have had a verdict of not proven at his first trial. "Yea Right" Victims blood all over him, fingerprints on the murder weapon, half a dozen lies told, washed all the bloody clothing, etc etc the Scots probably would have reintroduced hanging then and there and strung him up!
Every means of getting to the truth should be used.
1, Lie detector tests
2, Past criminal history presented to the jury.
3, Hypnosis to relive the time of the event in front of both lawyers.
4, Three verdicts guilty, not guilty, not proven,
The jury should have all the facts out in front of them not this namby pamby double talk bull that goes on for months on end just to line lawyers pockets. MacdunkProbably do agree with most of this though.

minimoke

04-09-2009, 11:08 AM

Good ideas except:

2) Past criminal history is not a reliable predictor of future criminal activity let alone guilt. For example there aren't too many people who do more than one murder. I may have to review my comment with respect to Cantabrians who appear to have an ability to commit more than one crime. Trouble is they may be doing the crimes at the same time and not necessarily have a previous history. Theres the guy who killed the deaf woman and then a couple of days later went on to try to rape a woman in dunedin. Now we have a murder of an unnamed person with the accused perhaps being linked to a woman (trisha Lowry) who went missing a year ago and Malory Mannning who was also murdered with no clues yet on her murder - perhaps its the one person for all three. How much of this information, if it all comes together, should a jury get?

Major von Tempsky

08-09-2009, 08:02 AM

kirky

09-09-2009, 01:41 PM

Interesting echo from the USA of the Bain case - the trailer park case the other day where a man made a strange emergency phone call ( à la David Bain) that 7 members of his family were dead.
After investigating the police have arrested the man for murder.

Joe Karam, there's work for for you in the US - see if they are as simple minded as the NZ media and an NZ jury.

Just coincidence he is 22 years old and did a paper run!!! Na kidding:D but he was 22 just like Bain. http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/trailer-park-murder-suspect-guy-heinze-jr-worked/story?id=8520057

Skol

01-04-2010, 12:00 PM

The DB compensation matter has reared its ugly head again. There doesn't seem to be much interest in seeing him get his compo and I hope he doesn't. So much for him saying he was going to be an engineer and that he was poverty stricken. He was spotted hobnobbing at Iguacu in Parnell last night and it's not cheap there, so he can't be too badly off considering he flew to the UK business class.

Major von Tempsky

01-04-2010, 07:57 PM

Its disturbing that he has got this money when he doesn't deserve it, I wonder where it came from....

However there are some straws in the wind that are looking a bit ominous for David Bain....

1. Quotes in the media that "David Bain doesn't fit the criteria laid down for getting compensation.

2. The fact that Joe Karam is failing to deliver on his promises to write a book despite having already had an advance from the publisher. According to JK the book was going to be written in 2009 but nothing and no date for when it will be written.
Strikes me that Joe has been at least subconsciously reflecting on the facts of the situation and the belief has been ebbing out of him so he no longer has the motivation to write.

Interesting fact that Robin Bain, a man in his fifties was found to have a full bladder when dissected by the pathologist. The first thing a man of that age does when he gets up in the morning is visit the lavatory yet according to the Defence Robin is supposed to have done a whole string of things including washing a jersey, writing a message on the computer (would have taken an appreciable time to turn on and warm up a computer in those days).
Robin was obviously innocent.

Skol

01-04-2010, 08:35 PM

There was a very good letter from a former detective in yesterday's Herald about DB.
JK gets 50% of of the compensation, if there is any.

garman

04-04-2010, 09:54 PM

WAS IT DAVID - OR - ROBIN

Evidence pointing to David -VS- Evidence pointing to Robin

1. David's fingerprints in blood
on murder weapon.
2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer from the first trial said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.
3. Brothers blood on David's
clothes.
4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulderand cuff
no explanation from David.
5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.
6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.
7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning an gurgling.
8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized family meeting.
9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .
11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.
12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.
13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.
14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.
15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.
16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.
17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.
18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.
19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest.
21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.
22. That there is a logical reason that David Bain
can not account for the injuries on his face,
or the scraped knee, yet knows he
did not have them during his paper run.
23. That Robin Bain put blood on the inside
of David’s duvet and on his light switch.
24. That even though David told a relative
he hated his father, his father did not
know this and deliberately decided David
was the only one who deserved to live.
25. That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper
from outside, despite planning to shoot himself.

The one and only piece of evidence with experiments done by forensic people that pointed to Robin as the maker of the bloody sock prints, was criticized by the trial judge, neither experiments done by both sides at trial mimicked the way the prints would have been made. Mr. Hentschel from the ESR was the first man to measure the luminal footprints in the Bain house. His testimony was that he measured the prints with the biggest print 280mm long. Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe "area" to the heel "area", and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the"complete toe and heal" he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance.

BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!! No to Compensation for murder!!

garman

04-04-2010, 09:58 PM

In Joe Karam's Book David and Goliath on page 203 Karam says: "I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family."

After Karam made these claims in his book, the blood on Robin Bains clothes was tested, the results below.

Forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said samples taken from Robin Bain's bloodstained clothing were tested and the only full results were of his own DNA.

However forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said Blood stains on clothing David Bain wore contained the DNA of his brother Stephen. DNA in blood samples belonging to Steven Bain were found on David’s socks, and also on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, and in a sample taken from a bloodstain on David's black shorts.

One further point: After Karam says on page 203 that "I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family". He goes on to say: "Only four real facts remain. A minute smudge of blood on the crutch of Davids shorts was established to be the blood of Stephen or Laniet. Two spots of blood on the soles of his socks were established to be Laniets or Stephen's. The fingerprints of his left fingers were detected on the rifle in a 'pickup' position, not a firing position. He had a light bruise to the right eye region, and a small recent skin abrasion on his right knee."

This quote from Karams book shows how little Karam seems to have known about the evidence at the time of his writing, eg: he only mentions one bruise on Davids head. Dr Pryde who examined David said there were three bruises. There is also no mention of Davids t-shirt or the blood found on it, and when ESR forensic scientist Dr Harbison examined samples from blood on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white t-shirt, all the samples matched Stephen's DNA.

Intrested to find out more about who really killed the Bain family Please visit http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/

Major von Tempsky

06-04-2010, 07:12 AM

Go Kirky.
Who does one write to to oppose compo for David Bain? Can one do it by email (I'm in Wgtn at the mo away from luxuries like snail mail)
Has everyone signed up on the David Bain Counterspin website (I haven't yet but I must).
I think I will write a very short and hopefully effective item emphasising that Robin had a full bladder according to the pathologist.

vivats tout le monde,

le Commandante

garman

27-04-2010, 09:50 PM

minimoke

28-04-2010, 08:55 AM

BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!! No to Compensation for murder!!

Reflection on reality = Bain was found Not Guilty on all charges by 12 of his peers.

So as a separate exercise for you Kirky, take the victim with the least amount of evidence pointing to a killer (was that Arawa?). Stack all the evidence up around that death and the evidence of David’s "alibis" and see if you think you can convince Cabinet that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities. That might be an easier threshold to meet than looking at all five deaths as a whole.

But the "Balance of Probabilities" isn't the only hurdle Bain faces. He also has to convince Cabinet that his circumstances are extraordinary.

When faced with this hurdle consider how many children are convicted of murdering their family Lundy for one comes to mind, but he was a dad - and he took the stand just like David in the first trial. Even then, with technology available in 2002 it only took the jury seven hours to reach their guilty verdict – clearly when evidence is compelling juries can make their minds up quickly.

Look at the torturous and conflicting route to get to the Not Guilty position: took to the stand and gave evidence – guilty on limited evidence made available at the time; Court of Appeal - dismissed; Privy Council - Declined; Min of Justice - no miscarriage of justice; Min of Justice four concerns on evidence; Court of appeal - insufficient grounds to reconsider the case; Privy council found a "substantial miscarriage of justice" had occurred (which doesn’t reflect well on process or on the lower courts or Cabinet) and ordered a retrial with Bain to be held in Custody; High Court releases him on bail (posed no threat to the community etc); Jury considers evidence and after only five and a bit hours finds him not guilty.

Despite all the resource NZ Police and the expertise of the best prosecutor the prosecution still could not produce enough evidence to secure one single juror on one single charge.

There’s probably not too many people who have walked that extraordinary road. The system even managed to convict Arthur Alan Thomas twice (once more than Bain – and that could have been a murder / suicide or a father murdering daughter) and he got compo.

craic

28-04-2010, 10:52 AM

With AA Thomas there was no compelling evidence connecting him with the scene and there was strong evidence of evidence, a bullet, being placed after the event. Apart from that, the man Delmer behaved in a way that no human being could behave and was passed over as a suspect, in spite of motive and opportunity, by the police who had already "solved" the case. Why is it that, in spite of his personal army of supporters, no one will employ David Bain?

minimoke

28-04-2010, 12:04 PM

no one will employ David Bain?
I guess the same question can be asked of all the other unemployed with NZ's unemployment rate the highest it has been for 10 years and higher than Austrlia

garman

28-04-2010, 11:51 PM

Reflection on reality = Bain was found Not Guilty on all charges by 12 of his peers.The reality is that many guilty people are found not guilty in courts all around the world the OJ Simpson case is one you will recall, so I am not at all fazed by the fact DB was found not guilty.

So as a separate exercise for you Kirky, take the victim with the least amount of evidence pointing to a killer (was that Arawa?). Stack all the evidence up around that death and the evidence of David’s "alibis" and see if you think you can convince Cabinet that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities. That might be an easier threshold to meet than looking at all five deaths as a whole.The Bain case is quite extraordinary, and as you probably know by now I am a bit addicted to it, as are many others, the main reason for all this interest is because the people who know the evidence well are generally flabbergasted that DB is walking the streets as a free man, and see that result as a travesty of justice! so much so that a very good website has been assembled to try to show interested people just how ridiculous the assumption that Robin Bain was at all responsible for the murders, quite simply there is no evidence whatsoever implicating him.

But the "Balance of Probabilities" isn't the only hurdle Bain faces. He also has to convince Cabinet that his circumstances are extraordinary.

When faced with this hurdle consider how many children are convicted of murdering their family Lundy for one comes to mind, but he was a dad - and he took the stand just like David in the first trial. Even then, with technology available in 2002 it only took the jury seven hours to reach their guilty verdict – clearly when evidence is compelling juries can make their minds up quickly. Not to sure at what you are driving at here, if you are attempting to say that it is rare for children to kill their families, I would have to agree however there are plenty of well documented examples of such cases, and what is stunning about the cases is just how cold cunning and calculating these family killers are, their acting skills are extraordinary just like our friend DB' here are 3 for you to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/jeffrey-gilham-will-die-in-jail/story-e6freuzi-1111119097306

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber
You say that when juries are given compelling evidence they can make up their minds, this is sometimes the case, but unfortunately they can also be duped by unscrupulous defence lawyers as in the Bain case when they accused one of the cops of planting a lens, but of course there is not a shred of evidence that any cops planted any evidence, David Bain has duped Joe Karam, and Joe Karam has duped a lot of New Zealanders, but I believe that because of work done by the good people from www.counterspin .co.nz the tide is turning for DB and Karam and co, people who know the evidence well are dumbfounded why there are still a handful of people left that think Robin Bain had anything to do with the murders.

garman

28-04-2010, 11:56 PM

I guess the same question can be asked of all the other unemployed with NZ's unemployment rate the highest it has been for 10 years and higher than AustraliaOr it could be simply that a lot of employers think that they don't really need a murdering bastard working for them.

minimoke

29-04-2010, 09:45 AM

The reality is that many guilty people are found not guilty in courts all around the world the OJ Simpson case is one you will recall, so I am not at all fazed by the fact DB was found not guilty.
Another reality is that there is not a great deal of conclusive research into jury decision wrongful convictions. What we do know is that trial by jury is not without its faults and risks; but within the commonwealth it’s the best we can come up with for the time being. The foil to your assertion is simply that there are also people who are initially found guilty and subsequently found not guilty. We can look to Arthur Alan Thomas as one example or David Dougherty as another

The main reason for all this interest is because the people who know the evidence well are generally flabbergasted that DB is walking the streets as a free manThere are also people walking the streets believing, on the evidence presented in the Bible or Nostradamus that the world is about to end. They have the same fervour as the Bain camps. While I have no doubt you and your ilk fervently believe in your position there are probably 15 people who know the evidence really really well. That’s the 12 members of the Jury, the judge, the Prosecution and the defence. They have had the benefit of hearing two sides of a story. It’s a point I'm going to remake, at the risk of inducing boredom but if the evidence was so compelling it should not have been hard to convince one juror that Bain killed one family member (doesn't matter which one) but that didn't happen. So maybe your angst would be better aimed at the Prosecution and police for failing (despite the weight of resource given to them by the taxpayer) to see that in the future they do a better job. And if we look at the Kahui case we can see that the police and prosecutions sure need a bollocking.

there are plenty of well documented examples of such casesOf course there are documented cases. Man is far from a perfect being and is bound to stray from the path of acceptable behaviour from time to time. Who’d think that someone would find a donkey attractive in a man/animal physical love kind of way - but these things happen not too far from my front door. Just because there are a few documented cases of a child killing their family we cannot instantly leap to the sibling being a suspect every time more than one family member dies unnaturally. ,

and what is stunning about the cases is It’s only stunning in a "Bermuda Triangle kind of way. You take a position and then flesh out the juicy bits that support that position.

they can also be duped by unscrupulous defence lawyers "unscrupulous" is one way of describing it - remember that’s a two edged sword. It could be equally said the prosecution in the original trial was unscrupulous by holding back evidence and it wasn't until the final Privy Council hearing that this wrong was righted. But don't loose sight that all this really is, is a game which has certain rules. The players play within those rules and at times try to stretch them. That’s where the Judge and higher courts come in to set and reflect on the rules as the game progresses. But let’s not loose sight that ultimately both sides are playing to the same rules. If you want to look at an example where the rules were really stretched way beyond that in the Bain case, look at George Gwaze where the prosecution introduced hearsay evidence which was basically a conversation held across a pub bar in a country by people who hadn't seen the evidence and who are now subsequently upset that their opinions have been used in such a manner. Whose Gwaze - he’s the guy who was accused of murdering his niece

but I believe that because of work done by the good people from www.counterspin (http://www.counterspin) .co.nz the tide is turning for DB and Karam and co, people who know the evidence well are dumbfounded why there are still a handful of people left that think Robin Bain had anything to do with the murders.No doubt the people at counterspin believe they are doing gods work. Good on them for chasing their dream and they are in a "can't loose" situation. Either Bain doesn't get compo - in which case they claim it was due to their untiring efforts. Or he does get compo in which case they claim "it’s all the systems fault". At some point though it’s hoped that they will just move on.

craic

29-04-2010, 10:59 AM

I still can't understand why , among the vast army of David Bain fans, there is not one who is offering him a job. Are there no actual employers among them or are they all workers and beneficiariesand others? Could it be that, among the employers - ofa few employees - none are game to risk their workforce walking out? Or maybe it's the customers who might walk out? How would you feel if you sat down in a restaurant for a meal and the waiter turned out to be DB - would you ask for his signature on the menu?

garman

29-04-2010, 11:50 AM

[QUOTE=minimoke;302822] The foil to your assertion is simply that there are also people who are initially found guilty and subsequently found not guilty. We can look to Arthur Alan Thomas as one example or David Dougherty as another You are only half right here MM, yes David Dougherty was unequivocally proven innocent with DNA evidence and compensated, Thomas was not proven innocent and if you study the evidence the "the rifle and the axle" he is still the most likely suspect, however the Thomas commission of enquiry found that a police man who was dead at the time of the enquiry had planted a shell casing, and if that was the case as they found then Thomas deserved to be compensated, simply because we can't have cops planting evidence to shore up their case, But it does not make him innocent of the crime.

While I have no doubt you and your ilk fervently believe in your position there are probably 15 people who know the evidence really really well. That’s the 12 members of the Jury, the judge, the Prosecution and the defence. They have had the benefit of hearing two sides of a story. I am sorry MM but you are completely incorrect with your assumption here' the jury did not hear all of the evidence the paper round alibi evidence from 2 very credible witnesses "a headmaster and a high profile business person" was not heard in court' "and what was the reason for not allowing this evidence given by the appeal judges" [because it was to prejudicial to Mr Bain] in other words it was too damming against David Bain' judge Pankhurst said it was relevant and should be heard there were equally damming pieces of evidence that was not allowed to be heard, like the report for Karam from the Victoria forensic lab who concluded Robin was unlikely to have committed suicide, because Karam commissioned that report he was not compelled to show that to the court, other people who know the evidence very well indeed and who attended both trial were the extended family of David Bain on both sides incidentally none of them believe Robin killed anyone, and we know what that means. Martin Van Beynen a journalist who attended the trial and heard all the allowable evidence sure as hell believed Robin was innocent here is his article http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

No doubt the people at counterspin believe they are doing gods work. Good on them for chasing their dream and they are in a "can't loose" situation. Either Bain doesn't get compo - in which case they claim it was due to their untiring efforts. Or he does get compo in which case they claim "it’s all the systems fault". At some point though it’s hoped that they will just move on.The people at counterspin are concerned citizens doing a worthwhile job and are realistic enough I believe to know that the website and petition may not have a huge effect on what the government decides as far as compensation goes, but make no mistake they are extremely informed people as far as the evidence of this case goes and are extremely concerned at what a person like Joe Karam has achieved IE freeing from prison a person who on the balance of probabilities is a cold blooded calculating killer if a person like this was to kill your family, I am sure you would be pleased to have a supportive website like this on your side.

garman

29-04-2010, 11:53 AM

By the way MM have you read this post about the very informed Joe Karam who thought he knew all the evidence and the man responsible for duping the Privy Council.

In Joe Karam's Book David and Goliath on page 203 Karam says: "I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family."

After Karam made these claims in his book, the blood on Robin Bains clothes was tested, the results below.

Forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said samples taken from Robin Bain's bloodstained clothing were tested and the only full results were of his own DNA.

However forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said Blood stains on clothing David Bain wore contained the DNA of his brother Stephen. DNA in blood samples belonging to Steven Bain were found on David’s socks, and also on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, and in a sample taken from a bloodstain on David's black shorts.

One further point: After Karam says on page 203 that "I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family". He goes on to say: "Only four real facts remain. A minute smudge of blood on the crutch of Davids shorts was established to be the blood of Stephen or Laniet. Two spots of blood on the soles of his socks were established to be Laniets or Stephen's. The fingerprints of his left fingers were detected on the rifle in a 'pickup' position, not a firing position. He had a light bruise to the right eye region, and a small recent skin abrasion on his right knee."

This quote from Karams book shows how little Karam seems to have known about the evidence at the time of his writing, eg: he only mentions one bruise on Davids head. Dr Pryde who examined David said there were three bruises. There is also no mention of Davids t-shirt or the blood found on it, and when ESR forensic scientist Dr Harbison examined samples from blood on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white t-shirt, all the samples matched Stephen's DNA.

Intrested to find out more about who really killed the Bain family Please visit http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/

minimoke

29-04-2010, 12:48 PM

but make no mistake they are extremely informed people as far as the evidence of this case goes
They may have formed their own views on the information that is available (and that does not necessarily consitute evidence) but it is equally clear that they are ill informed about the Evidence Act, its various amendments and the body of case law that sits behind it. They might also find it helpful to relect on what is the role of Defense Council - one of them being to ensure the accused is afforded the rights and protections available under our legal system. Thats why, I guess the likes of Marie Dryberg sleep at night. And I'd suggest if it was you who were faced with unpleasant charges you'de want your barrister to do what they could to lessen the outcome.

minimoke

29-04-2010, 12:55 PM

Intrested to find out more about who really killed the Bain family Please visit http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
Faced with a choice between having a red hot poker shoved in my eye or being forced to read that website I know which I'd sooner choose.

garman

29-04-2010, 02:14 PM

They may have formed their own views on the information that is available (and that does not necessarily consitute evidence) but it is equally clear that they are ill informed about the Evidence Act, its various amendments and the body of case law that sits behind it. They might also find it helpful to relect on what is the role of Defense Council - one of them being to ensure the accused is afforded the rights and protections available under our legal system. Thats why, I guess the likes of Marie Dryberg sleep at night. And I'd suggest if it was you who were faced with unpleasant charges you'de want your barrister to do what they could to lessen the outcome.The law is an ass, but I will certainly be celebrating if Bain is refused Compo as I believe will certainly be the case, he is simply not eligible unless the rules on payment are ignored.

If you have enough goes at something as Karam and co certainly did' one is bound to strike it lucky eventually, but it would be a total travesty if Bain was awarded a reward for killing 5 people.

garman

29-04-2010, 02:16 PM

Faced with a choice between having a red hot poker shoved in my eye or being forced to read that website I know which I'd sooner choose.Afraid you may discover the truth A.

minimoke

29-04-2010, 02:54 PM

Afraid you may discover the truth A.
Your response is, I suspect, representative of the thought processes the people behind counterspin use. You appear to have taken my comment and placed it in a context that suits your position. My statement then becomes concrete evidence upon which you then create an unwavering view and then that view leads to confirmation of a position.

While there is information in my comment there is nothing there upon which you can point, as fact, that I would or would not be afraid to look at the website. That I may be afraid to discover the truth in reading a website (since surely there is no truth to be found by sticking a poker in my eye) takes a leap of faith not a decision based on the facts contained in the evidence. Same as, for example, Davids bloody hand print was on the washing machine ipso facto you reckon he murdered his whole family. You're free to speculate but that is as far as that information entitles you to go.

Oh - and that law you consider to be an ass is the same law that has put away Mark Lundy, Liam reid, Clayton Weatherston, Graeme Burton and all the rest languishing at her majestys pleasure.

garman

29-04-2010, 07:49 PM

Your response is, I suspect, representative of the thought processes the people behind counterspin use. You appear to have taken my comment and placed it in a context that suits your position. My statement then becomes concrete evidence upon which you then create an unwavering view and then that view leads to confirmation of a position.

While there is information in my comment there is nothing there upon which you can point, as fact, that I would or would not be afraid to look at the website. That I may be afraid to discover the truth in reading a website (since surely there is no truth to be found by sticking a poker in my eye) takes a leap of faith not a decision based on the facts contained in the evidence. Same as, for example, Davids bloody hand print was on the washing machine ipso facto you reckon he murdered his whole family. You're free to speculate but that is as far as that information entitles you to go.
For your information I don't think DB is just guilty because of his bloody palm print on the washing machine, I don't think he is even guilty just because his prints are on the murder weapon, a weapon that according to the defence only Robin handled when shooting 5 people, and I don't think he is guilty just because his brothers blood was on his clothes, and I don't think he is guilty just because he said all his family was dead to the 111 operator then later said to the police he only saw his Mother and Father, and I don't think he is just guilty because he changed his story of who owned and was wearing the green jersey over the weekend before the killings, and I don't just think he is guilty because of his Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt that he said he wore over the weekend that was found with blood stains on the right shoulder and cuff, and I don't just think David is guilty because of the Blood that was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room, and I don't think that just because he had 3 unexplained fresh bruises and a gash on his leg that he must be guilty, and I don't think that just because there is not an iota of evidence pointing to Robin as the killer that David is guilty, but when you combine all this striking evidence and the rest, the picture of who the killer is becomes abundantly clear! admit it MM "Karam stuffed up, that is clear by my previous post, unfortunately his madness spread across this nation taking many weak minded individuals with it, I dare you to read all of what there is on counterspin, and I am sure you will come to the conclusion that Robin Bain was not responsible for the killings, and I am sure that the justice department will also find him guilty on the balance of probabilities, simply because it is imposible to even consider that Robin was involved as there is zero evidence unlike the only other possible killer, his punishment will be no reward for murder, and Karam will have played just one to many hands of poker.

Onthemoney

29-04-2010, 09:08 PM

For your information I don't think DB is just guilty because of his bloody palm print on the washing machine, I don't think he is even guilty just because his prints are on the murder weapon, a weapon that according to the defence only Robin handled when shooting 5 people, and I don't think he is guilty just because his brothers blood was on his clothes, and I don't think he is guilty just because he said all his family was dead to the 111 operator then later said to the police he only saw his Mother and Father, and I don't think he is just guilty because he changed his story of who owned and was wearing the green jersey over the weekend before the killings, and I don't just think he is guilty because of his Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt that he said he wore over the weekend that was found with blood stains on the right shoulder and cuff, and I don't just think David is guilty because of the Blood that was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room, and I don't think that just because he had 3 unexplained fresh bruises and a gash on his leg that he must be guilty, and I don't think that just because there is not an iota of evidence pointing to Robin as the killer that David is guilty, but when you combine all this striking evidence and the rest, the picture of who the killer is becomes abundantly clear! admit it MM "Karam stuffed up, that is clear by my previous post, unfortunately his madness spread across this nation taking many weak minded individuals with it, I dare you to read all of what there is on counterspin, and I am sure you will come to the conclusion that Robin Bain was not responsible for the killings, and I am sure that the justice department will also find him guilty on the balance of probabilities, simply because it is imposible to even consider that Robin was involved as there is zero evidence unlike the only other possible killer, his punishment will be no reward for murder, and Karam will have played just one to many hands of poker.

Well said garman...

minimoke

20-05-2010, 07:39 AM

garman

30-05-2010, 04:11 PM

Been following the Gwaze (now theres someone who did it) case Kirky? Just to recap for you if not, he's the guy who, now allegedly, sexually abused and then murdered his nicece. He was aquitted by a Christchurch Jury on a really dodgy piece of hearsay evidence. He was found not guilty by the jury despite compelling medical evidence which is too gruesome to repeat here as well as DNA evidence. See the linkages: one family member killing another; hearsay evidence; body bits found on the other person; christchurch jury finds "not guilty".

This case has now gone to the Supremem Court who have decided to overturn the aquittal and again we hear the words "a substantial miscarriage of justice" has occured.

Do you wonder why the Crown doesn't do the same in the Bain case?I know very little about the Gwaze case, it does not interest me, but I do realise that the crown are retrying him, Bain was also found not guilty by the jury despite compelling medical evidence which is too gruesome to repeat here as well as DNA evidence, so in that respect the cases are very similar, however that is where the similarity ends, more time and money has been wasted on the Bain case than any other case in our history, first he was found guilty in 1995 later that year his appeal failed, in 1996 a PC appeal failed, then the NZ COA dismissed his appeal in 2000, and again in 2003, then he was awarded the right for a retrial in 2007 by the PC then in 2009 he got lucky and was found not guilty, he is now applying for compensation which will be based on the BOP, so as you can see it is a very old case and Bain has spent most of his sentence in jail, common sense tells you that enough is enough, that is why the police are not going to the supreme court to try and retry DB it is not because there is a lack of very good evidence suggesting he is guilty, and it is this evidence that will stop him from being awarded compensation, there is no real evidence that the only other person mentioned IE Robin Bain was at all involved with the killings.

Onthemoney

30-05-2010, 07:04 PM

http://yfrog.com/2r7m5j

This is classic were you at the game Kirky?

karlos

30-05-2010, 07:40 PM

http://yfrog.com/2r7m5j

This is classic were you at the game Kirky?

I have more ground breaking evidence Onthemoney:ohmy:. Listening to the "Rock FM" months ago before Bains release. One of the boys from the rock stated he knows a cop and this bloke stated "there is no doubt in my mind that David Bain is guilty":scared::scared::scared:.

garman

30-05-2010, 08:44 PM

http://yfrog.com/2r7m5j

This is classic were you at the game Kirky?no I am not guilty of puting up that sign, great idea though, what game was it?

minimoke

31-05-2010, 10:30 AM

I know very little about the Gwaze case, it does not interest me,
Why does that not surprise me. While you remain focussed on a single issue you are loosing the chance to broaden your horizons. The Gwaze case sets a brand new legal precedent and the implications are much more intersting than Bains compensation. If you want to keep holding your line on Bain you really need to get your head around hearsay evidence (something you haven't yet grasped) and Gwaze sets the new standards. And whats with citing The Rock - good onya for trying to create a new "quadruple hearsay" rule but it aint going to run!

If you are worried about spending money on the Bain case have you paused to think how it is that the money got spent. A bit got spent on the original trial (around ($150k) then another $100k for the Court of Appeal. The Privy Counsel decision showed those two trials were a waste of money (and that decision came in at around $450k) but where did the big money get spent? It was by the Crown deciding to pursue this latest trial. Not content with the original evidence they got the police to spend another $350k on gaining new / improved evidence and the prosecution popped a cool $1.2m into the pot. And then they couldn't even secure one single "guilty" verdict. Perhaps you shouldn't be so upset with Bain - perhasp your anger and energy should be foccussed on a piss poor prosecution service - after all it was the same crowd that saw the Kahui double murder jury decision come out in what is probably record time.

garman

31-05-2010, 12:07 PM

Why does that not surprise me. While you remain focused on a single issue you are loosing the chance to broaden your horizons.[QUOTE]The fact of the matter MM there are thousands of murder cases that are very interesting all around the world' do you follow all of them "I don't think so" and just like you I do not follow every case either, one only has so much time, so your statement of " Why does that not surprise me" is showing you are not being rational' quite simply one cannot follow every case The Gwaze case sets a brand new legal precedent and the implications are much more interesting than Bains compensation.
Again you are not being rational, whether the Gwaze case is more interesting than Bains compensation is simply just a matter of opinion. If you want to keep holding your line on Bain you really need to get your head around hearsay evidence
Not to sure what you mean here please explain

If you are worried about spending money on the Bain case have you paused to think how it is that the money got spent. A bit got spent on the original trial (around ($150k) then another $100k for the Court of Appeal. The Privy Counsel decision showed those two trials were a waste of money (and that decision came in at around $450k) but where did the big money get spent? It was by the Crown deciding to pursue this latest trial.
The fact of the matter MM the crown were forced to retry Bain, if they did not then they would automatically be forced to pay out compensation of Millions of dollars, by retrying Bain even though he was acquitted, he now has to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities, something that is near impossible according to law experts that have spoken on the subject, the reason they have said this is simple because the evidence is all one sided there is no evidence of any real value pointing to the only other possible killer, part of the reason David was acquitted is because of the time factor in this case and 14 years of the dogmatic ravings of his main supporter a man it seems that likes to win at any cost, and to give you a small insight into the propaganda perpetuated by this supporter "which no doubt had its effect on many NZers" I will post some of his great work for you to browse at your leisure, and bear in mind this paragraph which was from Karams book printed in 1997 was reprinted in 2007 after he would have been well aware of the mistakes, "but did he change the print in the name of truth and justice" NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

In Joe Karam's Book David and Goliath on page 203 Karam says, Quote: I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family.

After Karam made these claims in his book, the blood on Robin Bains clothes was tested, the results below.

Forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said of the more than 20 samples taken from Robin Bain's bloodstained clothing that were tested the only full results were of his own DNA.

However forensic scientist Dr Sally-Ann Harbison said Blood stains on clothing David Bain wore contained the DNA of his brother Stephen. DNA in blood samples belonging to Steven Bain were found on David’s socks, and also on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, and in a sample taken from a bloodstain on David's black shorts.

One further point: After Karam says on page 203 that Quote: I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of deceased members of his family end Quote he goes on to say Quote: Only four real facts remain. A minute smudge of blood on the crutch of Davids shorts was established to be the blood of Stephen or Laniet. Two spots of blood on the soles of his socks were established to be Laniets or Stephen's. The fingerprints of his left fingers were detected on the rifle in a 'pickup' position, not a firing position. He had a light bruise to the right eye region, and a small recent skin abrasion on his right knee. end Quote

This quote from Karams book shows how little Karam seems to have known about the evidence at the time of his writing, IE he only mentions one bruise on Davids head Dr Pryde who examined David said there were three bruises. There is also no mention of Davids T shirt or the blood found on it, and when ESR forensic scientist Dr Harbison examined samples from blood on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, all the samples matched Stephen's DNA.

minimoke

31-05-2010, 12:39 PM

The fact of the matter MM there are thousands of murder cases that are very interesting all around the world' do you follow all of them "I don't think so" and just like you I do not follow every case either, one only has so much time, so your statement of " Why does that not surprise me" is showing you are not being rational' quite simply one cannot follow every case.....

.......Again you are not being rational, whether the Gwaze case is more interesting than Bains compensation is simply just a matter of opinion.

Kirky, of course it is foolish to think anyone would be intersted in following every murder case. But it is worth following one or two - like the Gwaze one because it sets very important precedents that you and your caped crusaders could rely on if there was any substance to your postion.

Sure the interest in Gwaze is a matter of opinion - but you seem quite selective about whose opinions you will listen to. If they are Anti-David, Pro Robin then it looks like you're interested - they just keep feeding fuel to your fires.

Not to sure what you mean here please explain
You really need to get your head around the Rules of Evidence including hearsay evidence. If you could do this then you probably wouldn't change your mind but it would help you understand how Bain is in the position he is now in.

What Karam says/said, what the Rock says, what ever anyone says counts for nothing now. Unless there is such a miscarriage that the Crown could rely on Gwaze as a precedent and try to have another crack at Bain.

The fact of the matter MM the crown were forced to retry Bain, if they did not then they would automatically be forced to pay out compensation of Millions of dollars, Not sure about that - you're sure you're not making up facts as you go along?

garman

31-05-2010, 01:21 PM

You really need to get your head around the Rules of Evidence including hearsay evidence. If you could do this then you probably wouldn't change your mind but it would help you understand how Bain is in the position he is now in. [QUOTE]Well I do know the rule with hearsay evidence is that you can say anything you like about a possible dead murderer but hardly anything about a live one "hardly a reliable way of determining the truth is it.

What Karam says/said, what the Rock says, what ever anyone says counts for nothing now.
That's not quite true what the QC says after looking at all the evidence pointing to David Bain as a murderer will count for a lot, for instance if he rules no compensation, then that automatically backs up what most rational people believe in this country' that being that one David Bain is guilty on the balance of probabilities of killing his entire family in cold blood.

:)

Logen Ninefingers

31-05-2010, 03:21 PM

Quite depressing really....I mentioned at work I thought David Bain had done it recently and a couple of ladies were shocked...one said "I don't know a single person who thinks he did it"....the other said something about him seeming like a nice guy. So many dummies in this country.
I don't like to think about the Bain case. I followed the case evidence quite closely....David was buried under an absolute mountain, the only thing they could bring up about Robin was the hearsay stuff....no evidence at all. I get angry thinking about it. Biggest travesty ever.

Onthemoney

01-06-2010, 12:52 PM

no I am not guilty of puting up that sign, great idea though, what game was it?

All Whites game in Serbia....

garman

02-06-2010, 06:10 PM

Take your freedom and RUN.

There was some pointed advice today for David Bain from the Queen’s Counsel, whose job it was to decide another of New Zealand’s most famous compensation cases.

Stuart Grieve QC awarded $900,000 to David Dougherty, who was jailed for a rape DNA proved he did not commit.

Mr Bain was in jail for longer so, reasonably, might expect much more.

Mr Grieve’s advice to the man acquitted of his family’s murder? Take your freedom, and run.

Lawyer Michael Reed is the man charged with securing Mr Bain’s financial future and says the decision to seek compensation was made a long time ago.

“If he had a fair trial first time around, if there hadn’t been a miscarriage of justice, he would never have spent a day in prison,” says Mr Reed.

“As it was, he was locked up for 13 years.”

Mr Grieve was hired to rule on Mr Dougherty’s compensation claim after he spent four years in jail for the rape of a young neighbour. DNA evidence later proved his innocence.

But Mr Grieve says Mr Bain has no such evidence and, in his opinion, was fortunate to get his conviction overturned.

“The decision could have gone the other way and so my view would be, take your freedom and run,” he says.
If the review finds on balance of probability that Mr Bain is innocent, he stands to get $100,000 for every year he spent locked up – a total of $1.3 million.

Mr Grieve calls the sum “niggardly”.

“The mind boggles at how horrendous it would be if you were innocent. I personally don’t think $100,000 for each year in custody is anywhere near enough.”

Arthur Allan Thomas got $1 million compensation in 1980 after wrongfully spending nine years behind bars for murder.

That sum would equate to around $5 million today, but last year Mr Thomas himself said Mr Bain deserved $15 million.

Mr Bain has never spoken about his case and could still avoid doing so. It would be up to the lawyer appointed to review his case to decide. Even then it would be in private.

minimoke

02-06-2010, 07:03 PM

You still with us Kirky!. I'd have thought you'de be too busy helping rustle up some cash to help defend the defamation suits. Any citation for your last post? - it contains at least one wee inacuracy. Bain has spoken about the case - he was a witness in the first trial.

garman

02-06-2010, 08:46 PM

You still with us Kirky!. I'd have thought you'd be too busy helping rustle up some cash to help defend the defamation suits. Any citation for your last post? - it contains at least one wee inaccuracy. Bain has spoken about the case - he was a witness in the first trial.Ever wondered why almost nobody on these threads is arguing that David is innocent MM, are you trying to be the last one standing or something, almost everybody knows who is guilty.

It would be unprecedented I would think for a QC to make the comment of "Take your freedom and run" as soon as he was appointed, it looks as though at this early stage of the compensation process the QC has got things well and truly worked out like most NZers.

Logen Ninefingers

03-06-2010, 10:26 AM

Bain has spoken about the case - he was a witness in the first trial.

Yeah, he did so much damage to his case with the things he said that the defence knew he couldn't ever take the stand again if they had a hope of winning.

minimoke

03-06-2010, 12:09 PM

Ever wondered why almost nobody on these threads is arguing that David is innocent MM, Probably because they are bored with it.

It would be unprecedented I would think for a QC to make the comment of "Take your freedom and run" as soon as he was appointed, it looks as though at this early stage of the compensation process the QC has got things well and truly worked out like most NZers.
Well theres a prime example of how to mangle a quote. Grieve has not been appointed to any role in the Bain compensation process. Grieve correctly pointed out that the jurys decision could have gone the other way - that is a fair enough view. But Grieves comment wasn't made in the early stages of teh compensaiton process. Karam and co decided well before the late March quote from Grieve to look at compensation. Grieve would also have said, if he was asked, that there are certain legal opportunities a person can pursue and they are perfectly within their rights to pursue those opportunites if they so choose.

Logen Ninefingers

03-06-2010, 01:29 PM

David Bain couldn't have done it cos he "look like such a nice guy". Anyone heard that before? Anyone worried that that's how people make their decisions in our country? No need to research the facts of this case and consider the evidence, just make an emotive call based on how someone looks. He's white and tall with glasses, a large adam's apple and a poor taste in jerseys. What a great guy. God help anyone who looks the opposite way and they end up in the dock - "let's see: brown, eyes too close together, a few tats, no retinue of fawning sycophantic supporters.....this guy obviously did it".

minimoke

03-06-2010, 01:35 PM

David Bain couldn't have done it cos he "look like such a nice guy". Anyone heard that before? .
Youre forgetting the first trial of course where Bain was wearing that psyhco jersey and everyone thought "of course he did it" - and sure enough he was found guilty.

garman

03-06-2010, 03:18 PM

Youre forgetting the first trial of course where Bain was wearing that psyhco jersey and everyone thought "of course he did it" - and sure enough he was found guilty.{QC Questioning Joe Karam}

QC [Joe do you believe Robin was molesting his daughter?

Joe [Absolutely' Yes I do.

QC [OK Mr Karam I will take your word for that.

Joe [I should damn well think so.

QC [OK Joe now that we have established that, can you now supply the evidence that Robin Bain killed his family?

Joe [AAAAA Well I AAARRRR UMMMMM Nooo sorry, I will have to get back to you on that one.

[Disclaimer] this is not an actual interview, but it is the likely outcome of one.
:D

garman

27-06-2010, 06:59 PM

The Investigator Special- The Case Against Robin Bain: Bryan Bruce

Bryan Bruce has spent the best part of a year putting together another documentary in the Investigator Series, this time to examine the evidence against Robin Bain in the Bain family murders. The documentary includes new information.

It is screening on July 6 at 9.30pm on TV1.

craic

28-12-2010, 05:07 PM

Just when I thought that I had forgotten that this pri#k existed, I see that his lawyers are asking the crown to pay - a million or so - to avoid the cost of a court case which they estimate at around ten million in legal aid to bring dozens of experts from overseas to "prove" his innocence. And just to add a bit of interest, they are going to sue for the return of his inheritance. Then the court warned some reporter about harassing a member of the jury with phone calls and questions. Maybe, just maybe, the press have a whiff of something?

fish

29-12-2010, 04:00 PM

A million sounds cheap to me for all those lost years .
It has been proven the justice system gave him an unfair trial .
Best for everyone to negotiate a deal,learn from mistakes and get on with life .

Major von Tempsky

29-12-2010, 05:39 PM

Luckily the Cabinet and the Crown Prosecutors have the backbone to decide that principles and facts matter more than sleazy plea bargaining and I'm very proud of them that they didn't give in to the patent blackmail attempt.

belgarion

30-12-2010, 08:38 AM

minimoke

12-05-2011, 08:03 AM

I personally will be making hopefully a powerful and informed argument against compo to Simon Power the minister of justice, although we have heard that David may be unlikely to be able to get compo, the government just loves giving away your tax dollars so that may happen anyway.
Did Simon Power ever get back to you Kirky?

If not perhaps he was too busy working out the Compensation for Mr Johnstron ($146,000) and Mr Knight ($220,000) for their wrongful 9 1/2 months in prison.

How long was it that Bain was in jail?

garman

15-05-2011, 12:11 AM

Its all about the balance of probabilities MM. I believe in that principle when it comes to giving away our hard earned tax dollars, it doesn't matter how long David Bain was in jail for Robin Bain did not do any murders, if he was to have survived there is no way he would have been arrested for murder, simply because there is no evidence linking him to the murders, Do some reading here http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/ I am quite happy for BOP to be used in the Bain case.

• WAS IT DAVID -OR- ROBIN

Evidence pointing to David -VS- Evidence pointing to Robin

1. David's fingerprints in blood
on murder weapon.
2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.
3. Brothers blood on David's
clothes.
4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulder
and cuff but of course no explanation from David.
5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.
6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.
7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning and gurgling.
8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized family meeting.
9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins, and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .
11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.
12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.
13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.
14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.
15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.
16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.
17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.
18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.
19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest, and David by his own admission thought he received them from the Monday morning.
21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.

The one and only piece of evidence with experiments done by forensic people that pointed to Robin as the maker of the bloody sock prints, was criticized by the trial judge, neither experiments done by both sides at trial mimicked the way the prints would have been made. Mr. Hentschel from the ESR was the first man to measure the luminal footprints in the Bain house. His testimony was that he measured the prints with the biggest print 280mm long. Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe "area" to the heel "area", and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the"complete toe and heal" he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance.

BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!!

no compo for bad behaviour

minimoke

15-05-2011, 12:58 PM

Its all about the balance of probabilities MM. BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!!

no compo for bad behaviour

You still haven't quite grasped it Garman. David Bain has been found not guilty of murdering his family. Simply put, and with your emphasis DAVID BAIN IS NOT GUILTY. No point coming up with lists and whatever - it is an incontrovertible fact. End of story. The question of his guilt is now irrelevant.

Your principles for giving away tax payer loot are also irrelevant. Cabinet has its guidelines and Bain falls outside them. It will be for Bains team to show (not prove) that on the balance of probabilities he is innocent. So rather that your list lets consider what that list might be. Heres one suggestion that might show Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
- you have the bloody complete heel to toe 280mm footprint which both the prosecution and defense agree was left by the murderer. Evidence was presented by the prosecution that measurements of luminol tested sock prints using a 298 mm foot was an average 297mm. They also said that testing a 270mm foot produced a sock print size of 282mm. Essentially the evidence is that a foot makes a print the same size or larger than the foot. It is also accepted by both the prosecution that David Bains foot is 300mm. If follow that David is innocent since he wasn't the one that left the bloodied footprint. Put Bain aside and try to look at this evidence objectively. Is a person with a big foot innocent of a crime committed by a person who leaves a smaller footprint?

(And you might recall that the standards expected from Mr Henschel in his measuring was not that flash - and today the standards are higher. His biggest print was 280mm. His views print vs foot size weren't based on any actual testing and he didn't write any measurements down - it was the police that took the notes. Not a very reliable witness in 2009.).

Now to the next hurdle. Cabinet can only consider cases which are out of of the norm for cases in which appeals are allowed. No doubt David gets the tick for this one as the Privy Council - the highest court in the land said so. They said "The Board has concluded that, in the very unusual circumstances of this case.....". Now ask your self, what feature is it that takes this case out of the norm. Lets put opinions aside and look to the facts - its the Privy Council who has said ".....a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred". Can we agree Bain gets a tick in that box?

So back to my original questions - did power get back to Kirky and how long was david in prison?

craic

15-05-2011, 03:27 PM

Sorry but the not guilty verdict simply means insufficient evidence to convict in this country - it is not a certificate of innocence and any civil claim related has a very diffeent standard. Same as the O.J. Simpson case in the USA where the two juristictions reached very different decisions. About the only way the Govt.will roll over on this one is if the cost is prohibitive and and agreeing to pay without litigation would be the cheapest option.

garman

15-05-2011, 04:50 PM

You still haven't quite grasped it Garman. David Bain has been found not guilty of murdering his family. Simply put, and with your emphasis DAVID BAIN IS NOT GUILTY. No point coming up with lists and whatever - it is an incontrovertible fact. End of story. The question of his guilt is now irrelevant.You have a very poor understanding of the situation MM your grasp of the situation is poor indeed, yes as we all know David Bain has been found not guilty at trial, but "and its a big but" David now has to prove his innocence "to get compo" to a far higher degree, he has to prove his innocence on the BOP this is like a whole new trial for DB the person delegated the job will be able to look at all evidence suppressed or otherwise whatever he or she likes, they can look at the evidence that someone other than David did the murders "of which there is very little" as Stuart Grieve who worked to secure compensation for David Dougherty said DNA evidence later proved Dougherty innocent
But Mr Grieve says Mr Bain has no such evidence and, in his opinion, was fortunate to get his conviction overturned. “The decision could have gone the other way and so my view would be, take your freedom and run,” he says. Also one of the jury members has spoken out and said [“I take exception to this flawed characterisation of David Bain’s not guilty verdict. As a jury, we did not necessarily find David innocent, or Robin guilty. Our task was to determine if David Bain’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt – a very high threshold. “Anyone who reads from our verdict that Robin Bain is guilty is just plain wrong.http://www.3news.co.nz/Juror-takes-exception-to-David-Bain-debate/tabid/423/articleID/169358/Default.aspx

Your principles for giving away tax payer loot are also irrelevant. Cabinet has its guidelines and Bain falls outside them. It will be for Bains team to show (not prove) that on the balance of probabilities he is innocent. So rather that your list lets consider what that list might be. Here's one suggestion that might show Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
- you have the bloody complete heel to toe 280mm footprint which both the prosecution and defense agree was left by the murderer. Evidence was presented by the prosecution that measurements of luminol tested sock prints using a 298 mm foot was an average 297mm. They also said that testing a 270mm foot produced a sock print size of 282mm. Essentially the evidence is that a foot makes a print the same size or larger than the foot. It is also accepted by both the prosecution that David Bains foot is 300mm. If follow that David is innocent since he wasn't the one that left the bloodied footprint. Put Bain aside and try to look at this evidence objectively. Is a person with a big foot innocent of a crime committed by a person who leaves a smaller footprint?

(And you might recall that the standards expected from Mr Henschel in his measuring was not that flash - and today the standards are higher. His biggest print was 280mm. His views print vs foot size weren't based on any actual testing and he didn't write any measurements down - it was the police that took the notes. Not a very reliable witness in 2009.). Mr. Hentschel is the only expert who actually saw the bloody prints in fact he was only able to see them with the aide of luminol as they were not visible to the naked eye, the experiments done many years later in no way mimicked the way the original bloody prints were made, and judge Pankhurst certainly made comments about that at trial, at best they are inconclusive but I suggest you do some reading here http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/309

There is no way in hell David could prove or show his innocence with the bloody sock prints evidence to a ministry of justice appointed official.

Now to the next hurdle. Cabinet can only consider cases which are out of of the norm for cases in which appeals are allowed. No doubt David gets the tick for this one as the Privy Council - the highest court in the land said so. They said "The Board has concluded that, in the very unusual circumstances of this case.....". Now ask your self, what feature is it that takes this case out of the norm. Lets put opinions aside and look to the facts - its the Privy Council who has said ".....a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred". Can we agree Bain gets a tick in that box?The privy Council said a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because in their opinion the court of appeal in NZ should have allowed there to be a retrial so that so called new and relevant evidence could be heard by a jury instead of making the judgment themselves, they had no problem with the original verdict from the first trial, they also made this comment about the lens [The Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing the glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen, before shooting him, is certainly a tenable one on the evidence. Indeed, in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s bedroom, where he was killed, the Crown’s thesis is a strong one. The issue for us, however, is whether it is reasonably possible the lens could have got into the vicinity of Stephen’s dead body in a manner or at a time which was unrelated to the murders. That could be so only if the lens was there prior to the time when the murderer entered the room to shoot Stephen. There is no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses Stephen never wore, and had no need to wear, was already on the floor in his bedroom, prior to his being shot.]

In my opinion the Privy Council was fed misinformation from supporters similar to this below

Joe Karams version of what constable Andrews said at court, from radio live.

Karam
David Bain did faint, when he fainted he crashed down between, and banged his head, the officer Andrews who was with David when David fainted and crashed down behind the bed saw David crash down behind the bed and it was the constable Andrews who gave this evidence about him crashing down and banging his head on the wall by the window sill in his bedroom on the right side of his face, now that’s the evidence in the trial. [End Quote] Click on the attachment further down the page to listen to this excerpt.
And here we have what the officer Andrews actually said in court in 2009, from page 336 of the transcripts.
Constable Andrews answers questions.
Q. And then the accused falling back?
A. Backwards, yeah.
Q. Backwards. Did you observe him hit his head or strike any part of his body?
A. No I didn’t.
And below how this evidence was accurately reported in newspapers.
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2257185/Crown-alleges-David-Bain-faked-a-fit
Leslie Andrew, a police constable who was one of the first three officers to enter the house after the 111 call from Bain, said he stayed with Bain as the two other officers checked the house.
He watched Bain from the doorway of his bedroom and when a dog barked from down the hall, Bain called: "Here Casey, Casey, Casey." When the other officers shouted that they had found five bodies, he saw Bain shaking for about 10 seconds and then falling backwards.
He noticed Bain's eyes were normal before he fell back, which he thought was "a bit strange".
"If he was having a fit his eyes would react as well," Andrew said.
He had seen people have fits before and had noticed their eyes would flicker and the whites of the eyes become prominent.
Andrew said he had pulled Bain out from the tight spot where he had fallen and placed him in a recovery position.
Bain, who looked straight at him as he pulled him out, did not hit his head or any part of his body and was limp.

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2254954/Crown-questions-Bain-fit
Earlier, the police officer who saw David Bain have the fit that morning, Constable Leslie Andrew, said the episode seemed "strange''.

Andrew said Bain was sitting on his bedroom floor and then began shaking for 10 to 12 seconds before he fell backwards in a fit the Crown says was fake.

Andrew had observed other people have fits and their eyes normally changed and the whites became prominent before an attack.

Bain's eyes did not change before the fit and his episode seemed "strange'', he said.

Bain did not strike his head in the fit and when he went to assist David his eyes were open and he was "looking straight at me'', he said.

Andrew dragged a limp Bain into the recovery position and an ambulance officer was called.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see Joe Karams version of what was said, completely contradicts what Constable Leslie Andrew actually said when questioned at the Bain trial in 2009 and as reported by both Martin Van Beynen and Ian Steward for Christchurch's daily newspaper.

[QUOTE=minimoke;345722]So back to my original questions - did power get back to Kirky and how long was David in prison?Yes Simon Power did send me a letter outlining what David has to do to get some money and it sounds as though he would have far more chance at the Lotto shop. Bain was in jail for about 14 years which is not much for 5 murders don't you think.

minimoke

15-05-2011, 10:22 PM

You have a very poor understanding of the situation MM your grasp of the situation is poor indeed, yes as we all know David Bain has been found not guilty at trial,
I beg to differ - especially since I was one of the few that called the verdict correctly. If you know he is not guilty why do you keep insisting he is 99% guilty.

garman

15-05-2011, 10:43 PM

I beg to differ - especially since I was one of the few that called the verdict correctly. If you know he is not guilty why do you keep insisting he is 99% guilty.Stop playing dum MM, most NZers can now see that DB is just like OJ found not guilty at trial but will be found guilty on the BOP, to be quite honest there can be no other out come simply because the evidence for murder only points to one person, always has and always will, nothing you or I can say will change that, DB won lotto with the not guilty verdict, so the best thing he can do now is do as Stuart Grieve advised which is "take his freedom and run" very good advice I would think.

minimoke

16-05-2011, 07:56 AM

nothing you or I can say will change that, DB won lotto with the not guilty verdict, s. Actually it was five not guilty verdicts. The odds of winning lotto are pretty remote - what do you reckon the chances are of a getting five tickets and them all having the powerball on the night?

garman

16-05-2011, 09:46 AM

Actually it was five not guilty verdicts. The odds of winning lotto are pretty remote - what do you reckon the chances are of a getting five tickets and them all having the powerball on the night?Its good that not guilty in this case does not mean innocence, I am willing to stick my neck out and say that he will be found guilty on the balance of probabilities and receive no blood money which is what is the issue now, anyone with half a brain can see the evidence for Robin Bain to have done the murders is just plain non existent, here is the list of evidence against DB for you to browse again, OK maybe you can discount 1 or 2 items but then that still leaves about 20 major points of evidence that point to DB and away from RB.

By the way have you ever heard of anyone found to be innocent who had bloody fingerprints on the murder weapon blood from one of the victims on his pants, T shirt etc, a lens from glasses he was wearing next to a victim, and then that innocent person washes all the killers clothes leaving bloody prints on the washing machine, and then of course washing that blood off his hands.

1. David's fingerprints in blood
on murder weapon.

2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.

3. Brothers blood on David's
clothes.

4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulder
and cuff but of course no explanation from David.

5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.

6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.

7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning and gurgling.

8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized family meeting.

9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.

10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins, and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .

11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.

12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.

13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.

14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.

15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.

16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.

17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.

18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.

19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.

20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest, and David by his own admission thought he received them from the Monday morning.

21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.

minimoke

16-05-2011, 12:25 PM

I am willing to stick my neck out and say that he will be found guilty on the balance of probabilities
Your expectations of the process are misplaced. There is no opportunity for David to be found guilty on the balance of probabilities. He will be trying to show that on the balance of probabilities he is innocent of at least one of the crimes. If he can't show that it does not mean that he is therefor guilty on BOP. For example, no one goes round saying Rex Haig is guilty on the BOP that he murdered Roderiques. At best you can say, on the BOP he was involved - anything else has the potential to be defamatory.

By the way have you ever heard of anyone found to be innocent Nope - thats not the nature of our judicial system. Obviously I have heard of a person with pretty much all the things you listed being found "Not Guilty".

minimoke

16-05-2011, 01:30 PM

garman

16-05-2011, 06:40 PM

I guess you won't be off to Perth next March Kirky. in todays news: "

David Bain will speak publicly for the first time at an international conference on "victims of gross injustices".

Bain will join a star-studded line-up of victims of miscarriages of justice including boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, wrongly jailed for a triple killing, Australian Lindy Chamberlain, whose conviction for killing her daughter, Azaria, was quashed, and Gerry Conlon - part of the Guildford Four who were the subject of the Daniel Day-Lewis movie In the Name of the Father.

The Justice Conference, in Perth in March, is billed as a world-first assembly of victims of miscarriages, lawyers and forensic experts."Speaking for the first time overseas is a cop out. If David Bain spoke at a similar conference in New Zealand he would be laughed off stage most NZers now think he was the killer, as the prosecution and the defence agreed there were only 2 possible killers IE Robin Bain or David Bain as there is no evidence linking Robin to the murders we are left with only one rational conclusion, last year Joe Karem went on radio live to debate the evidence in the case with Micheal Laws at the end of the debate there was a pole of listeners and 84% thought that David Bain was responsible, the NZ public are not fools. David Bain did not take the stand and David Bain has never spoken to our main TV channel since his acquittal there are good reasons for this. David Bain is not a victim of a miscarriage but there has definitely been a miscarriage of justice, he will never prove his lack of guilt on the balance of probabilities simply because there is no proof whatsoever that anyone else was involved. Please educate yourself with the evidence. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/ ps the evidence against Carter, Chamberlain etc was minute compared to David Bain.

He had not spoken to the media in New Zealand at length because he would not get a fair hearing, Karam said. WELL I WONDER WHY HA HA

Skol

16-05-2011, 08:32 PM

Joe Karam is going to Perth as well to make sure DB doesn't get himself in trouble and blurt out the unthinkable while caught off guard.

Any speech DB makes will definitely be written by JK.

The victim of injustice in this case is Robin Bain.

trackers

17-05-2011, 09:16 AM

the NZ public are not fools.

It would be great if this was true...

garman

17-05-2011, 09:52 AM

It would be great if this was true...at least 84% are not fools is what I meant to say

minimoke

17-05-2011, 11:52 AM

at least 84% are not fools is what I meant to say
You need to quote your source.
A UMR survey in June 2009 shows 29% think he is guilty while 47% believe he is not guilty. 24% remain unsure. This shows a drop form around 60% who though he was innocent. The drop was put down to reports of jury misbehavior (it would only have taken one of the good behaving juror to find him guilty and for the trial to have reached a different conclusion) and of evidence suppressed and not presented in court - we have already been through the issue of hearsay evidence and the reliability of evidence that is suppressed.

With a margin of error of 3.6% in Davids favour that tips the balance of probabilities towards a payout.

garman

17-05-2011, 12:48 PM

You need to quote your source.
A UMR survey in June 2009 shows 29% think he is guilty while 47% believe he is not guilty. 24% remain unsure. This shows a drop form around 60% who though he was innocent. The drop was put down to reports of jury misbehavior (it would only have taken one of the good behaving juror to find him guilty and for the trial to have reached a different conclusion) and of evidence suppressed and not presented in court - we have already been through the issue of hearsay evidence and the reliability of evidence that is suppressed.

With a margin of error of 3.6% in Davids favour that tips the balance of probabilities towards a payout.So I take it you think David Bain is inocent and that Robin Bain was the killer and that David will get a payout.

For sure more people think Robin Bain was not involved and after listening to Joe and Miacheal going head to head on national radio a year after the trial 84% said they thought David was responsible there has been no UMR poll since June 2009 just after the trial and at that time 47% of people polled said David was not guilty as aposed to 62% before the evidence from the trial was heard, that should tell you something and I am sure if another umr poll was taken now after nearley all evidence has been heard it would be similar to the 84% from the radio poll.

Tell me something MM if you were given the job of looking at the evidece and deciding on the balance of probabilties in this case, would you come to the conclusion that David was inocent, and if so what is the compelling evidece that forms that opinion bearing in mind that one of the jury members has already stated that they did not find David inocent or Robin guilty.

May 2007, the same month Bain's 1995 murder conviction was quashed at the Privy Council

guilty 23%
not guilty 62%
unsure 15%

20th of June 2009, immediately following the retrial

guilty 29%
not guilty 47%
unsure 24%

minimoke

17-05-2011, 01:42 PM

after listening to Joe and Miacheal going head to head on national radio a year after the trial 84% said they thought David was responsible
Since you use Michael Laws and talk back radio as your measure of justice I fear any offer I had of looking at the evidence and forming a view on innocence would be wasted. I'm sure if you were ask listeners of talk back radio to point out Uranus on a map of the universe 84% couldn't put a finger on it.

You'll be telling us next that the end of the world is nigh because 100% of Harold Campings Parishioners believe that it is so.

garman

17-05-2011, 11:28 PM

Since you use Michael Laws and talk back radio as your measure of justice I fear any offer I had of looking at the evidence and forming a view on innocence would be wasted. I'm sure if you were ask listeners of talk back radio to point out Uranus on a map of the universe 84% couldn't put a finger on it.

You'll be telling us next that the end of the world is nigh because 100% of Harold Campings Parishioners believe that it is so.There are any number of social commentators who have had interest in the Bain case and after looking at the evidence have decided that no way Robin Bain was involved with the killings, Michael Laws the one that made Karem look pretty sick, Brian Edwards, Brian Bruce the documentary maker who has made 2 documentaries on the Bain case is a person who knows the evidence as well as anyone and has not swayed in his opinion that Robin Bain was not the killer, Joe Karem knows the evidence very well but at the end of the debate 84% of the listeners did not believe his version of the truth, by the way here's his version of the truth check it out and even you may be wondering at his motives. Sounds like a desperate man trying to explain away 3 seperate bruises observed by Dr Pryde on Davids head.

Joe Karams version of what constable Andrews said at court, from radio live.

Karam [Quote] David Bain did faint, when he fainted he crashed down between, and banged his head, the officer Andrews who was with David when David fainted and crashed down behind the bed saw David crash down behind the bed and it was the constable Andrews who gave this evidence about him crashing down and banging his head on the wall by the window sill in his bedroom on the right side of his face, now that’s the evidence in the trial. [End Quote]

And here we have what the officer Andrews actually said in court in 2009, from page 336 of the transcripts.

Constable Andrews answers questions.

Q. And then the accused falling back?
A. Backwards, yeah.
Q. Backwards. Did you observe him hit his head or strike any part of his body?
A. NO I DIDEN'T.

And below how this evidence was accurately reported in newspapers.

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...in-faked-a-fit

Leslie Andrew, a police constable who was one of the first three officers to enter the house after the 111 call from Bain, said he stayed with Bain as the two other officers checked the house.
He watched Bain from the doorway of his bedroom and when a dog barked from down the hall, Bain called: "Here Casey, Casey, Casey." When the other officers shouted that they had found five bodies, he saw Bain shaking for about 10 seconds and then falling backwards.
He noticed Bain's eyes were normal before he fell back, which he thought was "a bit strange".
"If he was having a fit his eyes would react as well," Andrew said.
He had seen people have fits before and had noticed their eyes would flicker and the whites of the eyes become prominent.
Andrew said he had pulled Bain out from the tight spot where he had fallen and placed him in a recovery position.
Bain, who looked straight at him as he pulled him out, DID NOT HIT HIS HEAD or any part of his body and was limp.

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...tions-Bain-fit

Earlier, the police officer who saw David Bain have the fit that morning, Constable Leslie Andrew, said the episode seemed "strange''.
Andrew said Bain was sitting on his bedroom floor and then began shaking for 10 to 12 seconds before he fell backwards in a fit the Crown says was fake.
Andrew had observed other people have fits and their eyes normally changed and the whites became prominent before an attack.
Bain's eyes did not change before the fit and his episode seemed "strange'', he said.
Bain DID NOT STRIKE HIS HEAD in the fit and when he went to assist David his eyes were open and he was "looking straight at me'', he said.
Andrew dragged a limp Bain into the recovery position and an ambulance officer was called.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see Joe Karams version of what was said, completely contradicts what Constable Leslie Andrew actually said when questioned at the Bain trial in 2009 and as reported by both Martin Van Beynen and Ian Steward for Christchurch's daily newspaper.

Tell me something MM if you were given the job of looking at the evidece and deciding on the balance of probabilties in this case, would you come to the conclusion that David was inocent, and if so what is the compelling evidece that forms that opinion bearing in mind that one of the jury members has already stated that they did not find David inocent or Robin guilty.

minimoke

18-05-2011, 10:39 AM

bearing in mind that one of the jury members has already stated that they did not find David inocent or Robin guilty.
Still haven't quite grasped it yet, have you Kirky. The jurors job was to decide on the basis of the evidence provided if Davids was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of a murder. Indeed five murders. It is not their job (and they aren't asked to do so) to determine if he was innocent. Any other view the Juror forms is irrelevant.

You appear content to form your views based on soundbites from those whose job it is to entertain and create advertising revenue for the media organisation they work for. How about we wait to see what Bains team present as their evidence to show innocence and draw our own views from there.

Major von Tempsky

18-05-2011, 02:42 PM

Waal, as you concede Mini that the jury didn't find David Bain innocent, and as the best legal brains are obviously deciding that on the balance of probabilities that he did do it - where does that leave you Mini?

minimoke

18-05-2011, 03:52 PM

and as the best legal brains are obviously deciding that on the balance of probabilities that he did do it - where does that leave you Mini?
I'm not aware that there that the best legal brains are out there trying to work out that he did do it. I am aware there is one legal brain who will be asked if on the balance of probabilities Bain can prove he is innocent. I haven't seen that evidence so I guess that leaves me waiting but if you would like to give me some evidence I'll express a view.

minimoke

18-05-2011, 05:20 PM

I've managed to get an advance copy of a Cabinet Paper which hasn't quite reached the public attention. My sources are secret so don't tell anyone.

COMMERCIAL: IN CONFIDENCE
Office of the Minister of Justice
Cabinet
Cabinet Minute
Compensation for One Person Wrongly Convicted and Imprisoned for Murder
Portfolio: Justice

On 15 May 2011, Cabinet:
1 noted that Mr Bain was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for
Five murders in 1995;
2 noted that in 2007 the Privy Council quashed his convictions and ordered a new trial;
3 noted that Mr Bain was retried and found not guilty;
4 noted that Mr Bain is not eligible under the Cabinet guidelines governing compensation of wrongful conviction and imprisonment because the Privy Council ordered a new trial [STR (98) M 39/6];
5 noted that:
5.1 the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have received confidential briefings on this case;
5.2 there is substantial evidence supporting the innocence of Mr Bain;
5.3 it is not in the public interest for that evidence to be made publicly available;
6 noted that available evidence clearly establishes that Mr Bain, is at a
minimum, innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murders;
7 noted that the Minister of Justice is satisfied the case involves extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice for compensation to be paid;
8 agreed in principle to compensate Mr Bain for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under the Crown's residual discretion to award compensation outside of the Cabinet guidelines in extraordinary circumstances where it is in the interests of justice
9 invited that Minister of Justice to seek submissions from Mr Bain on matters relevant to determining an appropriate compensation payment;
10 invited the Minister of Justice to report back to Cabinet with a proposed compensation package.

Compensation for one person wrongly convicted and imprisoned for murder
Proposal
1. Cabinet is asked to agree in principle to compensate David Bain for being wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
Executive summary
2. David Bain applied for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment in relation to his convictions for murder in May 1995. The applicant served approximately thirteen years of his sentence of imprisonment before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council
3.Mr Bain was retried and found not guilty.
4. The applicant falls outside Cabinet guidelines established to govern compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment because the Privy Council, when quashing his convictions, ordered a new trial. This means his claim for compensation must be dealt with under the Crown's residual discretion to consider claims outside the Cabinet guidelines. The residual discretion can be exercised in extraordinary circumstances where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
5. In 2009 former New Zealand police officer Milton Weir admitted painting “Hang David Bain” on his house. The Privy Council found that there had been “a substantial miscarriage of Justice.
6. I am satisfied that the case qualifies for the exercise of the Crown's residual discretion to award compensation outside the Cabinet guidelines. At a minimum, the evidence now available clearly establishes the applicants' innocence on the balance of probabilities. When combined with other unusual features present, I consider the applicants' case involves extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice that compensation be paid.
7. I seek in principle agreement to compensate Mr Bain. I propose to then seek submissions from the applicants on matters relevant to determining an appropriate compensation payment and to return to Cabinet with a recommended compensation offer.

Background
8. On 20 June 1994, a murderer entered the home of the Bains and murdered five family members. Mr Bain was charged and tried for the murders. The applicant was found guilty of murder in May 1995. He was sentenced to life imprisonment
9. On 28 June 2007, the Privy Council quashed the applicants' convictions and ordered a new trial on the basis that there had been a substantial miscariiage of justice. The applicants served approximately thirteen years of his sentence of imprisonment before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council.
10. Mr Bain was retried and found not guilty in June
Assessment under Cabinet guidelines for compensating persons wrongly convicted
and imprisoned
11. Compensation payments are made on an ex gratia basis. This means there is no legal obligation to make the payments: the payments are at Cabinet's discretion.
12. Cabinet guidelines govern compensation payments for wrongful conviction and imprisonment (CAB (98) M46/6C and POL Min (01) 34/5). Under the guidelines, people may apply for compensation if they have served all or part of a sentence of imprisonment and either had their convictions quashed on appeal without a retrial being ordered or received a free pardon. Compensation payments are only made to applicants who can prove on the balance of probabilities they were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted.
16. The applicant is not eligible under the Cabinet guidelines because, when quashing the applicants' convictions, the Privy Council ordered new trials.
Assessment under the Crown's residual discretion to compensate outside of the Cabinet guidelines in extraordinary circumstances
The Crown's residual discretion
17. The Crown has a residual discretion to consider claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines. I have considered the applicants' claims under this residual discretion.
18. In 1998 Cabinet decided that the residual discretion can be exercised "in extraordinary circumstances where it is in the interests of justice" to do so (STR (98) M 39/6). Cabinet did not determine what matters would constitute extraordinary circumstances. In general terms, the residual discretion should not be exercised in a way that would undermine the normal process for compensation in the Cabinet guidelines. Innocence on the balance of probabilities is a minimum requirement, consistent with the Cabinet guidelines. But the bar is set higher for claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines - something more is required that demonstrates that the circumstances are extraordinary. To qualify as extraordinary, the circumstances must include some feature which takes the case outside the ordinary run of cases in which appeals have been allowed.
Applicants' case justifies the exercise of the Crown's residual discretion
19. The Crown's case at trial against the applicant’s relied on circumstantial evidence. The Crown alleged that Mr Bain was the murderer. There was no forensic evidence implicating Mr Bain, no real motive, and no eye witnesses to identify Mr Bain as the murderer. The Crown's evidence included expert analysis of footprints form the carpet in the house that showed the murderer. The evidence was of poor quality, and the expert expressed a view unsupported by rigourous testing.
20. The new evidence received by the Police in late 2006 is central to determining whether there are extraordinary circumstances in the applicants' case.
21. Mr Bains advocate, Mr Karam has disclosed new evidence to myself and selected Ministry of Justice officials under an agreed protocol that places strict limits on release of the information. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have also been briefed on the evidence.
22. The evidence indicates that the applicant had no involvement in the murders.
23. When considering the available evidence as a whole, new evidence in combination with other evidence clearly establishes the applicant’s innocence on the balance of probabilities. Indeed the evidence comes close to establishing his innocence to the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
24. The Deputy Solicitor-General has also considered the evidence and sought the expert view of Mr Garman and Mr Kirky and advised that the evidence now available establishes the applicant’s innocence on the balance of probabilities.
25. The applicant’s case contains several additional unusual features, including that:
• evidential expert Michael Laws has resiled from the position that the applicant was responsible for the murders; and
• the TradeMe message boards support the Applicants evidence
• Decorated War hero and vigilante Major Von Tempsky apologised for not accepting Mr Bain is not guilty.

Conclusion
26. I have carefully considered the new evidence and been briefed by Police on their inquiries into it. I am satisfied that Mr Bains case qualifies for the exercise of the Crown's residual discretion to award compensation outside the Cabinet guidelines. At a minimum, the evidence now available clearly establishes the applicants' innocence on the balance of probabilities. When combined with other unusual features present, I consider the applicants' case involves extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice that compensation be paid.
27. I seek agreement in principle to compensate Mr Bain for being wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
Next steps - determining quantum of compensation and offer to the applicant
28. Subject to Cabinet's agreement in principle to compensate the applicant’s, the next step will be to determine an appropriate amount of compensation and make a formal offer to the applicant. Compensation may also include a public statement of the claimant's innocence from Mr Van Beyen, Mr Garman and Mr Kirky. I propose to seek submissions from the applicant on matters relevant to compensation. I will then report to Cabinet with a recommended compensation package before making a formal offer to the applicant.
29. Under the Cabinet guidelines, a successful applicant may be compensated for the following types of losses arising from their wrongful conviction and imprisonment:
• non-pecuniary losses (loss of liberty, loss of reputation, loss or interruption of family or other personal relationships, and mental or emotional harm); and
• pecuniary losses (loss of livelihood, loss of future earnings, loss of property or other consequential financial losses, and costs in obtaining a pardon or acquittal).
30. While the applicant’s' case falls outside of the Cabinet guidelines, the calculation of any compensation payment should be consistent with the Cabinet guidelines and past payments for compensation.
Consultation
31. Mr Garman, Mr Kirky, Mr Laws and Mr Van Beyen have been consulted on this paper. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been informed.
Financial implications
32. When establishing the Cabinet guidelines, Cabinet agreed that it would decide on a case by case basis to appropriate funds for each compensation payment (STR (98) M 39/6) (Other Expenses to be Incurred by the Crown: Compensation for Wrongly Convicted Individuals).
33. After considering any submissions from the applicants on factors relevant to compensation quantum, I will report back to Cabinet with a proposed compensation package and seek agreement to the required financial appropriation.
34. The most recent payment under the Cabinet guidelines was in 2011 when two young men wrongly convicted and imprisoned for arson and they received $146,000 and $221,000 each. The men had served approximately nine months in prison.
Human rights
35. A decision to compensate the applicant would be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993.
Legislative implications
36. There are no legislative implications.
Regulatory impact analysis
37. Not required.
Publicity
38. There has been limited media interest in the applicants' case to date. Any Government decision on compensation is likely to attract considerable public interest. I do not intend to publicly announce the in principle decision sought in this paper. I propose instead to make a media statement if Cabinet subsequently approves a compensation package to offer the applicants.
Recommendations
39. The Minister of Justice recommends that Cabinet:
1. note that Mr Bain was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for murder in 1995;
2. note that in 2007 the Privy Council quashed the convictions and ordered a new
trials;
3. note that Mr Bain was retried and found not guilty;
4. note that Mr Bain is not eligible under the Cabinet guidelines
governing compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment because the Privy Council ordered new trials;
5. note that available evidence clearly establishes that Mr Bain is, at a minimum, innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murders;
6. note that the Minister of Justice, despite the outrage expressed by Mr Kirky and Mr Garman is satisfied the case involves extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice for compensation to be paid;
7. agree in principle to compensate Mr bain for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under the Crown's residual discretion to award compensation outside of the Cabinet guidelines in extraordinary circumstances where it is in the interests of justice;
8. invite the Minister of Justice to seek submissions from Mr Bain on matters relevant to determining an appropriate compensation payment; and
9. invite the Minister of Justice to report back to Cabinet with a proposed compensation package.

Hon Simon Power
Minister of Justice
Date signed:
18 May 2011

garman

18-05-2011, 08:53 PM

You appear content to form your views based on soundbites from those whose job it is to entertain and create advertising revenue for the media organisation they work for. How about we wait to see what Bains team present as their evidence to show innocence and draw our own views from there.I don't know how you form views on moral, ethical, justice or politics etc MM, maybe you flip a coin or ring up Joe Karam for advice, what I actually do is read as much of the evidence as possible from several sources and try to come to a reasoned and rational answer, in regards to the evidence of the Bain family murders there is barely a scrap of evidence that is not available to the public of NZ, such freely available evidence includes all court of appeal hearings video of a certain amount of the trial, books, reports, newspapers, independent police enquirie reports, Judicial reports and even the complete trial transcripts, in fact there is so much evidence available to the average interested NZer that I am confident that anyone willing to spend the time can gain as much knowledge of this case as that of Joe Karam or the recently knighted James McNeish and others, admittedly this is a rare situation as one would not normally have all this information available so one would not normally be able to come to an informed sound asessment of who was most likley on the BOP the killer of 5 members of the Bain family.

So there you are MM all info is available, so exercise your right to access it and make an informed judgment, it is your right, all part of living in a great democracy, or you could just sit back and leave it to others and uncle Joe to tell you what the truth is.

shasta

18-05-2011, 11:30 PM

I've managed to get an advance copy of a Cabinet Paper which hasn't quite reached the public attention. My sources are secret so don't tell anyone.

Very amusing :)

But really are we still going on about this case? This is hardly the right forum for this ding dong match

I think David did it personally, but he's had his day in court, the justice system is far from perfect but its what we got, this obsession aint healthy Kirky!

minimoke

19-05-2011, 10:40 AM

, it is your right, all part of living in a great democracy, or you could just sit back and leave it to others and uncle Joe to tell you what the truth is.
It is indeed our right to determine our own version of truth. In some matters I prefer fact.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 10:56 AM

This is hardly the right forum for this ding dong match
On that we might differ. Share trading is so much about sorting the fact from opinion. Isn't that what we have here? Its about spending money - and Kirky is having kiniptions over the prospect of his taxes going to David Bain. Its about knowing when to hold 'em, and knowing when to fold. Sharetrading is about knowing how things work. Its about having an understanding of a situation and backing yourself against the understanding of someone on the other side of the trade. its about where you source your information from and learning how reliable the information is. Hopefully there is some fun along the way. Kirky is still smarting over the Bain trade and hasn't quite learned that once the bid has gone through the deal is done. He has learnt theres an opportunity for another deal, but unfortunately he's playing by the rules of the old game and hasn't learnt the rules of the new. Theres just so many parallels.

this obsession aint healthy Kirky!
On that we agree

Skol

19-05-2011, 11:49 AM

My wife has followed this from day 1 - very carefully, and she says he did it, no doubt.

A dimwitted jury didn't help either. A problem with juries, smart people avoid going on them to avoid disruption to their lives, so you end up in many cases with not-so-smart juries, which there was in this case.

DB's Joe Karam's poodle, holds his hand everywhere to make sure no one give him a grilling in case he inadvertently lets it out.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 12:16 PM

My wife has followed this from day 1 - very carefully, and she says he did it, no doubt. Thats the tipping point for me. Skols wife says he's guilty so it must be so.

[
A problem with juries, smart people avoid going on them to avoid disruption to their lives, so you end up in many cases with not-so-smart juries, which there was in this case.
Theres two sides to that coin. If we follow your reasoning there are lots of innocent people who have been wrongly found guilty. Wait - where have I heard that before?

It only takes one smart juror, or even not so smart juror to create an alternative verdict. The Bain prosecution couldn't do that. So is that a problem with our jury system or a problem with our prosecutors. Or is a problem with our police who don't give the prosecution the facts they need to turn that one juror.

DB's Joe Karam's poodle, holds his hand everywhere to make sure no one give him a grilling in case he inadvertently lets it out.David had a grilling in the first trial. The prosecution had an opportunity to really get stuck in. Had they considered waterboarding they might have got the confession people seek. But using conventional methods failed to produce smoking gun so many anti-DB people seek.

NZ is a funny old country. We've got the right to silence and the right not incriminate ourselves. Pretty useful rights if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law. Think twice before you seek to overturn those rights - we have a government who's only to keen to overturn tried and tested conventions when the polls suit. Already we've seen the defense of provocation scrapped. Its a slippery slope!

You could of course argue that we are indeed not all equal before the law. Hones setting up a Party that will be just right for you.

Skol

19-05-2011, 12:27 PM

I can tell you for sure my wife is one hell of a lot smarter than that jury, apart from that you didn't need to be Albert Einstein to work the whole deal out for yourself.

If he was innocent he would've got up and said so, the second time around.

Karam's stuck with DB for the rest of his life.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 01:10 PM

I can tell you for sure my wife is one hell of a lot smarter than that jury, apart from that you didn't need to be Albert Einstein to work the whole deal out for yourself. So a person with a BSc and part way through a law degree isn't smart enough huh. Thats getting to be a pretty high threshold. Strange, that out of 17 Jurors the prosecution couldn't find one smart one. Of all the people on the Christchurch electoral role, whats the odds of that?

If he was innocent he would've got up and said so, the second time around. In NZ you get asked if you plead guilty or not guilty. No-one gets asked if they are innocent. Bain got up in the stand and said "not guilty". Cant think of any trial where a person was asked if they were innocent. Theres an idea for Power. Change convention and get people to answer that question. That will make the jury's job easier

Skol

19-05-2011, 01:34 PM

So a person with a BSc and part way through a law degree isn't smart enough huh.

You're referring to the chump that gave DB a cuddle outside the Court, went to the post-trial drinks, passing notes to other jury members and giggling.

A real brain surgeon. DB's lawyers probably new she was half-witted, so left her there.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 02:02 PM

A real brain surgeon.

Is that your threshold now?

Not good enough to have a person who has a bit more application than a school dropout. Someone who has probably studied some chemistry (good for hearing about blood) and physics (good for hearing about bullet trajectories). Probably done a bit of stats or maths (good for adding up minutes and deducting them from computer and washing machine times). Probably a bit of research and analysis ability in there. Could be some Communication Skills - able to read body language and interpret verbal communication. Might be some Human Biology in there - good for full bladders or psychology - good for mental states and motives. For entry into LLb you presumably need some degree of intellect and will probably learn a little about legal systems (and maybe get clues on what to look for if they are being exploited. And learn how to apply legal principles. A student in a jury in a trial against someone who was student - good peer there.

Sounds like an ideal juror to me.

So that background isn't good enough for you. What do reckon would make an ideal juror?

Skol

19-05-2011, 02:17 PM

A university degree does not ensure good judgement, a moral compass or common sense, in fact I've worked with university graduates that make me wonder how much you have to do to get a degree, not much I think.
It's interesting to note that there are more lawyers in jail than car dealers.

The definition of an ideal juror is in the eyes of the beholder, that's why in the USA they have Jury Selection Specialists. It obviously didn't work for Rajaratnam because he hired 2 of them but was still found guilty on all 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud.

The university graduate was obviously a 'good' juror - for DB.

robo

19-05-2011, 02:20 PM

A dimwitted jury didn't help either. A problem with juries, smart people avoid going on them to avoid disruption to their lives, so you end up in many cases with not-so-smart juries, which there was in this case.

DB's Joe Karam's poodle, holds his hand everywhere to make sure no one give him a grilling in case he inadvertently lets it out.

I laugh............This thread is excellent, after it has followed its course and exhausted itself you guys should move onto the Sounds Mystery

Skol

19-05-2011, 02:50 PM

Yeah, it's good fun.

It won't die out any time soon, they're still arguing over Arthur Allan Thomas.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 02:52 PM

A university degree does not ensure good judgement, a moral compass or common sense,
The role of the juror is to decide the facts with an open mind. Good judgement, a moral compass and common sense are such arbitrary concepts. Actually a juror isn't even required to decide what is right or wrong.

Whereas a person with a degree has gone through an objective assessment process. This process can say with some reliability and validity that a person has analytical skills, can solve problems and has some technical expertise.

That a juror doesn't meet your views of what constitutes good judgement or common sense is not a reflection of the system or the outcome.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 02:53 PM

I laugh............This thread is excellent, after it has followed its course and exhausted itself you guys should move onto the Sounds Mystery
I'd prefer the satanic homo kiddy fiddler case as the next off the rank

Skol

19-05-2011, 03:20 PM

Whereas a person with a degree has gone through an objective assessment process. This process can say with some reliability and validity that a person has analytical skills, can solve problems and has some technical expertise.

I can endlessly quote from history, the so-called 'intelligentsia' that ended up in prison or worse, and while presumed innocent at the moment, there's Dominique Strauss-Kahn's case about to go to court. (Law degree and Ph.D in economics.)

Or Jeffrey Skilling, B.Sc from Southern Methodist University and Harvard MBA graduate who couldn't do a balance sheet, now doing 24 years for the Enron collapse.

Or maybe you'd like me list a few lawyers who are guests of Her Majesty.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 03:38 PM

I can endlessly quote from history, the so-called 'intelligentsia' that ended up in prison or worse, and while presumed innocent at the moment, there's Dominique Strauss-Kahn's case about to go to court.

Or Jeffrey Skilling, B.Sc from Southern Methodist University and Harvard MBA graduate who couldn't do a balance sheet, now doing 24 years for the Enron collapse.

Or maybe you'd like me list a few lawyers who are guests of Her Majesty.
Perhaps having analytical skills, the ability to solve problems and some technical expertise assists a person when their moral compass goes astray. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting an "intelligent" person doesn't commit a crime. - thats not the issue. Its who would make a good juror?

By your account we need someone at least as intelligent as your wife,(who clearly shows good judgement evidenced by her choice of husband), one that shares your view on morals and has the same life experiences as you so there is some common ground upon which to base common sense. And someone not too intelligent as they may a crim themselves. I see some problems with that selection criteria.

Skol

19-05-2011, 03:52 PM

By your account we need someone at least as intelligent as your wife,(who clearly shows good judgement evidenced by her choice of husband), one that shares your view on morals and has the same life experiences as you so there is some common ground upon which to base common sense. And someone not too intelligent as they may a crim themselves. I see some problems with that selection criteria.

Correct, my wife would make an excellent juror, but she reckons the Bain case was contaminated by all the publicity following the murders and the first trial and a jury should have been selected from another country. My wife says she missed her vocation and should have been a detective.

However as a keen student of herd behaviour I'm convinced a lot of it goes on in the jury room.

garman

19-05-2011, 07:00 PM

Very amusing :)

But really are we still going on about this case? This is hardly the right forum for this ding dong match

I think David did it personally, but he's had his day in court, the justice system is far from perfect but its what we got, this obsession ain't healthy Kirky!Thanks for the input Shasta you are just another person that posts on this forum that reckons David did it, the poll that was once on this web site showed that around 70% of voters thought David was the killer, it was MM that started up the whole argument again but really I don't mind having an unhealthy obsession at least this obsession is more healthy than that of the president of the IMF.

minimoke

19-05-2011, 07:40 PM

However as a keen student of herd behaviour I'm convinced a lot of it goes on in the jury room.
Given my views are at odds with most other posters on this thread is it fair to assume I'm not a herd follower. In which case I'd be good on the jury?

garman

19-05-2011, 08:04 PM

The role of the juror is to decide the facts with an open mind.But sometimes it goes terribly wrong as in the OJ Simpson and David Bain trials. Look MM there are many reasons why people are interested in the Bain case for myself I am very interested in crime and justice, what really upsets me is injustice, the Bain case is a bit of an obsession for me and I have been personally involved with at least one website that tries to show as much of the evidence about this case as possible, the reason I am doing this is because I wish to speak for the murdered Bain family I feel as though poor 14 year old Stephen and 18 year old Laniet and 20 year old Arawa the mother Margaret and especially Robin have had a terrible injustice done to them, Joe Karam and Bains defence lawyer have said appalling things about Robin Bain and neither of them ever knew him, David bain receiving compensation would just rub salt into the wounds of the extended Bain and Cullen families all of whom know Robin Bain did not murder anyone. They as well as myself know there has been a travesty of justice in this case, the amount of opposition to the result of the second Bain trial is unprecedented in New Zea land's history, Joe Karam has pulled off a no brainer, Joe speaks for David, David is but a puppet he is not his own man, if David speaks in Perth for sure Joe will be there and of course he will write Davids speech, but the conference is in March and beleive me the people involved with interviewing David Bain and conference organisers will be informed of a few details of evidence from the case. David will not speak in his own country because as Joe sain he wouldent get a fair hearing, in otherwords NZers are educated to the truth already.

This is the first time I have become interested in a case to this extent, I want as many people as possible to know the evidence well, this will of course continue to make life unpleasant for Joe and David, there is a reason Joe has not published his book or no films have been made, the reason for this is because the educated NZ public know full well what the real story is so why don't you educate yourself MM you are a voice in the wilderness no one else on this forum believes Robin Bain was the killer, there is just no evidence for it.

minimoke

20-05-2011, 09:29 AM

But sometimes it goes terribly wrong as in the OJ Simpson and David Bain trials. Look MM there are many reasons why people are interested in the Bain case for myself I am very interested in crime and justice, what really upsets me is injustice,
Equally it can be suggested justice has been served. Bain was retried and a unanimous jury in near record time found him not guilty on all counts. The injustice you speak of can probably be better pointed to the prosecution who were unable to provide evidnce to cause the jury to ponder longer.

the reason I am doing this is because I wish to speak for the murdered Bain family I feel as though poor 14 year old Stephen and 18 year old Laniet and 20 year old Arawa the mother Margaret and especially Robin
Apart from your obsession I find it a little disturbing that you wish to be a self appointed spokesperson for the dead family.

Joe Karam and Bains defence lawyer have said appalling things about Robin Bain and neither of them ever knew him, Some people lead lives behind closed doors. What people see is not necessarily what is actually real life. Unfortunatly when you are involved in a crime all sorts of stuff will come to the publics attention which yu probably hoped never would. Thats just teh nature of life. It can be equally said BD has had some pretty applaing things said about him.

David bain receiving compensation would just rub salt into the wounds of the extended Bain and Cullen families all of whom know Robin Bain did not murder anyone. Another sad fact of life is when harm is done to someone it is more than likely done by a family member. it is no doubt devastating for any family to come to terms with the reality one of their own is responsible for murder - indeed some never get their. Take Barlows wife - she stood by him through thick and thin but teh evidnce points to him as being the double murderer. Who'd have tough Scott Guys brother in law was capable of murder - I bet none of them did.

there has been a travesty of justice in this case, Have you managed to reconcile yoru position when teh Privy Council said their had been a substantial miscarriage of justice - this decision indicates the original trials were the travesy, yet you are silent about those.

the amount of opposition to the result of the second Bain trial is unprecedented in New Zea land's history,
You are re writing history already. Remember how the media fawned over him - the same media you rely on as a basis of your position. It was only after the release of the extra information which wasn't admissible under our evidential rules did the opposition ramp up. I'm hopeful your crusade doesn't result in a change in those rules of evidence - they are there for a good reason.

Joe speaks for David, David is but a puppet he is not his own man, There are some people who are better off not speaking for themselves - not because
for sure Joe will be there and of course he will write Davids speech, and is there anything wrong with that. Do you honestly think that everyone who makes a speech actually wrote it?

I want as many people as possible to know the evidence well, You aren't actually presenting evidence - if you were you would know the rules of evidence and alert people to the reliability of your view. What you are doing is presenting information and that can so easily be taken out of context or interpreted in a different way.

educated NZ public know full well what the real story is so I thnk Skol has already indicated that being educated does not make a person best able to make the right call.

why don't you educate yourself MM you are a voice in the wilderness no one else on this forum believes Robin Bain was the killer, there is just no evidence for it. If you look at the original Bain thread you'll see I followed the evidence made a call that was correct.

Skol

20-05-2011, 01:49 PM

My objection to Karam and DB even extends to not buying coffee off 'The Coffee Guy', owned by Karam's son.

garman

20-05-2011, 07:06 PM

Equally it can be suggested justice has been served. Bain was retried and a unanimous jury in near record time found him not guilty on all counts.Much like the OJ trial and about the same percentage of people in our country like the US think the jury got it wrong with the second Bain trial.

Apart from your obsession I find it a little disturbing that you wish to be a self appointed spokesperson for the dead family. When I say I want to be a spokesperson and supporter for the murdered Bain family all I am doing is standing up for people who have IMO not had justice, its a bit like someone standing up for the injustice of slavery etc as I said I hate injustice and IMO a major injustice has actually occurred in this retrial and we dont want to rub salt in the wounds with a compo payout.

Another sad fact of life is when harm is done to someone it is more than likely done by a family member. it is no doubt devastating for any family to come to terms with the reality one of their own is responsible for murder The extended Bain and Cullen families did find it devastating to come to terms that a family member was the killer, and in their opinion that family member was not Robin they are unanimous on that, and they knew David Bain and Robin bain personally and the evidence very well.
Take Barlows wife - she stood by him through thick and thin but the evidence points to him as being the double murderer. I also know the evidence pretty well in the Barlow case and I am astounded that there was 2 hung jury trials before a third trial found him guilty, the evidence IMO was incredibly damning, he only served 15 years for 2 cold blooded premeditated assassinations such is the immoral soft touch of our NZ justice system, that's 7 and a half years per murder, just bloody ridiculous. And when asked by a reporter how he coped with being in prison he just smiled and said that it was just like early retirement and that he did plenty of reading.

Have you managed to reconcile your position when the Privy Council said their had been a substantial miscarriage of justice - this decision indicates the original trials were the travesty, yet you are silent about those.As I have said before the substantial miscarriage of justice the PC refers to is the injustice that was caused by our appeal courts not allowing a new trial because in the PC opinion new evidence warranted a retrial and of course that is why they granted a retrial, as the PC said in 1996 they had no problem with the verdict of the first trial.

There are some people who are better off not speaking for themselves. That's just what Joe reckons ha ha.

You aren't actually presenting evidence - if you were you would know the rules of evidence and alert people to the reliability of your view. What you are doing is presenting information and that can so easily be taken out of context or interpreted in a different way.The evidence is out there for everyone to see and several sources can be accessed I think a fair view can be obtained, no matter what safe guards are used some people can always take information out of context or interpret information in an incorrect manner.

If you look at the original Bain thread you'll see I followed the evidence made a call that was correct. Yes you were correct the jury found David Bain not guilty just as the jury found OJ not guilty, a civil case was then taken against OJ and he was sued for millions, its a pity NZ law won't allow a civil case to be taken against David Bain.

By the way MM do you think Robin did the murders? and whats your view on whether compo will be paid out? I am willing to stick my neck out and say Compo will definatly not be paid.

Skol

20-05-2011, 10:13 PM

"They're all dead".

Listen to the 111 call from big ears who probably thought it was just another act from one of his amateur theatre appearances.

brettdale

21-05-2011, 05:19 PM

one gun one set of prints, a jury member hugging david and dancing away with him all night after the not guilty verdict.

garman

24-05-2011, 01:02 PM

"They're all dead".

Listen to the 111 call from big ears who probably thought it was just another act from one of his amateur theatre appearances.Yes he said several times to the 111 operator that his family were all dead, but later in the day and the next day changed his mind and made statements to the police that he had only seen the bodies of his mother and father, then changed his mind again several months later and said he did see all the bodies, he agreed he recalled that memory after he had seen the evidence in the case, that evidence said the blood on his clothes was that of his brothers, which of course proved he did see his brothers body, so he had no option but to testify in court that he did see all the bodies of his family.:mellow:

ratkin

30-05-2011, 06:05 PM

String up the beanpole and be done with it.

Now its ok to lie in court

Skol

30-05-2011, 06:28 PM

Yeah I saw that, one of big ears' witnesses lied say the police.

Dopey witness and dopey jury.

One of these days he's gonna get caught out.

minimoke

30-05-2011, 06:45 PM

Now its ok to lie in court

Welcome to the real world. You don't honestly believe that all witnesses for any prosecution and defense tell the truth do you?

Skol

30-05-2011, 07:02 PM

Welcome to the real world. You don't honestly believe that all witnesses for any prosecution and defense tell the truth do you?

They haven't been caught, big ears' witness has, in an already extremely dubious and controversial case.

garman

30-05-2011, 08:35 PM

They haven't been caught, big ears' witness has, in an already extremely dubious and controversial case.DB won lotto with that jury I hope if I end up in court one day I get a dim witted bunch on the jury, here's the facts on one of them.

The juror, a student, pleaded guilty to stealing about $6000 from her Christchurch employer in March 2007.
Neither the prosecution nor defence was aware of her conviction at the time the jury was empanelled.

Jurors are not obliged to declare past offences, and no law prevents convicted offenders from sitting on juries.

The juror, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted under her maiden name and has since changed her name twice.
She attended celebrations with the Bain defence teams and was seen hugging him after the verdict.

Having convicted theives with several aliases on the jury is bound to f--k things up a bit, what a joke.

minimoke

31-05-2011, 10:31 AM

Having convicted theives with several aliases on the jury is bound to f--k things up a bit, what a joke.
Are you suggesting ALL the jurors in the Bain trial were thieves or rogues of one type or other.

If not, care to explain how not one of the remaining "decent" jurors couldn't come to an alternative view.

As an aside, probably also worth mentioning the crown prosecutors appear not to have sufficient evidence to charge Mr Young (the photocopier salesman - who believes photocopiers salesmen anyway?) with perjury. A complaint has been laid by Mr Young to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

For those that like a conspiracy, perhaps the police are attempting to create smoke to scupper any compensation claim

garman

31-05-2011, 05:47 PM

Are you suggesting ALL the jurors in the Bain trial were thieves or rogues of one type or other.

If not, care to explain how not one of the remaining "decent" jurors couldn't come to an alternative view. Look MM the fact that one of the jurors had a conviction for serious theft and had changed her name several times and sat on a jury in an important case like the Bain trial is ridiculous, I would think the law needs to be tightened up a bit in regard to villains being able to be on a jury, that one person could have been responsible for persuading the others to make the wrong decision which is exactly what happened as Martin Van Beynen who sat through the whole trial said "doubt about what" these jurors are supposed to be our peers not criminals, say what you like Bain won lotto with that jury just like OJ.

As an aside, probably also worth mentioning the crown prosecutors appear not to have sufficient evidence to charge Mr Young (the photocopier salesman - who believes photocopiers salesmen anyway?) with perjury. A complaint has been laid by Mr Young to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

For those that like a conspiracy, perhaps the police are attempting to create smoke to scupper any compensation claim If you were to look at the evidence discovered by Brian Bruce RE the Darrell Young testimony you will understand that there is something wrong with his story and the police certainly agree with Brian Bruce and say the testimony was untruthful, Young may still be charged as the police said the case is not closed, one also has to remember that sometimes the authorities do not decide to prosecute because they decide that it is not in the public's interest to do so, IE "wasted to much money on Bain already" that is why there will be no more court cases for David Bain even though he is still seen on the balance of probabilities to be the only suspect, he has served 13 years and the state would gain little by taking him back to trial again with all the evidence against him. Mr Young taking his case to the Independent Police Conduct Authority may well come back to bite him on the bum.

By the way MM do you think Robin did the murders? if so what links him to the murders, and whats your view on whether compo will be paid out? I am willing to stick my neck out and say Compo will definitely not be paid.

minimoke

01-06-2011, 01:16 PM

jurors are supposed to be our peers not criminals, What better peer for an accused than a criminal!

one also has to remember that sometimes the authorities do not decide to prosecute because they decide that it is not in the public's interest to do so I'm still not sure why it was in the publics interest to retry Bian. He'd already done pretty much most of his sentence and the Privy Council hadn't found him not guilty. Unless of course the public wanted a fair trial due to the discomfort they felt over the reliability of the original convictions.

By the way MM do you think Robin did the murders? I haven't examined the evidence pointing at Robin to form a view.[/quote]

whats your view on whether compo will be paid out? I am willing to stick my neck out and say Compo will definitely not be paid.
I'm not privy to the evidence pointing to Davids innocence so don't yet have a view.

garman

01-06-2011, 06:59 PM

What better peer for an accused than a criminal!Exactly now you are on to it!! Thieves on the jury, untruthful witnesses for the defence, and you can end up with an OJ situation real easy.

I'm still not sure why it was in the public's interest to retry Bian. He'd already done pretty much most of his sentence and the Privy Council hadn't found him not guilty. Unless of course the public wanted a fair trial due to the discomfort they felt over the reliability of the original convictions. It was in the interest to retry David Bain because 5 people were murdered in cold blood and David Bain was the number one suspect "still is in most NZers eyes" and there was adequate evidence to take him to trial. The Privy Council granted David Bain a retrial but made no comment on his guilt or innocence but said he should remain in custody before the trial.

I haven't examined the evidence pointing at Robin to form a view. Hard to examine the non existent.

I'm not privy to the evidence pointing to Davids innocence so don't yet have a view.Hard to examine the non existent.

garman

01-06-2011, 11:37 PM

if you would like to give me some evidence I'll express a view.OK what is your view on the one and only piece of evidence that the defence said links Robin Bain to the murders, The bloody footprints. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/309

minimoke

02-06-2011, 09:18 AM

OK what is your view on the one and only piece of evidence that the defence said links Robin Bain to the murders, The bloody footprints. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/309

Just so I have this right, Counterspin say that a key piece of the Crowns evidence pointing the bone at David Bain is "The footprint evidence can only be considered inconclusive" From that I guess we can take the footprint evidence out in the case against David.

garman

02-06-2011, 05:33 PM

Just so I have this right, Counterspin say that a key piece of the Crowns evidence pointing the bone at David Bain is "The footprint evidence can only be considered inconclusive" From that I guess we can take the footprint evidence out in the case against David.Counterspin are maybe being overly fair to David with this evidence at the moment but that is could be changed, the reason Counterspin may move the footprint evidence into the rather large volume of evidence against David, is because CS is an independent "critical comment welcome of course" site designed to look at all the evidence of the case and is a work in progress.

In a nutshell Mr. Hentschel from the ESR was the only forensic expert to measure the luminal footprints in the Bain house. His testimony was that he measured the prints, with the biggest print 280mm long. Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe "area" to the heel "area", and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was NOT the"complete toe and heal" he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance, and his opinion was that David made the print of 280mm.

Many years later a forensic expert for the defence and one for the prosecution did experiments "that in no way mimicked the way the prints were made in the first instance" with feet 300mm long to try and replicate the prints done by the killer many years before, both defence and prosecution experiments were done using the same method IE they placed the socked foot in a dish of animal blood and then got the person to walk on carpet, applied luminal and then measured the luminal prints, the defence results were around 300mm in length luminal prints average, the prosecution around 288mm average.

The only person eligible to make comment about whether the luminal detected prints were made by a foot larger or smaller than the luminal prints is Peter Hentschel the reason for this is he is the only person who actually saw and measured those prints and his opinion based on his observations was that the prints were made by a foot larger than the luminol prints, David not Robin had the larger prints. It is absolutely impossible to replicate those luminol prints because it is impossible to know for sure just how much blood was on the socks, so of course it is impossible to know just how much blood to put on new socks to carry out an experiment, so we are stuck with one experts opinion no other opinion can ever be taken seriously, “the evidence can not be replicated”

So there you have it Peter Hentschels testimony about the evidence is the only eligible testimony, both defence and prosecution experiments were worthless and no doubt confused the jury, the only real problem for Peter Hentschels evidence and the reason it may not be added to the large pile already implicating David is the unfortunate fact that the photographs taken by Hentshel of the luminol prints did not develop properly, so he did not have those to back up his eye witness account. Which was just another stroke of luck for David Bain.

minimoke

02-06-2011, 07:49 PM

Counterspin are maybe being overly fair to David
What more do I need to say!

garman

18-02-2012, 08:25 PM

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1202/S00166/robin-bain-speaking-ill-of-the-dead.htm

craic

18-02-2012, 10:55 PM

fish

19-02-2012, 10:39 PM

nobody seems concerned with the factual evidence of the paramedic who attended to David Bain. He appeared to be in a highly distrtessed state, foetal position, incoherent and all the rest. In the circumstances, the paramedic carried out checks of pulse, heartrate etc. to be certain that he could be moved without medical intervention. He was surprised to find that pulse, heart rate etc. were perfectly normal. Bain was not distressed and was clearly acting. Somewhere in this sorry saga, someone is going to come out of the woodwork and blow a very loud whistle - sooner or later.

Nobody is concerned as it has no meaning to anyone but those who want it to mean something .

By the way was the heart rate different to the pulse rate ? What should it have been-what was it ? What was davids normal resting heart rate as a fit 23 year old able to do amazingly fast paper rounds and multiple murders- and still have a "normal " heart rate .
Would you expect the heart rate of someone telling lies to be faster than someone telling the truth ?
This is similar quality evidence that the police presented to that of Robin having 400mls in his bladder so he couldnt be the killer but he could walk into the house to say his prayers .

The simple fact is that the police stuffed up the evidence ,destroyed evidence , and fitted David to the crime . There is no way we can be absolutely sure whether it was David or Robin who did it .
A jury presented with the police evidence and the defence evidence have found david not guilty

craic

20-02-2012, 11:19 AM

I still believe that someone will come out of the woodwork - sooner or later. As to the police "fitted" david to the crime, I disagree, they were just a bit careless or rushed and paid a penalty. I doubt that it will ever happen again.

POSSUM THE CAT

20-02-2012, 01:59 PM

craic Just like Arthur Alan Thomas & Stephen Dougherty (my apologies if I have not got the names quiet right)

garman

21-02-2012, 12:46 AM

Nobody is concerned as it has no meaning to anyone but those who want it to mean something .Fish that also applies to everything else on the face of the planet.
The simple fact is that the police stuffed up the evidence ,destroyed evidence , and fitted David to the crime . There is no way we can be absolutely sure whether it was David or Robin who did it .
A jury presented with the police evidence and the defence evidence have found david not guilty Look at it this way fish if Robin Bain was the killer there would have been 4 completely separate murder scenes can you name one piece of evidence that connects him to those 4 scenes. On the other hand if David was the killer there would have been 5 crime scenes the evidence that links him to those scenes are "have you got a spare half an hour" 1. David's fingerprints in blood
on the murder weapon.
2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.
3. Brothers blood on David's
T shirt and pants clothes he was wearing when police entered the house.
4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulder and cuff
no explanation from David.
5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.
6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.
7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning an gurgling.
8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized a family meeting for the weekend.
9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .
11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.
12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.
13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.
14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.
15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.
16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.
17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.
18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.
19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest.
21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.

David Bain is NZs version of OJ Simpson anybody who looks at the evidence knows OJ killed his wife and anyone who looks at the evidence in the Bain case knows Robin Bain was not involved. Juries do make mistakes and for sure they made a monumental cock up with the Bain case.

fish

21-02-2012, 05:59 PM

Fish that also applies to everything else on the face of the planet.Look at it this way fish if Robin Bain was the killer there would have been 4 completely separate murder scenes can you name one piece of evidence that connects him to those 4 scenes. On the other hand if David was the killer there would have been 5 crime scenes the evidence that links him to those scenes are "have you got a spare half an hour" 1. David's fingerprints in blood
on the murder weapon.
2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.
3. Brothers blood on David's
T shirt and pants clothes he was wearing when police entered the house.
4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulder and cuff
no explanation from David.
5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.
6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.
7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning an gurgling.
8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized a family meeting for the weekend.
9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .
11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.
12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.
13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.
14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.
15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.
16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.
17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.
18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.
19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest.
21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.

David Bain is NZs version of OJ Simpson anybody who looks at the evidence knows OJ killed his wife and anyone who looks at the evidence in the Bain case knows Robin Bain was not involved. Juries do make mistakes and for sure they made a monumental cock up with the Bain case.

Garmin-blaming the jury for an outcome you disagree with is gross ignorance of the reality. The privy council reviewed all the police evidence,1st trial and appeals and determined that david had suffered a miscarriage of justice . All the police evidence including that above was taken apart at the trial .
Evidence was misrepresented and anything that might have implicated robin was ommitted at the first trial . The first judge misled the jury. The police lost a libel prosecution of karam . Looking at footage of the police in charge-armstrong and doyle reminded me of laurel and hardy . They certainly appeared as incompetent in the witness stand .

However I have no intent of going over the trial again-it is history and we should learn from it and hopefully not make the same mistakes again . If you want to abolish juries-i am all in favour-i believe we need professional jurors so that all relevant facts can be looked into.