Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Bain's guilt. once again
339 views
Skip to first unread message
John
Jan 23, 2015, 4:31:59 AM1/23/15
to
I heard on the radio that Karam thinks that David Bain
could possibly receive as much as $8 million in
compensation. This must not happen so once again:-
The evidence of David Bain's guilt is so compelling the case is open and
shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not
question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the
various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.
In no particular order:
- Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the
hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres
from David's jersey were under Stephen's fingernails.
- It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his
children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process,
without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also
Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able to overcome the
strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and
Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe
he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself
around 7pm.
- David's bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his
bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody
clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin's bloody
prints were nowhere.
- David's gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer's
prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris of the fight in
Stephen's room. Why would Robin use David's gloves when he had many of his
own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?
- Bloody footprints made by socks found in the washing machine were found
throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or
David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him or his
clothes or socks (other than his fatal head wound), nor was the room-to-room
pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin would have entered the house
from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer
having come from inside the house.
- While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his
clothes, David's clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that
would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also
had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his underpants, which
had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and
which he did not notice.
- Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him
having just come into the house from the carvan to pray as he normally did
at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an
awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one's head
with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and
more definite ways to go it, eg put the barrel into one's mouth aimed at the
roof of the mouth. Robin's fatal would is consistent with being shot by
David standing over him and not with suicide.
- David's prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he
would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of the blood splattered
all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun).
Karam claims David's prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even
if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings
because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.
- Robin's prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used
it to kill himself.
Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the
above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask
why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who
deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the
murders.
The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the
subsequent "evidence" put forward by Karam about Robin's mental state, his
alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have altered the jury's
verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the
evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords expressely made no findings of
guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.
This decision has major significant for Peter Ellis because in the Civic
case, the trial judge made more than 200 orders preventing the defence
putting to the jury solid evidence that cast convincing doubt on the Crown
case. The defence was not able to mount a defence at all because the judge
ruled all its evidence as irrelevant. Under the Privy Council's ruling,
Ellis would be entitled to a new trial in which all the evidence was put
before a jury, not just the l0pc of highly sanitised material the Crown
used.
In the Bain case, the only "evidence" the trial judge stopped the jury
hearing was that of Dean Cottle who wanted to recount a conversation with
Laniet about incest, but the judge ruled him unreliable. All the other Karam
"evidence" cited by the Privy Council was put forward in later years and was
heard, but rejected, by the Court of Appeal in 2005.
However, it is of some interest that the judge in the Bain case, Justice
Williamson, was the very same judge in the Ellis case.
could possibly receive as much as $8 million in
compensation. This must not happen so once again:-
The evidence of David Bain's guilt is so compelling the case is open and
shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not
question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the
various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.
In no particular order:
- Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the
hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres
from David's jersey were under Stephen's fingernails.
- It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his
children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process,
without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also
Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able to overcome the
strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and
Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe
he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself
around 7pm.
- David's bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his
bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody
clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin's bloody
prints were nowhere.
- David's gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer's
prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris of the fight in
Stephen's room. Why would Robin use David's gloves when he had many of his
own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?
- Bloody footprints made by socks found in the washing machine were found
throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or
David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him or his
clothes or socks (other than his fatal head wound), nor was the room-to-room
pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin would have entered the house
from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer
having come from inside the house.
- While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his
clothes, David's clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that
would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also
had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his underpants, which
had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and
which he did not notice.
- Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him
having just come into the house from the carvan to pray as he normally did
at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an
awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one's head
with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and
more definite ways to go it, eg put the barrel into one's mouth aimed at the
roof of the mouth. Robin's fatal would is consistent with being shot by
David standing over him and not with suicide.
- David's prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he
would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of the blood splattered
all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun).
Karam claims David's prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even
if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings
because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.
- Robin's prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used
it to kill himself.
Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the
above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask
why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who
deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the
murders.
The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the
subsequent "evidence" put forward by Karam about Robin's mental state, his
alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have altered the jury's
verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the
evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords expressely made no findings of
guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.
This decision has major significant for Peter Ellis because in the Civic
case, the trial judge made more than 200 orders preventing the defence
putting to the jury solid evidence that cast convincing doubt on the Crown
case. The defence was not able to mount a defence at all because the judge
ruled all its evidence as irrelevant. Under the Privy Council's ruling,
Ellis would be entitled to a new trial in which all the evidence was put
before a jury, not just the l0pc of highly sanitised material the Crown
used.
In the Bain case, the only "evidence" the trial judge stopped the jury
hearing was that of Dean Cottle who wanted to recount a conversation with
Laniet about incest, but the judge ruled him unreliable. All the other Karam
"evidence" cited by the Privy Council was put forward in later years and was
heard, but rejected, by the Court of Appeal in 2005.
However, it is of some interest that the judge in the Bain case, Justice
Williamson, was the very same judge in the Ellis case.
Rich80105
Jan 23, 2015, 4:48:14 AM1/23/15
to
You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial. While I
understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
views - that is not justice.
So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
circumstances.
Your comments on the Ellis case are interesting - I have felt that he
did not receive justice - and perhaps npow that the principle has been
set of the jury being entitled to see all relevant evidence, it would
be timely for his case to be revisited by the justice system. The
problem is that there was a systemic error in that system, and various
lawyers would prefer to see an injustice than admit they were wrong.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:31:55 +1300, "John" <fwi...@xtra.com.nz>
wrote:
understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
views - that is not justice.
So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
circumstances.
Your comments on the Ellis case are interesting - I have felt that he
did not receive justice - and perhaps npow that the principle has been
set of the jury being entitled to see all relevant evidence, it would
be timely for his case to be revisited by the justice system. The
problem is that there was a systemic error in that system, and various
lawyers would prefer to see an injustice than admit they were wrong.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:31:55 +1300, "John" <fwi...@xtra.com.nz>
wrote:
JohnO
Jan 23, 2015, 9:41:52 PM1/23/15
to
On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:48:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
Don't be stupid. The trial is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now in order to award a settlement, the MoJ must satisfy herself that Bain is innocent. John's post is entirely germane.
> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
How typical of Dickbot to want to suppress such discussion.
> While I understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
> should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
> happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
> therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
> determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
> deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
> views - that is not justice.
>
> So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
> what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
> circumstances.
geopelia
Jan 24, 2015, 4:08:54 PM1/24/15
to
Not being an eye witness to this particular crime, I make no comment on it.
I'm making general remarks.
What is of concern in these cases is surely that if a person is wrongly
convicted, the real killer may still be around and may kill again.
And by the time the innocent person is released, the crime may be years old
and any evidence may not still be available.
There is still the problem of whether evidence could have been planted, in
some cases. But how can that be proved?
If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence, there
seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
victor
Jan 24, 2015, 5:31:31 PM1/24/15
to
On 25/01/2015 10:08 a.m., geopelia wrote:
>
> Not being an eye witness to this particular crime, I make no comment on
> it. I'm making general remarks.
>
> What is of concern in these cases is surely that if a person is wrongly
> convicted,
Its one case only, all cases are individual
>
> Not being an eye witness to this particular crime, I make no comment on
> it. I'm making general remarks.
>
> What is of concern in these cases is surely that if a person is wrongly
> convicted,
The standard for criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt.
It is possible to kill someone and not be convicted if the evidence is
not beyond reasonable doubt.
the real killer may still be around and may kill again.
> And by the time the innocent person is released, the crime may be years
> old and any evidence may not still be available.
> There is still the problem of whether evidence could have been planted,
> in some cases. But how can that be proved?
>
> If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence,
> there seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
With new evidence, or evidence that the trial did not follow due process.
> If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence,
> there seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
george152
Jan 24, 2015, 5:34:35 PM1/24/15
to
John
Jan 24, 2015, 7:15:12 PM1/24/15
to
"geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ma11k5$lha$1...@dont-email.me...
claim for compensation of the evidence against him, consider the facts
and decide for themselves. Not Guilty does not mean Proven Innocent.
As far as I am aware he has never answered questions about the
evidence pointing to his guilt.
You have read the evidence. What do you think? No dodging :)
geopelia
Jan 24, 2015, 8:32:37 PM1/24/15
to
"John" wrote in message news:ma1cia$mao$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I didn't see the crime committed. I just don't know.
Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
Dave Doe
Jan 24, 2015, 9:47:02 PM1/24/15
to
In article <ma1h2k$d2v$1...@dont-email.me>, geop...@nowhere.com, geopelia
says...
Based on that, most murderers would not be found guilty. Have you not
seen the *evidence*?
> Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
It's pretty cut n' dried then. He was found guilty in the first trial.
The Privvy Council made a poor decision to re-trial.
> But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
And after the Joe Karan debacle clouding our justice system, we had a
farcical second trial with some very dodgy jurors.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/not-one-cent-amy-not-one-cent/
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/hesititate-call-joe-karam-liar/
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
(a lot of good evidence)
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-robin
(no good evidence whatsoever)
Considering the evidence, it is blindingly obvious that David Bain is
the murderer. Why compensate him? And why is this Joe Karam character
involved? Can he not talk for himself?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-
Bain-jurys-verdict
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-
that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-
that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/if-robin-bain-shot-his-family-
what-would-he-have-had-to-do
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/robin-bain-did-not-commit-murder-or-
suicide
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/errors-and-fawlty-logic
And if Robin did it, it would have to be some quite absurd...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-confession-of-robin-bain
--
Duncan.
says...
seen the *evidence*?
> Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
The Privvy Council made a poor decision to re-trial.
> But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
farcical second trial with some very dodgy jurors.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/not-one-cent-amy-not-one-cent/
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/01/hesititate-call-joe-karam-liar/
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
(a lot of good evidence)
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-robin
(no good evidence whatsoever)
Considering the evidence, it is blindingly obvious that David Bain is
the murderer. Why compensate him? And why is this Joe Karam character
involved? Can he not talk for himself?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-
Bain-jurys-verdict
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-
that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-
that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/if-robin-bain-shot-his-family-
what-would-he-have-had-to-do
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/robin-bain-did-not-commit-murder-or-
suicide
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/errors-and-fawlty-logic
And if Robin did it, it would have to be some quite absurd...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-confession-of-robin-bain
--
Duncan.
Rich80105
Jan 24, 2015, 9:55:21 PM1/24/15
to
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:15:00 +1300, "John" <fwi...@xtra.com.nz>
wrote:
I genuinely think that it is not my place, or yours, or the Minister
of Justice's, to make a judgement based on our thoughts, just as it is
not the judge's in a jury trial. If a person has not been found guilty
in a court of law, or (as in this case) a guilty verdict has been
overturned on appeal and a new trial is not happening), then the
person is deemed tobe innocent. Since Bain is in that situation, and
he was imprisoned for a long time, in my view compensation should be
paid. How much is again not for me to say, and I also do not believe
that compensation should be paid for all not guilty verdicts, unless
it can be shown that the prosecution should never have been brought
(eg if there has been misconduct by the police such as planting
evidence).
I do believe that there are problems with our justice system, as has
in my view been shown by the AA Thomas, Peter Ellis and now the Bain
case. They are not all the same, but it appears that the system is
insufficintly prepared to find fault with decisions once made except
in a very narrow range of circumstances - the balance between not
leaving every case alive for continuous appeals and not ever allowing
appeals does not seems to be correct. That is a problem with the
system - it cannot in my view be resolved by "trial by media"-
including "trial by nz.general." Armchair generals and lynch mobs
have been known to be wrong . . .
wrote:
of Justice's, to make a judgement based on our thoughts, just as it is
not the judge's in a jury trial. If a person has not been found guilty
in a court of law, or (as in this case) a guilty verdict has been
overturned on appeal and a new trial is not happening), then the
person is deemed tobe innocent. Since Bain is in that situation, and
he was imprisoned for a long time, in my view compensation should be
paid. How much is again not for me to say, and I also do not believe
that compensation should be paid for all not guilty verdicts, unless
it can be shown that the prosecution should never have been brought
(eg if there has been misconduct by the police such as planting
evidence).
I do believe that there are problems with our justice system, as has
in my view been shown by the AA Thomas, Peter Ellis and now the Bain
case. They are not all the same, but it appears that the system is
insufficintly prepared to find fault with decisions once made except
in a very narrow range of circumstances - the balance between not
leaving every case alive for continuous appeals and not ever allowing
appeals does not seems to be correct. That is a problem with the
system - it cannot in my view be resolved by "trial by media"-
including "trial by nz.general." Armchair generals and lynch mobs
have been known to be wrong . . .
Rich80105
Jan 24, 2015, 10:05:40 PM1/24/15
to
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:47:01 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
>In article <ma1h2k$d2v$1...@dont-email.me>, geop...@nowhere.com, geopelia
>says...
>>
>> "John" wrote in message news:ma1cia$mao$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>
>> "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:ma11k5$lha$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > Not being an eye witness to this particular crime, I make no comment on
>> > it. I'm making general remarks.
>> >
>> > What is of concern in these cases is surely that if a person is wrongly
>> > convicted, the real killer may still be around and may kill again.
>> > And by the time the innocent person is released, the crime may be years
>> > old and any evidence may not still be available.
>> > There is still the problem of whether evidence could have been planted, in
>> > some cases. But how can that be proved?
>> >
>> > If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence, there
>> > seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
>>
>> The purpose of my post was to ramind anyone interested in his
>> claim for compensation of the evidence against him, consider the facts
>> and decide for themselves. Not Guilty does not mean Proven Innocent.
>> As far as I am aware he has never answered questions about the
>> evidence pointing to his guilt.
>> You have read the evidence. What do you think? No dodging :)
No-one has seen all the evidence except perhaps the prosecution and
>In article <ma1h2k$d2v$1...@dont-email.me>, geop...@nowhere.com, geopelia
>says...
>>
>> "John" wrote in message news:ma1cia$mao$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>
>> "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:ma11k5$lha$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > Not being an eye witness to this particular crime, I make no comment on
>> > it. I'm making general remarks.
>> >
>> > What is of concern in these cases is surely that if a person is wrongly
>> > convicted, the real killer may still be around and may kill again.
>> > And by the time the innocent person is released, the crime may be years
>> > old and any evidence may not still be available.
>> > There is still the problem of whether evidence could have been planted, in
>> > some cases. But how can that be proved?
>> >
>> > If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence, there
>> > seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
>>
>> The purpose of my post was to ramind anyone interested in his
>> claim for compensation of the evidence against him, consider the facts
>> and decide for themselves. Not Guilty does not mean Proven Innocent.
>> As far as I am aware he has never answered questions about the
>> evidence pointing to his guilt.
>> You have read the evidence. What do you think? No dodging :)
defence lawyers; the judge and jury and anyone in court for the whole
trial will have heard the evience presented. No-one else has heard it
all - why would you expect their thoughts to have determinative value?
>>
>> ...............
>>
>> I didn't see the crime committed. I just don't know.
>
>Based on that, most murderers would not be found guilty. Have you not
>seen the *evidence*?
>> Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
>
>It's pretty cut n' dried then. He was found guilty in the first trial.
>The Privvy Council made a poor decision to re-trial.
better than the alternative - or that both were bad or both good
(based on the evidence presented to each).
>
>> But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
strong feelings both ways. What is blindignly obvious to one person
may be hopelessly obscue and/or unlikely to another - especially when
those people have not heard all tehevidence, and rely on possibly
biassed or slanted media reports in some cases from clearly partial
commentators.
As some have said, it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one
innocent person be found guilty. Perhaps that is the difference
between compassionate justice and a lynch mob.
Fred
Jan 24, 2015, 11:55:59 PM1/24/15
to
On 24/01/2015 3:41 p.m., JohnO wrote:
> On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:48:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
>
> Don't be stupid. The trial is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now in order to award a settlement, the MoJ must satisfy herself that Bain is innocent. John's post is entirely germane.
>
> How typical of Dickbot to want to suppress such discussion.
>
>> While I understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
>> should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
>> happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
>> therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
>
> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
>
>> determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
>> deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
>> views - that is not justice.
>>
>> So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
>> what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
>> circumstances.
>
> No. He should only get compensation if proven innocent - like Dougherty was.
>
Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all that
> On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:48:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
>> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
>
> Don't be stupid. The trial is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now in order to award a settlement, the MoJ must satisfy herself that Bain is innocent. John's post is entirely germane.
>
> How typical of Dickbot to want to suppress such discussion.
>
>> While I understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
>> should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
>> happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
>> therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
>
> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
>
>> determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
>> deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
>> views - that is not justice.
>>
>> So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
>> what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
>> circumstances.
>
> No. He should only get compensation if proven innocent - like Dougherty was.
>
need be said.
geopelia
Jan 25, 2015, 2:21:09 AM1/25/15
to
"Rich80105" wrote in message
news:msm8cah8uqedc2nuj...@4ax.com...
I've seen stuff in the paper. But obviously the papers can print what they
like and slant it any way they like, too.
..................
Wouldn't that depend on what the crime is? In these days of terrorist
bombers, I wonder.
Dave Doe
Jan 25, 2015, 2:56:40 AM1/25/15
to
In article <msm8cah8uqedc2nuj...@4ax.com>, rich80105
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
Who's responsible for that?
Put it another way, do you think Joe Karam's 'David Bain is innocent'
campaign has been impartial and fair? Do you think it has had no effect
on the people in New Zealand? Could a fair and impartial jury have ever
been found in New Zealand?
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/pca-report
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/resource/the-police-and-pca-
investigation-into-the-arrest-and-prosecution-of-david-bain
> may be hopelessly obscue and/or unlikely to another - especially when
> those people have not heard all tehevidence, and rely on possibly
> biassed or slanted media reports in some cases from clearly partial
> commentators.
>
> As some have said, it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one
> innocent person be found guilty. Perhaps that is the difference
> between compassionate justice and a lynch mob.
In this case though, there is little doubt (and there is certainly no
lynch mob).
--
Duncan.
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
Put it another way, do you think Joe Karam's 'David Bain is innocent'
campaign has been impartial and fair? Do you think it has had no effect
on the people in New Zealand? Could a fair and impartial jury have ever
been found in New Zealand?
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/pca-report
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/resource/the-police-and-pca-
investigation-into-the-arrest-and-prosecution-of-david-bain
> may be hopelessly obscue and/or unlikely to another - especially when
> those people have not heard all tehevidence, and rely on possibly
> biassed or slanted media reports in some cases from clearly partial
> commentators.
>
> As some have said, it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one
> innocent person be found guilty. Perhaps that is the difference
> between compassionate justice and a lynch mob.
lynch mob).
--
Duncan.
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 4:37:04 AM1/25/15
to
compensation? If there is no law it sounds suspiciously like
convenience for politicians with other priorities fo spending rather
than a considered response seeking justice.
Would you trust a Minister of the Crown (no matter what party) to make
such a judicial decision? I think that your views indicate that the
justice system does need review - and as some of the famous cases
show, there are gaps that are often not handled well.
george152
Jan 25, 2015, 2:16:50 PM1/25/15
to
On 25/01/2015 2:32 p.m., geopelia wrote:
> I didn't see the crime committed. I just don't know.
> Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
>
> But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
Well they have this copout where they can claim that some-one wasn't
> I didn't see the crime committed. I just don't know.
> Better brains than mine have considered the evidence either way.
>
> But if he has finally been found not guilty shouldn't we accept that?
found innocent.
Courts can find charges not proven.
Or they can overturn a conviction.
But they can only find guilty or not guilty.
And that is why we need the British Law Lords to keep our lawyers honest
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 4:51:02 PM1/25/15
to
On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>
> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all that
> need be said.
>
I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters like
>
> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all that
> need be said.
>
that has to be guilty.
Cheers,
Cliff
Katipo
Jan 25, 2015, 4:57:30 PM1/25/15
to
>If a person is found Not Guilty by a jury, against all the evidence, there
>seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
The prosecution/police have the same rights of appeal as the defendant.
>seems to be no way to appeal the verdict. (Is there?).
However, not guilty verdicts are normally not appealed out of deference to
the double jeopardy rule.
geopelia
Jan 25, 2015, 5:31:41 PM1/25/15
to
"george152" wrote in message
news:X9GdnYH1_oS83FjJ...@giganews.com...
Isn't it using full knowledge of the law and how anything ambiguous can be
interpreted, rather than honesty?
Perhaps our law is not clear enough and Parliament should look at it.
But if we are not going to use the Privy Council shouldn't there be
something similar here?
And there is still the problem of alleged planted evidence in some cases.
(Not this one).
But how can that be proved either way? Is it safe to rely on one small piece
of evidence?
geopelia
Jan 25, 2015, 5:39:13 PM1/25/15
to
"Katipo" wrote in message news:ma3os4$i1i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Thank you.
But in the case I was thinking of, the alleged offender was found guilty of
other crimes and jailed.
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 6:05:29 PM1/25/15
to
justice system does not always deliver justice - but the verdict is
now clear; he is "Not Guilty", and a decision has apaprently been
made (not by those unreliable courts) not to order a new trial. The
issue is now one that many true-blue New Zealanders will see as
nothing to do with justice and everything to do with money; doubtless
such persons (who may include the Minister of Justice) may pick up on
your argument and determine that anyone who wears sweaters like that
does not deserve compensation.
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 6:14:54 PM1/25/15
to
On 26/01/15 12:05, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>> that need be said.
>>>
>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>> like that has to be guilty.
>
> ... doubtless such persons (who may include the Minister of Justice)
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>> that need be said.
>>>
>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>> like that has to be guilty.
>
> may pick up on your argument and determine that anyone who wears
> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>
I'm glad you agree with me.
> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>
Cheers,
Cliff
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 6:40:06 PM1/25/15
to
tedious, well, thinking. . .
Tony
Jan 25, 2015, 6:42:43 PM1/25/15
to
Our, admitedly imperfect, justice system convicted him and then after much work
the conviction was declared to be unsafe (jf I remember correctly).
Did he do it? is one question but is he guilty? is a different question. The
highest court that we have/had access to say he is not guilty. I can live with
that. We do not have the "Not Proven" option that Scotland has. Double Jeopardy
is and must be a real concern, which is why it is and must be difficult to try
someone after they are found not guilty.
The bit I find so difficult to get my head around is how so many people who
have not had access to all of the evidence and were not in the court to absorb
the argument details or the important bits that were not reported can be so
positive of his guilt or otherwise. Human nature I suspect but not a pretty
side of it.
Compensation? Yes I think so, after all he is now deemed to have been convicted
in a manner that was unsafe. How much? That is Wisdom of Solomon territory I
think.
Tony
Liberty
Jan 25, 2015, 6:51:48 PM1/25/15
to
Cliff was taking the piss. We I assume he was .
Get a life.
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 7:07:57 PM1/25/15
to
To believe otherwise is to believe that Robin Bain shot himself dead and then removed his own fingerprints from the rifle.
And that's just the start...
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 7:10:21 PM1/25/15
to
On Sunday, 25 January 2015 22:37:04 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:55:50 +1300, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 24/01/2015 3:41 p.m., JohnO wrote:
> >> On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:48:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> >>> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
> >>
> >> Don't be stupid. The trial is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now in order to award a settlement, the MoJ must satisfy herself that Bain is innocent. John's post is entirely germane.
> >>
> >> How typical of Dickbot to want to suppress such discussion.
> >>
> >>> While I understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
> >>> should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
> >>> happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
> >>> therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
> >>
> >> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
> >>
> >>> determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
> >>> deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
> >>> views - that is not justice.
> >>>
> >>> So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
> >>> what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
> >>> circumstances.
> >>
> >> No. He should only get compensation if proven innocent - like Dougherty was.
> >>
> >
> >Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all that
> >need be said.
>
> Can you quote the law that says that must be the basis of
It is not a law. It is a long accepted convention. The actual determination is purely in the hands of the Justice Minister.
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:55:50 +1300, Fred <dry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 24/01/2015 3:41 p.m., JohnO wrote:
> >> On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:48:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> >>> You are trying to re-litigate the case - without a trial.
> >>
> >> Don't be stupid. The trial is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now in order to award a settlement, the MoJ must satisfy herself that Bain is innocent. John's post is entirely germane.
> >>
> >> How typical of Dickbot to want to suppress such discussion.
> >>
> >>> While I understand that, the reality is that the system has determined that he
> >>> should not have been found guilty on the basis of what actually
> >>> happened in the trial, and decisions about retrial. It is reasonable
> >>> therefore to treat him as "assumed innocent" - to have politicians
> >>
> >> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
> >>
> >>> determining guilt or innocence for the purposes of compensation is to
> >>> deny the reality of the justice system and replace it by personal
> >>> views - that is not justice.
> >>>
> >>> So I believe he should get compensation - how much it is depends on
> >>> what standard basis has been applied in other cases and any special
> >>> circumstances.
> >>
> >> No. He should only get compensation if proven innocent - like Dougherty was.
> >>
> >
> >Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all that
> >need be said.
>
> Can you quote the law that says that must be the basis of
There's no law that says any compensation must be paid either.
> compensation? If there is no law it sounds suspiciously like
> convenience for politicians with other priorities fo spending rather
> than a considered response seeking justice.
>
> Would you trust a Minister of the Crown (no matter what party) to make
> such a judicial decision? I think that your views indicate that the
> justice system does need review - and as some of the famous cases
> show, there are gaps that are often not handled well.
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 7:11:46 PM1/25/15
to
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 7:18:50 PM1/25/15
to
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:51:43 +1300, Liberty <libe...@live.com>
And such an apt and erudite taking of the piss it was, neatly pointing
out a number of fallacies. Now followed by an excellent summary by
Tony - the only question now is whether , in the face of a possible
record of a decade of defecits, the current Minister can rise above
such mundane concerns to show appropriate compassion - after all Ļts
the putting right that counts."
out a number of fallacies. Now followed by an excellent summary by
Tony - the only question now is whether , in the face of a possible
record of a decade of defecits, the current Minister can rise above
such mundane concerns to show appropriate compassion - after all Ļts
the putting right that counts."
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 7:26:30 PM1/25/15
to
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:07:56 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The start is with your assumption that "Further, it is well understood
policy, and it is debateable who should determine guilt or innocence
if such a presumption is used, or amounts o compensation when given.
In my view the delays in teh Bain case point to the need for reform.
While Bain's loss of liberty was all in accordance with procedures at
the time, the highest court to which this was referred, again in our
system of justice, has determined that the conviction was unsae - and
it has been determined (with useful ambiguity as to where that
decision was made) not to have another trial. Under thos circumstances
I guess it depends on how much you value liberty. A month in remand
followed by a not guilty verdict will not normally give rise to
compensation, but years? Our current government claimes to value
liberty and personal freedom - their decision (now shamefully delayed)
wil giove an indiction of just how much or little that really means.
wrote:
by most that the bar for compensation is set at "proven innocent on
the bounds of probability" " I know of no law that mandates such a
policy, and it is debateable who should determine guilt or innocence
if such a presumption is used, or amounts o compensation when given.
In my view the delays in teh Bain case point to the need for reform.
While Bain's loss of liberty was all in accordance with procedures at
the time, the highest court to which this was referred, again in our
system of justice, has determined that the conviction was unsae - and
it has been determined (with useful ambiguity as to where that
decision was made) not to have another trial. Under thos circumstances
I guess it depends on how much you value liberty. A month in remand
followed by a not guilty verdict will not normally give rise to
compensation, but years? Our current government claimes to value
liberty and personal freedom - their decision (now shamefully delayed)
wil giove an indiction of just how much or little that really means.
Liberty
Jan 25, 2015, 8:06:56 PM1/25/15
to
The economics of the country have piss all to do with Cliffs witty/cynical
post. Nor has Tony's post. Who also happened to be wrong. But that is irrelevant
in regards to the context of Cliff post.
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 8:21:41 PM1/25/15
to
On 26/01/15 12:40, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:14:17 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/15 12:05, Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>>>> that need be said.
>>>>>
>>>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>>>> like that has to be guilty.
>>>
>>> ... doubtless such persons (who may include the Minister of Justice)
>>> may pick up on your argument and determine that anyone who wears
>>> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>>>
>> I'm glad you agree with me.
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:14:17 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/15 12:05, Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>>>> that need be said.
>>>>>
>>>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>>>> like that has to be guilty.
>>>
>>> ... doubtless such persons (who may include the Minister of Justice)
>>> may pick up on your argument and determine that anyone who wears
>>> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>>>
>> I'm glad you agree with me.
>
> Of course! The joys of "right -thinking" - it avoids the need for
> tedious, well, thinking. . .
>
Well, are you interested in my reasoning? Someone who wears such
> tedious, well, thinking. . .
>
sweaters has neither regards for public opinion or any sense of right or
wrong (or fashion). Such a person is obviously psychopathic and capable
of murder. The only other option is his father who, although he appears
repressed does not wear such gaudy outfits in public and have some
remnants of social conscience. Therefore I conclude that David is guilty.
Cheers,
Cliff
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 8:23:38 PM1/25/15
to
>
You may never know!..... 8-)
Cliff
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 8:26:32 PM1/25/15
to
On 26/01/15 13:07, JohnO wrote:
>
> Be that as it may, the question at hand is compensation. It is well
> understood by most that being found not guilty does not mean found
> innocent. Further, it is well understood by most that the bar for
> compensation is set at "proven innocent on the bounds of
> probability". It is very clear to me that this has not been reached.
>
Was he found "Not guilty"? I thought that the conviction was deemed
>
> Be that as it may, the question at hand is compensation. It is well
> understood by most that being found not guilty does not mean found
> innocent. Further, it is well understood by most that the bar for
> compensation is set at "proven innocent on the bounds of
> probability". It is very clear to me that this has not been reached.
>
unsafe and set aside. That's even further from being found innocent.
I don't see that we have to spend money on compensation. Save that for
real clear cut cases of wrongful conviction.
Cheers,
Cliff
Tony
Jan 25, 2015, 8:42:02 PM1/25/15
to
>Who also happened to be wrong.
Dave Doe
Jan 25, 2015, 9:17:41 PM1/25/15
to
In article <i02bcatq7m4uebptb...@4ax.com>, rich80105
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
>
<snip> Have you never heard of legal precedent? Or just precedent.
There is *nothing* wrong with the compensation system. If you think
there is, state what you'd prefer. The DB case was well handled in that
the Govt (party doesn't matter) followed good and safe procedure. Shame
about Binnie, but that was also, correctly handled.
But anyway, ask I've asked... what system would you proprose?
--
Duncan.
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
>
There is *nothing* wrong with the compensation system. If you think
there is, state what you'd prefer. The DB case was well handled in that
the Govt (party doesn't matter) followed good and safe procedure. Shame
about Binnie, but that was also, correctly handled.
But anyway, ask I've asked... what system would you proprose?
--
Duncan.
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 9:27:42 PM1/25/15
to
> policy, and it is debateable who should determine guilt or innocence
> if such a presumption is used, or amounts o compensation when given.
> In my view the delays in teh Bain case point to the need for reform.
>
> While Bain's loss of liberty was all in accordance with procedures at
> the time, the highest court to which this was referred, again in our
> system of justice, has determined that the conviction was unsae - and
> it has been determined (with useful ambiguity as to where that
> decision was made) not to have another trial. Under thos circumstances
> I guess it depends on how much you value liberty. A month in remand
> followed by a not guilty verdict will not normally give rise to
> compensation, but years? Our current government claimes to value
> liberty and personal freedom - their decision (now shamefully delayed)
> wil giove an indiction of just how much or little that really means.
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 9:29:26 PM1/25/15
to
On Monday, 26 January 2015 14:26:32 UTC+13, Enkidu wrote:
> On 26/01/15 13:07, JohnO wrote:
> >
> > Be that as it may, the question at hand is compensation. It is well
> > understood by most that being found not guilty does not mean found
> > innocent. Further, it is well understood by most that the bar for
> > compensation is set at "proven innocent on the bounds of
> > probability". It is very clear to me that this has not been reached.
> >
> Was he found "Not guilty"? I thought that the conviction was deemed
> unsafe and set aside.
It was, and then he was retried and found not guilty (i.e. not proven innocent, not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
> On 26/01/15 13:07, JohnO wrote:
> >
> > Be that as it may, the question at hand is compensation. It is well
> > understood by most that being found not guilty does not mean found
> > innocent. Further, it is well understood by most that the bar for
> > compensation is set at "proven innocent on the bounds of
> > probability". It is very clear to me that this has not been reached.
> >
> Was he found "Not guilty"? I thought that the conviction was deemed
> unsafe and set aside.
> That's even further from being found innocent.
>
> I don't see that we have to spend money on compensation. Save that for
> real clear cut cases of wrongful conviction.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 10:03:40 PM1/25/15
to
On 26/01/15 15:27, JohnO wrote:
>
> Nobody determines guilt or innocence other than on "the balance of
> probability".
>
Well, there's practise and there's theory. When you are on a jury you
>
> Nobody determines guilt or innocence other than on "the balance of
> probability".
>
are instructed to find the defendant "Not guilty" unless you are
absolutely certain.
Cheers,
Cliff
Enkidu
Jan 25, 2015, 10:09:35 PM1/25/15
to
justice system very much depends on journalists. That's not right.
Cheers,
Cliff
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2015, 10:31:22 PM1/25/15
to
to ensure that their clinet has a haircut and 'dresses up" -
preferably with a tie and jacket if not a full suit. I know of one
lawyer who told of a client that he sent to an op shop with a few
dollars to get clothes - he appeared suitable dressed and smelling
strongly of moth balls and sweat - Thankfully the judge and jury were
far enough away not to get the full effect. but as he said if it
doesn't influence the jury it may mitigate sentence!
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 11:00:24 PM1/25/15
to
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
JohnO
Jan 25, 2015, 11:01:45 PM1/25/15
to
If I was ever in front of the beak and not guilty, I'd want a judge only trial and if I was guilty I'd want a good lawyer, a PR hack and a jury.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
Message has been deleted
victor
Jan 26, 2015, 4:14:52 AM1/26/15
to
On 26/01/2015 8:20 p.m., Liberty wrote:
>
> The evidence against David is insurmountable.
> The evidence against Robin is nil.
> There is no evidence of a third person.
> David is as guilty as sin.
>
Guilt is a verdict, not an opinion.
>
> The evidence against David is insurmountable.
> The evidence against Robin is nil.
> There is no evidence of a third person.
> David is as guilty as sin.
>
Guilt is a verdict, not an opinion.
Message has been deleted
Rich80105
Jan 26, 2015, 5:36:56 AM1/26/15
to
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 23:04:11 +1300, Liberty <libe...@live.com>
wrote:
>In the eyes of the court you are right.
>in the eyes of the populace he is guilty as sin.
Your part of the populace at least, but most people are happy to leave
such matter to the courts - who have concluded that his conviction was
unsafe, and the government have decided not to put it to another
trial. Most people pprobably feel that someone improsoned without a
proper conviction should be compensated for that loss of freedom,
others do not value liberty and freedom as highly . . .
wrote:
>in the eyes of the populace he is guilty as sin.
Your part of the populace at least, but most people are happy to leave
such matter to the courts - who have concluded that his conviction was
unsafe, and the government have decided not to put it to another
trial. Most people pprobably feel that someone improsoned without a
proper conviction should be compensated for that loss of freedom,
others do not value liberty and freedom as highly . . .
EMB
Jan 26, 2015, 1:57:52 PM1/26/15
to
has never been found "not guilty" by a court. Why do you not understand
this Rich?
Rich80105
Jan 26, 2015, 2:39:33 PM1/26/15
to
wrong; I am not aware of having done that. His conviction was
overturned however, and a decision not to retrial subsequently made by
government not the courts. He is in an equivalent position as not
having been tried - except that he has spent some years in prison. I
make no comment on who committed the crime - that is in my view
irrelevant to the question of compensation. Another separate issue is
the inordinate time taken by government to resolve the issue of
compensation - they commissioned a report and then wanted to ignore
its findings, but that was many months ago.
Tony
Jan 26, 2015, 3:40:40 PM1/26/15
to
Liberty <libe...@live.com> wrote:
way, and I believe that to be true for all but a very small number of people in
the country.
What I did say is that the highest court in the land decided that his
conviction was unsafe, therefore he is now in a position where he should be
treated as innocent until proven guilty. Therefore a miscarriage of justice has
been avoided at the cost of many years in prison for a person who is currently
presumed innocent. That is wrong even if it was never intended. That is not
what our justice system is supposed to do to people. Let the courts decide eh?
Not the court of (uninformed) public opinion. Just my (slightly informed)
opinion.
Tony
>The evidence against David is insurmountable.
>The evidence against Robin is nil.
>There is no evidence of a third person.
>David is as guilty as sin.
I have never said he did it or did not do it. I cannot possibly know either
>The evidence against Robin is nil.
>There is no evidence of a third person.
>David is as guilty as sin.
way, and I believe that to be true for all but a very small number of people in
the country.
What I did say is that the highest court in the land decided that his
conviction was unsafe, therefore he is now in a position where he should be
treated as innocent until proven guilty. Therefore a miscarriage of justice has
been avoided at the cost of many years in prison for a person who is currently
presumed innocent. That is wrong even if it was never intended. That is not
what our justice system is supposed to do to people. Let the courts decide eh?
Not the court of (uninformed) public opinion. Just my (slightly informed)
opinion.
Tony
geopelia
Jan 26, 2015, 6:55:48 PM1/26/15
to
"Tony" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.e...@ue.ph...
There is only one person who knows for sure, isn't there?
JohnO
Jan 26, 2015, 7:41:06 PM1/26/15
to
Do you believe that it had to be either David or Robin? (Both the prosecution and defense accept this).
Do you believe that Robin could have shot himself without leaving his fingerprints on the rifle?
If the answers are yes and no, then you must suspect strongly that David was the killer.
Tony
Jan 26, 2015, 11:16:18 PM1/26/15
to
My only point here is that justice must be done justly. (Yes, it must also be
seen to be done!).
If due process is not followed then we trust the verdict at our peril.
The final reviewers of this case decided the verdict was "unsafe"; to me that
means that due process failed (my interpretation, not their words).
That results in presumption of innocence in my book. In that case, unless there
is to be a retrial then compensation is appropriate.
My views are not politically motivated and it would be a shame to see this
become a political issue.
Tony
geopelia
Jan 26, 2015, 11:21:39 PM1/26/15
to
"JohnO" wrote in message
news:381c16ef-38c1-4dc0...@googlegroups.com...
Could have been some unknown prowler who shot all the victims.
I think they burnt the house, so evidence may have been destroyed.
I don't know and I'm not going to guess. They will argue about this for
years.
If the final conclusion is that he is innocent, pay him compensation of
course.
(But those people who want to bring his sweater into it are being
ridiculous.)
Tony
Jan 26, 2015, 11:39:53 PM1/26/15
to
Having said that, it really was a terrible sweater!
Tony
Rich80105
Jan 26, 2015, 11:45:49 PM1/26/15
to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:21:44 +1300, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>> >>>>such mundane concerns to show appropriate compassion - after all ?ts
Tony summarised it well - that the verdict was judged to be unsafe and
he is not beign prosecuted effectively means that he must be treated
as if he is innocent - and so compensation is the right thing to do.
How much that comensation should be is something that I think should
be worked out by a formula - possibly on the lines of ACC
compensation. I dont think it should reply on the whim of a Minister
(of whatever party)'. I suspect a good procedure would help Monisers -
they would not have to enure analysis of decisions by media and
amateur "experts", and in pronciple I believe both eligibility and
compensation should be something that all parties should be able to
agree on a process to determine.
>
>(But those people who want to bring his sweater into it are being
>ridiculous.)
The reference to the sweater is no more ridiculous than those that
"know"everything about a case from a few news reports.
wrote:
he is not beign prosecuted effectively means that he must be treated
as if he is innocent - and so compensation is the right thing to do.
How much that comensation should be is something that I think should
be worked out by a formula - possibly on the lines of ACC
compensation. I dont think it should reply on the whim of a Minister
(of whatever party)'. I suspect a good procedure would help Monisers -
they would not have to enure analysis of decisions by media and
amateur "experts", and in pronciple I believe both eligibility and
compensation should be something that all parties should be able to
agree on a process to determine.
>
>(But those people who want to bring his sweater into it are being
>ridiculous.)
"know"everything about a case from a few news reports.
victor
Jan 27, 2015, 12:49:33 AM1/27/15
to
On 27/01/2015 5:16 p.m., Tony wrote:
> Probably only one living person. But who knows?
> My only point here is that justice must be done justly. (Yes, it must also be
> seen to be done!).
> If due process is not followed then we trust the verdict at our peril.
> The final reviewers of this case decided the verdict was "unsafe"; to me that
> means that due process failed (my interpretation, not their words).
> That results in presumption of innocence in my book. In that case, unless there
> is to be a retrial then compensation is appropriate.
> My views are not politically motivated and it would be a shame to see this
> become a political issue.
>
> Tony
>
So you must think Robin killed them all then committed suicide ?
> Probably only one living person. But who knows?
> My only point here is that justice must be done justly. (Yes, it must also be
> seen to be done!).
> If due process is not followed then we trust the verdict at our peril.
> The final reviewers of this case decided the verdict was "unsafe"; to me that
> means that due process failed (my interpretation, not their words).
> That results in presumption of innocence in my book. In that case, unless there
> is to be a retrial then compensation is appropriate.
> My views are not politically motivated and it would be a shame to see this
> become a political issue.
>
> Tony
>
Tony
Jan 27, 2015, 1:33:57 AM1/27/15
to
here is all about good practice in law and whether compensation for bad
practice is appropriate.
This was bad practice as judged by experts.
Tony
victor
Jan 27, 2015, 1:55:34 AM1/27/15
to
there is no shortage of experts to judge the opinions of experts.
Rich80105
Jan 27, 2015, 4:36:02 AM1/27/15
to
result of incompetence or egregious actions on behalf of the Crown,
why should comensation not be paid? We pay compensation for physical
accidents, why not for unfortunate accidents in areas where
individuals lose significantly from actions of the state. In this case
the court system has not worked well - a higher court has determined
that Bains conviction was not safe; there will not be a retrial, but
he has spent years in prison. The Crown paid out for Thomas and others
- why not Bain?
For cases of compensation for physical accidental damage, decisions
are not normally referred to a Minister. In my view fewer decisions
where the justice system has disadvantaged an individual should bneed
to go to the Minister for compensation. I suspect Ministers would like
that - regardless of political party!
Dave Doe
Jan 27, 2015, 5:23:04 AM1/27/15
to
In article <part1of1.1.Q...@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
And people, including experts, make mistakes. Even Privy Council
members.
But why take my word for it - read the whole fucking thing for
yourself...
From:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http://www.priv
y-council.org.uk/output/Page535.asp
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http://www.priv
y-council.org.uk/files/other/Bain%20final.rtf
Nine (new'ish) points (the others where dismissed at previous Appeals) -
one being Robin Bain's mental state. Seems clear to me the Privy
Council got it wrong - easy to see in hindsight given the extended Karam
campaign. Anyway Robin's mental state was a cause for motive *only*.
DB's got a few of those too...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/david-had-a-motive
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/robin-bain-had-no-indications-of-
clinical-depression
(Of note, the prosecution did not present a motive for DB - and nor is
it required to be. It seems clear to me that they had plenty of good
evidence. The case is not unique in this way either).
Further, while their recommendation for a re-trail occurred, their
recommendation "the appellant must remain in custody meanwhile" seemed
to fall on deaf ears back here - he was released a short time later,
bailed to guess whos place.
For a quick wrap up, check the WikiP entry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain
--
Duncan.
members.
But why take my word for it - read the whole fucking thing for
yourself...
From:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http://www.priv
y-council.org.uk/output/Page535.asp
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http://www.priv
y-council.org.uk/files/other/Bain%20final.rtf
Nine (new'ish) points (the others where dismissed at previous Appeals) -
one being Robin Bain's mental state. Seems clear to me the Privy
Council got it wrong - easy to see in hindsight given the extended Karam
campaign. Anyway Robin's mental state was a cause for motive *only*.
DB's got a few of those too...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/david-had-a-motive
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/robin-bain-had-no-indications-of-
clinical-depression
(Of note, the prosecution did not present a motive for DB - and nor is
it required to be. It seems clear to me that they had plenty of good
evidence. The case is not unique in this way either).
Further, while their recommendation for a re-trail occurred, their
recommendation "the appellant must remain in custody meanwhile" seemed
to fall on deaf ears back here - he was released a short time later,
bailed to guess whos place.
For a quick wrap up, check the WikiP entry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain
--
Duncan.
geopelia
Jan 27, 2015, 7:03:28 AM1/27/15
to
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these wrong or doubtful convictions
give a poor impression of New Zealand justice?
If we are getting it wrong with murders, what of lesser crimes, of which any
of us might find ourselves accused?
I don't know the answer, but shouldn't somebody find one?
george152
Jan 27, 2015, 2:13:01 PM1/27/15
to
On 27/01/2015 5:16 p.m., Tony wrote:
> Probably only one living person. But who knows?
> My only point here is that justice must be done justly. (Yes, it must also be
> seen to be done!).
> If due process is not followed then we trust the verdict at our peril.
> The final reviewers of this case decided the verdict was "unsafe"; to me that
> means that due process failed (my interpretation, not their words).
> That results in presumption of innocence in my book. In that case, unless there
> is to be a retrial then compensation is appropriate.
> My views are not politically motivated and it would be a shame to see this
> become a political issue.
And as far as I'm concerned your post about sums it up for me
> My only point here is that justice must be done justly. (Yes, it must also be
> seen to be done!).
> If due process is not followed then we trust the verdict at our peril.
> The final reviewers of this case decided the verdict was "unsafe"; to me that
> means that due process failed (my interpretation, not their words).
> That results in presumption of innocence in my book. In that case, unless there
> is to be a retrial then compensation is appropriate.
> My views are not politically motivated and it would be a shame to see this
> become a political issue.
victor
Jan 27, 2015, 2:32:33 PM1/27/15
to
That's why there are lawyers and courts not summary judgements.
victor
Jan 27, 2015, 2:45:16 PM1/27/15
to
Life is not fair.
victor
Jan 27, 2015, 2:54:34 PM1/27/15
to
To compensate for what ?
Joe Karam and his team are waiting for their pay day, I know that is how
their researchers see it.
JohnO
Jan 27, 2015, 3:15:12 PM1/27/15
to
Dave Doe
Jan 27, 2015, 3:36:11 PM1/27/15
to
In article <ma7upe$c7l$1...@dont-email.me>, geop...@nowhere.com, geopelia
says...
> If we are getting it wrong with murders, what of lesser crimes, of
which any
> of us might find ourselves accused?
>
> I don't know the answer, but shouldn't somebody find one?
Let's look at the data first.
--
Duncan.
says...
>
> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these wrong or doubtful convictions
> give a poor impression of New Zealand justice?
Where is the data to back up that claim?
> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these wrong or doubtful convictions
> give a poor impression of New Zealand justice?
> If we are getting it wrong with murders, what of lesser crimes, of
which any
> of us might find ourselves accused?
>
> I don't know the answer, but shouldn't somebody find one?
--
Duncan.
Dave Doe
Jan 27, 2015, 4:01:23 PM1/27/15
to
Collins ordered a review of the Binnie report on the Bain case" ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=
10857352
--
Duncan.
JohnO
Jan 27, 2015, 4:20:19 PM1/27/15
to
CK Stead: Why judge was wrong on Bain
5:30 AM Saturday Jan 5, 201369 comments
C K Stead explains why he is not surprised that Justice Minister Judith Collins ordered a review of the Binnie report on the Bain case
The Bain family house in Every St, Dunedin, was burned to the ground soon after the murders, by agreement with the authorities.
Associate Professor Ken Palmer's letter to the Herald was so emphatic in his support of Canadian judge the Hon Ian Binnie's report on the Bain claim for compensation, and so (it seemed to me) immoderate in its rejection of QC Dr Robert Fisher's response, I felt to have an opinion on this currently "talking" topic one must read both, which I have now done. This has not altered my view (a layman's, not a lawyer's) of David Bain's likely guilt, but it has added a new perspective. It is only reading Justice Binnie's report that I recognised how clumsy and less-than-competent the police inquiry and consequently the first Crown case were and how much of the subsequent drama sprang from those initial errors.
Reading through the detailed forensic analysis, and the challenges to it, which have accumulated over the years of Joe Karam's crusade on David Bain's behalf, it is easy to imagine how the second jury might have grown weary of detail and focused instead on the drama and the rhetoric - in particular the defence lawyer's boldness in "standing up to" the trial judge, his "courage" and his outrage.
It would be tempting, in that second jury's shoes, to think, "This is such a mess. The first Crown case has been full of holes and has had to be re-patched. The Law Lords have said the first conviction was a mistrial. Why should we struggle any further? Let's say at least that the case hasn't been proved, and acquit. If he's guilty, well, he has served his time anyway."
I have an impression that in some degree, Justice Binnie may have entered the fray in the same spirit, seeing himself as someone called in to "right a wrong", though he is certainly not, I should add, one who is impatient with the facts or unwilling to wrestle with them, one at a time.
But that "one at a time" is part of the problem. As Dr Fisher points out, a circumstantial case depends on the strength of a single rope made up of many strands, any one of which may be insufficient. Justice Binnie's method is to begin with the Luminol footprints, the weakest strand (at least in the sense of being the most technical and therefore technically arguable), declare it favours David Bain, and then bring each of the other strands in the case up against those footprints and find it wanting. And it is to the footprints he returns first in his "Summary and conclusions as to factual innocence" (p.138).
Yet even Justice Binnie admits "'luminescence' in the dark does not exactly give rise to laser-like accuracy", and agrees "there must be some room for error in the Luminol measurement" (p.79/257). It seems strange, therefore, that he has "no hesitation in recommending that the Minister accept the results of the tests of Mr Walsh" [for the Defence] (p.77/251), and proceeds from that point in a manner which suggests the case for innocence has been made and needs only be demonstrated by reiterating the defence argument against each of the other strands.
His consequent bias is apparent in statements like the following: "It is only the fingerprint blood that can tie David Bain rather than Robin Bain to the killings." Only? And there is nothing at all that can tie Robin to the murder weapon except that he was killed with it!
Another example of this bias: "Nothing has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both individually and collectively, and considered in the light of my interview with David Bain" [my italics] ... "persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent" (p.139/ 463). But why should items of fact, none of which, Justice Binnie concedes, is "free of difficulty", be considered "in the light of" the accused's own testimony, which is more likely than any other to be false?
A further example: "If David Bain's recollection ... is accepted, and I do accept it, then the force of the prosecution's argument ... is much diminished" (p.38/124). But of course if we only have to go to David Bain for the truth, then the prosecution's argument is not just diminished - it's dead! What kind of source is the accused for the truth of the matter in a case of murder?
And that brings me to what appears to be the real weakness in Justice Binnie's argument: his naive (as it seems to me) acceptance of David Bain's truthfulness in interview, and Binnie's reliance on "innocent openness" as the explanation where the accused's testimony seems to aid the prosecution rather than himself. As a "final word" to the executive summary of his report, Justice Binnie quotes Bain's ringing statement of complaint that he has not only had to mourn for his family and spend 13 years in jail, but has had to live with the labels of "monster" and "psychopath" - all true of course, but only relevant if he is innocent, and that is still the question.
If David Bain was not the killer, his case is a sad one; but if he is, then he has had many years to go over his innocence story - so many that he must very nearly believe it himself, at least sufficiently to make it sound indistinguishable from a truthful statement.
As Dr Fisher says, any number of studies have shown that "none of us has the ability to decide whether or not a witness is to be believed based on watching and listening to that witness in person" (p.9/18).
Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David's brother's blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David's fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David's admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David's gloves - and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David's strange behaviour after the murders.
Signs of extreme stress would be expected; but what state of mind was David in that he made detailed plans for the victims' funeral; specified what lingerie his deceased sister Arawa would be dressed in; wanted the pop song Who wants to live forever? to be played for Laniet; told his aunt she was not to wear black at the funeral "because we see death as a celebration"; wanted to hold a posthumous party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders; and spoke of "black hands" taking his family away? To me all this suggests a state of disconnection from the reality - a state of mind in which the crime itself might have been committed - as if the one who had taken responsibility for that (by every report) disastrously dysfunctional family was now ready to tidy it all away with a tasteful funeral.
In every case where the original police enquiry failed to preserve, or to look for, evidence - Robin's hands which should have been checked for gunshot residue, and fingernails for any signs of a fight with Steven, the bloodstained carpet, the whole house which was allowed to be burned down - the David Bain team has used this failure as if here was a piece of evidence that would have cleared his name; and Justice Binnie has tended to follow them in this. But in each case it could be (and in my view equally or more likely was) the destruction of an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence for the prosecution. There are certainly no grounds for saying, or implying, that these pieces of "lost evidence" lead one to the conclusion that David Bain is "factually innocent".
One final word against the payment of compensation: to say, as Justice Binnie does, that the "factual innocence" of David has been established clearly implies the "factual guilt" of the father, Robin. Yet no case has ever been made against him, except by implication. And if the case were made, it would be so much weaker than the one against his son that it would not stand inspection for more than a few minutes. I don't think a decision by the New Zealand Government should be allowed to label Robin Bain the murderer of his family.
That the second jury found David Bain's guilt had not been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean they would have affirmed that his "factual innocence" had been demonstrated; but that is what the case for compensation requires, and what Justice Binnie affirms. It does not surprise me that when she received his report, Judith Collins felt another opinion was needed, either for confirmation or rebuttal. It does not surprise me, either, that Dr Fisher did not confirm, but found serious fault in, Justice Binnie's report.
C K Stead is a writer and emeritus professor at the University of Auckland. His latest novel, Risk, was published by MacLehose Press in October.
geopelia
Jan 27, 2015, 4:46:56 PM1/27/15
to
"Dave Doe" wrote in message
news:MPG.2f32bde58...@news.eternal-september.org...
In article <ma7upe$c7l$1...@dont-email.me>, geop...@nowhere.com, geopelia
says...
>
> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these wrong or doubtful convictions
> give a poor impression of New Zealand justice?
Where is the data to back up that claim?
I don't know if there is any data. It's just how some people feel.
.............
> If we are getting it wrong with murders, what of lesser crimes, of
which any
> of us might find ourselves accused?
>
> I don't know the answer, but shouldn't somebody find one?
Let's look at the data first.
..........
which any
> of us might find ourselves accused?
>
> I don't know the answer, but shouldn't somebody find one?
Let's look at the data first.
Yes, see if there is any data.
Perhaps some sort of referendum, to see how people think?
Too expensive though.
JohnO
Jan 27, 2015, 5:23:01 PM1/27/15
to
> Too expensive though.
That too.
Rich80105
Jan 27, 2015, 9:33:02 PM1/27/15
to
1. It doesn't matter how much you personally read about the case, or
what you think happened. Bain's convicton was adjudged unsafe, and he
will not be re-tried.
2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
4. There has been a claim for compensation - which unde the current
system is assessed by the Minister for Justice.
5. The previous Minister of Justice commissioned a report, which did
not give the decision she wanted, and she made no decision.
6. There is now a new Minister considering it afresh. By attempting to
go back thrugh all the evidence, media and other commentators are
effectively trying to influence the Minister's decision
7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
8. This case also illustrates my concern that our justice system does
not have adequate procedures in place to review cases except on very
narrow grounds - some changes are neededint hat repsect as well.
9. Whatever the decision, teh previous inaction makes this now a
political issue - with the decision on both eligibility and the amount
of compensation being an indicator of the extent to which the
government is able to mae principled decisions and put right, as far
as possible, an evident wrong casued by problems n our justice system.
JohnO
Jan 27, 2015, 10:11:39 PM1/27/15
to
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 15:33:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:23:03 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
<snip>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:23:03 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
>
> A few poiints:
> 1. It doesn't matter how much you personally read about the case, or
> what you think happened. Bain's convicton was adjudged unsafe, and he
> will not be re-tried.
Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
> A few poiints:
> 1. It doesn't matter how much you personally read about the case, or
> what you think happened. Bain's convicton was adjudged unsafe, and he
> will not be re-tried.
> 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
> 3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
> had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
> 4. There has been a claim for compensation - which unde the current
> system is assessed by the Minister for Justice.
> 5. The previous Minister of Justice commissioned a report, which did
> not give the decision she wanted, and she made no decision.
> 6. There is now a new Minister considering it afresh. By attempting to
> go back thrugh all the evidence, media and other commentators are
> effectively trying to influence the Minister's decision
> 7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
> decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
> compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
> for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
> not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
> 8. This case also illustrates my concern that our justice system does
> not have adequate procedures in place to review cases except on very
> narrow grounds - some changes are neededint hat repsect as well.
Enkidu
Jan 28, 2015, 2:08:04 AM1/28/15
to
On 26/01/15 16:31, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:21:07 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/15 12:40, Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:14:17 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course! The joys of "right -thinking" - it avoids the need for
>>> tedious, well, thinking. . .
>>>
>> Well, are you interested in my reasoning? Someone who wears such
>> sweaters has neither regards for public opinion or any sense of right or
>> wrong (or fashion). Such a person is obviously psychopathic and capable
>> of murder. The only other option is his father who, although he appears
>> repressed does not wear such gaudy outfits in public and have some
>> remnants of social conscience. Therefore I conclude that David is guilty.
>
> That is a reasoning validated by the practice of many defence layers
> to ensure that their clinet has a haircut and 'dresses up" -
> preferably with a tie and jacket if not a full suit. I know of one
> lawyer who told of a client that he sent to an op shop with a few
> dollars to get clothes - he appeared suitable dressed and smelling
> strongly of moth balls and sweat - Thankfully the judge and jury were
> far enough away not to get the full effect. but as he said if it
> doesn't influence the jury it may mitigate sentence!
>
It's also a load of bollocks. I should know, after all I wrote it.
Cheers,
Cliff
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:21:07 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/15 12:40, Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:14:17 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/01/15 12:05, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>>>>>> that need be said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>>>>>> like that has to be guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... doubtless such persons (who may include the Minister of Justice)
>>>> On 26/01/15 12:05, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:50:30 +1300, Enkidu <cliffp@none> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/01/15 17:55, Fred wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. That is the standard for compensation, and that is all
>>>>>>> that need be said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've said it once and I'll say it again - anyone who wears sweaters
>>>>>> like that has to be guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> may pick up on your argument and determine that anyone who wears
>>>>> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you agree with me.
>>>>> sweaters like that does not deserve compensation.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course! The joys of "right -thinking" - it avoids the need for
>>> tedious, well, thinking. . .
>>>
>> Well, are you interested in my reasoning? Someone who wears such
>> sweaters has neither regards for public opinion or any sense of right or
>> wrong (or fashion). Such a person is obviously psychopathic and capable
>> of murder. The only other option is his father who, although he appears
>> repressed does not wear such gaudy outfits in public and have some
>> remnants of social conscience. Therefore I conclude that David is guilty.
>
> That is a reasoning validated by the practice of many defence layers
> to ensure that their clinet has a haircut and 'dresses up" -
> preferably with a tie and jacket if not a full suit. I know of one
> lawyer who told of a client that he sent to an op shop with a few
> dollars to get clothes - he appeared suitable dressed and smelling
> strongly of moth balls and sweat - Thankfully the judge and jury were
> far enough away not to get the full effect. but as he said if it
> doesn't influence the jury it may mitigate sentence!
>
It's also a load of bollocks. I should know, after all I wrote it.
Cheers,
Cliff
geopelia
Jan 28, 2015, 5:34:49 PM1/28/15
to
"JohnO" wrote in message
news:8e231477-f330-4dff...@googlegroups.com...
In Bible times, the people would stone an alleged offender.
All this argument seems to be the modern version.
Nobody really knows, and now there seems no hope of proving anything either
way.
Just pay him compensation and forget the whole thing.
JohnO
Jan 28, 2015, 5:49:33 PM1/28/15
to
Each to his own.
Rich80105
Jan 28, 2015, 5:55:26 PM1/28/15
to
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:34:57 +1300, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
That's a good comparison, Geo - a witch hunt by media
getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
people will see as a turnaround:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
(Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
wrote:
>
>Nobody really knows, and now there seems no hope of proving anything either
>way.
>Just pay him compensation and forget the whole thing.
That does sem to be the general consensus - I suspect National are
>Nobody really knows, and now there seems no hope of proving anything either
>way.
>Just pay him compensation and forget the whole thing.
getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
people will see as a turnaround:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
(Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
Rich80105
Jan 28, 2015, 6:01:26 PM1/28/15
to
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:49:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
If the government wanted to convict him they needed to have anopther
trial. Having ruled that out, he remains presumed innocent, but has
had 1 years in prison. .
wrote:
trial. Having ruled that out, he remains presumed innocent, but has
had 1 years in prison. .
victor
Jan 28, 2015, 6:30:24 PM1/28/15
to
You cannot wind back the clock and give him back the time.
The Crown did not wrongfully imprison him.
victor
Jan 28, 2015, 6:45:38 PM1/28/15
to
On 29/01/2015 11:55 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
>
> That does sem to be the general consensus - I suspect National are
> getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
> people will see as a turnaround:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
> (Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
> compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
>
Robin Bain went to extraordinary lengths to conceal his crime and frame
>
> That does sem to be the general consensus - I suspect National are
> getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
> people will see as a turnaround:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
> (Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
> compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
>
David for someone who was going to shoot himself.
Just sayin
JohnO
Jan 28, 2015, 7:21:21 PM1/28/15
to
If so, then true, but then the Crown didn't wrongfully imprison Dougherty either. He was, however, proven innocent, unlike Bain.
JohnO
Jan 28, 2015, 7:23:16 PM1/28/15
to
> - I suspect National are
> getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
> people will see as a turnaround:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
> (Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
> compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
JohnO
Jan 28, 2015, 7:24:47 PM1/28/15
to
Rich80105
Jan 29, 2015, 12:05:47 AM1/29/15
to
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:23:14 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A survey would perhaps give an indication of the extent to which the
police have lostthe confidence of New Zealanders - but that would
require a number of surveys over time. The only surveys National do
are private polls and focus groups by Farrar.
>> >
>> >> Too expensive though.
>> >
>> >That too.
>> >
>> >...........
>> >
>> >In Bible times, the people would stone an alleged offender.
>> >All this argument seems to be the modern version.
>>
>> That's a good comparison, Geo - a witch hunt by media
>> >
>> >Nobody really knows, and now there seems no hope of proving anything either
>> >way.
>> >Just pay him compensation and forget the whole thing.
>>
>> That does sem to be the general consensus
>
>What crap. There is no general concensus.
>
>> - I suspect National are
>
>It's nothing to do with National. Plenty of people from all political hues are on both sides. You just can't control your knee-jerk reactions, can you?
Of course it is to do with National - at least to the extent that the
Minister of Justice is a National Minister. What "side" anyone else is
on is irrelevant. Perhaps you should read the rest of the sentence
before jumping to a wrong conclusion.
>
>> getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
>> people will see as a turnaround:
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
>> (Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
>> compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
>
>CK Stead has a much better grasp of the issue.
As I say, the only opinion htat counts is that of the Minister - but
as you demonstrate, the opinions of others may be conclusive - so many
Ministers make decisions based on polling these days, don't they?
wrote:
police have lostthe confidence of New Zealanders - but that would
require a number of surveys over time. The only surveys National do
are private polls and focus groups by Farrar.
>> >
>> >> Too expensive though.
>> >
>> >That too.
>> >
>> >...........
>> >
>> >In Bible times, the people would stone an alleged offender.
>> >All this argument seems to be the modern version.
>>
>> That's a good comparison, Geo - a witch hunt by media
>> >
>> >Nobody really knows, and now there seems no hope of proving anything either
>> >way.
>> >Just pay him compensation and forget the whole thing.
>>
>> That does sem to be the general consensus
>
>What crap. There is no general concensus.
>
>> - I suspect National are
>
>It's nothing to do with National. Plenty of people from all political hues are on both sides. You just can't control your knee-jerk reactions, can you?
Minister of Justice is a National Minister. What "side" anyone else is
on is irrelevant. Perhaps you should read the rest of the sentence
before jumping to a wrong conclusion.
>
>> getting their media mates to preparethe ground for what some far right
>> people will see as a turnaround:
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11393285
>> (Hosking gets a lot of things wrong, but the conclusion that
>> compensation should be paid is correct albeit for different reasons).
>
>CK Stead has a much better grasp of the issue.
as you demonstrate, the opinions of others may be conclusive - so many
Ministers make decisions based on polling these days, don't they?
Enkidu
Jan 29, 2015, 1:45:21 AM1/29/15
to
On 29/01/15 13:21, JohnO wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 12:30:24 UTC+13, victor wrote:
>> On 29/01/2015 12:01 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:49:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO
>>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find the idea of
>>>> paying millions to a likely mass murderer quite abhorrent.
>>>>
>>>> Each to his own.
>>>
>>> If the government wanted to convict him they needed to have
>>> anopther trial. Having ruled that out, he remains presumed
>>> innocent, but has had 1 years in prison. .
>>>
>>
>> While he was guilty. You cannot wind back the clock and give him
>> back the time. The Crown did not wrongfully imprison him.
>
> By 'wrongfully imprison' do you mean, without wrongdoing by the
> police/justice system?
>
It's a delicate point. The government imprisons people based on the
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 12:30:24 UTC+13, victor wrote:
>> On 29/01/2015 12:01 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:49:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO
>>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find the idea of
>>>> paying millions to a likely mass murderer quite abhorrent.
>>>>
>>>> Each to his own.
>>>
>>> If the government wanted to convict him they needed to have
>>> anopther trial. Having ruled that out, he remains presumed
>>> innocent, but has had 1 years in prison. .
>>>
>>
>> While he was guilty. You cannot wind back the clock and give him
>> back the time. The Crown did not wrongfully imprison him.
>
> By 'wrongfully imprison' do you mean, without wrongdoing by the
> police/justice system?
>
verdict. If the verdict is retrospectively set aside the government
cannot be said to have imprisoned them illegally. TO say otherwise
assumes that the government is omniscient, which it isn't.
>
> If so, then true, but then the Crown didn't wrongfully imprison
> Dougherty either. He was, however, proven innocent, unlike Bain.
>
He was found guilty, so the government was right to imprison him,
> If so, then true, but then the Crown didn't wrongfully imprison
> Dougherty either. He was, however, proven innocent, unlike Bain.
>
regardless of whether or not he was later shown to be innocent.
That's what compensation is all about - to compensate those chewed up by
the system.
Cheers,
Cliff
JohnO
Jan 29, 2015, 2:36:17 AM1/29/15
to
On Thursday, 29 January 2015 18:05:47 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>
Make up your tiny little mind.
<snip>
>
> As I say, the only opinion htat counts is that of the Minister - but
> as you demonstrate, the opinions of others may be conclusive - so many
> Ministers make decisions based on polling these days, don't they?
Well, Dickbot, it was you who claimed there was a general consensus that Bain should get compensation, so you'd expect National will compensate him?
> As I say, the only opinion htat counts is that of the Minister - but
> as you demonstrate, the opinions of others may be conclusive - so many
> Ministers make decisions based on polling these days, don't they?
Make up your tiny little mind.
Rich80105
Jan 29, 2015, 5:08:53 AM1/29/15
to
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:36:15 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh dear poo - you are very confused. A Minister acts on behalf ofthe
government, not the political party they belong to (mind you, I can
appreciate that National Ministers often don't understand the
difference). A National Minister knows that they do not spend party
money when they can get government to pay . . .
wrote:
government, not the political party they belong to (mind you, I can
appreciate that National Ministers often don't understand the
difference). A National Minister knows that they do not spend party
money when they can get government to pay . . .
geopelia
Jan 29, 2015, 6:32:31 AM1/29/15
to
"Rich80105" wrote in message
news:lppicat7ehrg3p6sj...@4ax.com...
They need some sort of scale for compensation. Perhaps start with so much a
year.
And if the prisoner's health has been affected or some other problem has
been caused, add more.
JohnO
Jan 29, 2015, 3:46:49 PM1/29/15
to
First of all, I am not Pooh, I am JohnO.
Second of all, I never talked about Ministers spending money. I was simplyt pointing out your typically self contradictory claims regarding populist actions by governments vs your claim that the government is anti Bain.
Try harder, you hopeless nincompoop.
JohnO
Jan 29, 2015, 3:49:52 PM1/29/15
to
On Friday, 23 January 2015 22:31:59 UTC+13, John wrote:
> I heard on the radio that Karam thinks that David Bain
> could possibly receive as much as $8 million in
> compensation. This must not happen so once again:-
>
>
> The evidence of David Bain's guilt is so compelling the case is open and
> shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not
> question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the
> various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.
>
> In no particular order:
>
> - Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the
> hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres
> from David's jersey were under Stephen's fingernails.
>
> - It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his
> children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process,
> without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also
> Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able to overcome the
> strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and
> Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe
> he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself
> around 7pm.
>
> - David's bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his
> bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody
> clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin's bloody
> prints were nowhere.
>
> - David's gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer's
> prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris of the fight in
> Stephen's room. Why would Robin use David's gloves when he had many of his
> own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?
>
> - Bloody footprints made by socks found in the washing machine were found
> throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or
> David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him or his
> clothes or socks (other than his fatal head wound), nor was the room-to-room
> pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin would have entered the house
> from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer
> having come from inside the house.
>
> - While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his
> clothes, David's clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that
> would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also
> had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his underpants, which
> had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and
> which he did not notice.
>
> - Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him
> having just come into the house from the carvan to pray as he normally did
> at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an
> awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one's head
> with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and
> more definite ways to go it, eg put the barrel into one's mouth aimed at the
> roof of the mouth. Robin's fatal would is consistent with being shot by
> David standing over him and not with suicide.
>
> - David's prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he
> would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of the blood splattered
> all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun).
> Karam claims David's prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even
> if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings
> because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.
>
> - Robin's prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used
> it to kill himself.
>
> Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the
> above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask
> why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who
> deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the
> murders.
>
> The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the
> subsequent "evidence" put forward by Karam about Robin's mental state, his
> alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have altered the jury's
> verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the
> evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords expressely made no findings of
> guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.
>
> This decision has major significant for Peter Ellis because in the Civic
> case, the trial judge made more than 200 orders preventing the defence
> putting to the jury solid evidence that cast convincing doubt on the Crown
> case. The defence was not able to mount a defence at all because the judge
> ruled all its evidence as irrelevant. Under the Privy Council's ruling,
> Ellis would be entitled to a new trial in which all the evidence was put
> before a jury, not just the l0pc of highly sanitised material the Crown
> used.
>
> In the Bain case, the only "evidence" the trial judge stopped the jury
> hearing was that of Dean Cottle who wanted to recount a conversation with
> Laniet about incest, but the judge ruled him unreliable. All the other Karam
> "evidence" cited by the Privy Council was put forward in later years and was
> heard, but rejected, by the Court of Appeal in 2005.
>
> However, it is of some interest that the judge in the Bain case, Justice
> Williamson, was the very same judge in the Ellis case.
A dispassion review of the case for compensation from Jock Anderson:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11393694
> I heard on the radio that Karam thinks that David Bain
> could possibly receive as much as $8 million in
> compensation. This must not happen so once again:-
>
>
> The evidence of David Bain's guilt is so compelling the case is open and
> shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not
> question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the
> various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.
>
> In no particular order:
>
> - Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the
> hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres
> from David's jersey were under Stephen's fingernails.
>
> - It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his
> children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process,
> without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also
> Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able to overcome the
> strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and
> Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe
> he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself
> around 7pm.
>
> - David's bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his
> bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody
> clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin's bloody
> prints were nowhere.
>
> - David's gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer's
> prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris of the fight in
> Stephen's room. Why would Robin use David's gloves when he had many of his
> own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?
>
> - Bloody footprints made by socks found in the washing machine were found
> throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or
> David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him or his
> clothes or socks (other than his fatal head wound), nor was the room-to-room
> pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin would have entered the house
> from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer
> having come from inside the house.
>
> - While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his
> clothes, David's clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that
> would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also
> had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his underpants, which
> had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and
> which he did not notice.
>
> - Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him
> having just come into the house from the carvan to pray as he normally did
> at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an
> awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one's head
> with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and
> more definite ways to go it, eg put the barrel into one's mouth aimed at the
> roof of the mouth. Robin's fatal would is consistent with being shot by
> David standing over him and not with suicide.
>
> - David's prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he
> would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of the blood splattered
> all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun).
> Karam claims David's prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even
> if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings
> because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.
>
> - Robin's prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used
> it to kill himself.
>
> Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the
> above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask
> why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who
> deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the
> murders.
>
> The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the
> subsequent "evidence" put forward by Karam about Robin's mental state, his
> alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have altered the jury's
> verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the
> evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords expressely made no findings of
> guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.
>
> This decision has major significant for Peter Ellis because in the Civic
> case, the trial judge made more than 200 orders preventing the defence
> putting to the jury solid evidence that cast convincing doubt on the Crown
> case. The defence was not able to mount a defence at all because the judge
> ruled all its evidence as irrelevant. Under the Privy Council's ruling,
> Ellis would be entitled to a new trial in which all the evidence was put
> before a jury, not just the l0pc of highly sanitised material the Crown
> used.
>
> In the Bain case, the only "evidence" the trial judge stopped the jury
> hearing was that of Dean Cottle who wanted to recount a conversation with
> Laniet about incest, but the judge ruled him unreliable. All the other Karam
> "evidence" cited by the Privy Council was put forward in later years and was
> heard, but rejected, by the Court of Appeal in 2005.
>
> However, it is of some interest that the judge in the Bain case, Justice
> Williamson, was the very same judge in the Ellis case.
A dispassion review of the case for compensation from Jock Anderson:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11393694
Dave Doe
Jan 31, 2015, 7:46:03 AM1/31/15
to
In article <10igca5ecjsjrf9ks...@4ax.com>, rich80105
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
? your point?
> 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
I've said that already. The Privy Council screwed up and made a bad
decision. The second trial was a crock - check out the Jury - and
indeed given the (unfixed errors) of Joe Karam's re-publication of his
book before the second trial, very probably in many peoples opinion, sub
judice. Given then that a Jury for the second trial could not be
unpredacious, the result is the same - bias - unfair - and unsafe.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/reprinting-of-david-and-goliath-
was-a-violation-of-sub-judice
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/17158/sub-judice-rule-exists-
protection-comment-has-its-place
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/fil
es/889388_Bain%20case%20and%20David%20and%20Goliath_%20Ltr%20to%20Kent%
20Parker%207_9_10_1.PDF
> 3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
> had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
? your point?
> 4. There has been a claim for compensation - which unde the current
> system is assessed by the Minister for Justice.
Yes. You're saying nothing.
> 5. The previous Minister of Justice commissioned a report, which did
> not give the decision she wanted, and she made no decision.
Bollocks. It was not a personal decision of Collins nor the Party. It
was an objective decision based on the unsafe Binnie report that, quite
clearly, would never stand public scrutiny.
She later disclosed everything for everyone to see. What's to argue
about? State it - point by point.
Binnie's conclusions - some of which were never asked for - such as
should compensation be paid (not his decision) - is unsafe - fullstop.
> 6. There is now a new Minister considering it afresh. By attempting to
> go back thrugh all the evidence, media and other commentators are
> effectively trying to influence the Minister's decision
I hope not. I trust Amy, or anyone in charge of such a claim, does so
by evidence, and not public or media opinion or feeling. And certainly
not *your* feelings (and nor mine).
> 7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
> decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
> compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
> for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
> not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
State your problems.
Be aware that the Government or representative of - a Minister, etc -
should not be subject to personal or public or media influence. Please
state for example, how Collins got that wrong on Bain. She was IMO
totally objective. Evidence against that? And what for? (what would or
could she, or the Party, gain from that?. Why not just say "yes" and
pay out $6M or whatever?)
> 8. This case also illustrates my concern that our justice system does
> not have adequate procedures in place to review cases except on very
> narrow grounds - some changes are neededint hat repsect as well.
I've already asked you to spell out those changes. Still waiting.
> 9. Whatever the decision, teh previous inaction makes this now a
> political issue - with the decision on both eligibility and the amount
> of compensation being an indicator of the extent to which the
> government is able to mae principled decisions and put right, as far
> as possible, an evident wrong casued by problems n our justice system.
What a load of fucken opinionated crap (can anyone else work out what
this man is saying?)
1. Speak English.
2. Please back up your shit.
--
Duncan.
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
> 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
decision. The second trial was a crock - check out the Jury - and
indeed given the (unfixed errors) of Joe Karam's re-publication of his
book before the second trial, very probably in many peoples opinion, sub
judice. Given then that a Jury for the second trial could not be
unpredacious, the result is the same - bias - unfair - and unsafe.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/reprinting-of-david-and-goliath-
was-a-violation-of-sub-judice
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/17158/sub-judice-rule-exists-
protection-comment-has-its-place
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/fil
es/889388_Bain%20case%20and%20David%20and%20Goliath_%20Ltr%20to%20Kent%
20Parker%207_9_10_1.PDF
> 3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
> had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
> 4. There has been a claim for compensation - which unde the current
> system is assessed by the Minister for Justice.
> 5. The previous Minister of Justice commissioned a report, which did
> not give the decision she wanted, and she made no decision.
was an objective decision based on the unsafe Binnie report that, quite
clearly, would never stand public scrutiny.
She later disclosed everything for everyone to see. What's to argue
about? State it - point by point.
Binnie's conclusions - some of which were never asked for - such as
should compensation be paid (not his decision) - is unsafe - fullstop.
> 6. There is now a new Minister considering it afresh. By attempting to
> go back thrugh all the evidence, media and other commentators are
> effectively trying to influence the Minister's decision
by evidence, and not public or media opinion or feeling. And certainly
not *your* feelings (and nor mine).
> 7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
> decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
> compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
> for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
> not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
Be aware that the Government or representative of - a Minister, etc -
should not be subject to personal or public or media influence. Please
state for example, how Collins got that wrong on Bain. She was IMO
totally objective. Evidence against that? And what for? (what would or
could she, or the Party, gain from that?. Why not just say "yes" and
pay out $6M or whatever?)
> 8. This case also illustrates my concern that our justice system does
> not have adequate procedures in place to review cases except on very
> narrow grounds - some changes are neededint hat repsect as well.
> 9. Whatever the decision, teh previous inaction makes this now a
> political issue - with the decision on both eligibility and the amount
> of compensation being an indicator of the extent to which the
> government is able to mae principled decisions and put right, as far
> as possible, an evident wrong casued by problems n our justice system.
this man is saying?)
1. Speak English.
2. Please back up your shit.
--
Duncan.
Dave Doe
Jan 31, 2015, 7:57:58 AM1/31/15
to
In article <3cfe63aa-bb93-459b...@googlegroups.com>,
john...@gmail.com, JohnO says...
in the day. Not fair to compare to 2015 technology. But the public
("us") seem to have a different opinion on that. Now where did that
come from? - back then?
I'm sure you, and others have read Karam's books. Regardless of that,
the media attention to Karam's cause, seems to me, to be quite one-sided
(when did the media ever interview Bain, "one on one"???). What's with
the Karam cheerleader dude?
I hope too that people have read the Police PCA reports that defend the
almost all of the claims that Karam made about them...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/resource/the-police-and-pca-
investigation-into-the-arrest-and-prosecution-of-david-bain
Point-by-point, evidence and factual dismissal. It's an interesting
read.
--
Duncan.
john...@gmail.com, JohnO says...
>
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 15:33:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:23:03 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > A few poiints:
> > 1. It doesn't matter how much you personally read about the case, or
> > what you think happened. Bain's convicton was adjudged unsafe, and he
> > will not be re-tried.
>
> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
>
> > 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
>
> That's an extremely broad comment. To be specific: the police stuffed
> up the evidence handling. There have been several other stuff ups
> since that could have been avoided.
It was a long time ago now. The Police did a pretty good job I think,
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 15:33:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:23:03 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > A few poiints:
> > 1. It doesn't matter how much you personally read about the case, or
> > what you think happened. Bain's convicton was adjudged unsafe, and he
> > will not be re-tried.
>
> Irrelevant to the question of compensation.
>
> > 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
>
> That's an extremely broad comment. To be specific: the police stuffed
> up the evidence handling. There have been several other stuff ups
> since that could have been avoided.
in the day. Not fair to compare to 2015 technology. But the public
("us") seem to have a different opinion on that. Now where did that
come from? - back then?
I'm sure you, and others have read Karam's books. Regardless of that,
the media attention to Karam's cause, seems to me, to be quite one-sided
(when did the media ever interview Bain, "one on one"???). What's with
the Karam cheerleader dude?
I hope too that people have read the Police PCA reports that defend the
almost all of the claims that Karam made about them...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/resource/the-police-and-pca-
investigation-into-the-arrest-and-prosecution-of-david-bain
Point-by-point, evidence and factual dismissal. It's an interesting
read.
--
Duncan.
Dave Doe
Jan 31, 2015, 8:22:27 AM1/31/15
to
In article <fe2c161e-effb-42a6...@googlegroups.com>,
john...@gmail.com, JohnO says...
<snip>
> A dispassion review of the case for compensation from Jock Anderson:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11393694
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=
11393694
A good summary of where the Government is at, I think.
I read this as: fuck what the general consensus of the people is, this
is about objective justice and a responsibility to the people of New
Zealand - even it it might cost the Party votes - they must do the right
and just thing.
Who cares about how people "feel" - religion is based on unevidenced
belief.
I'm 100% fine with Jock's summary of the claim.
--
Duncan.
john...@gmail.com, JohnO says...
<snip>
> A dispassion review of the case for compensation from Jock Anderson:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11393694
11393694
A good summary of where the Government is at, I think.
I read this as: fuck what the general consensus of the people is, this
is about objective justice and a responsibility to the people of New
Zealand - even it it might cost the Party votes - they must do the right
and just thing.
Who cares about how people "feel" - religion is based on unevidenced
belief.
I'm 100% fine with Jock's summary of the claim.
--
Duncan.
Rich80105
Jan 31, 2015, 7:48:07 PM1/31/15
to
confirmed, and he is not being accused of any crime by the justice
system. You may want to think about what "innocent until proen guilty"
means.
>
>> 2. The justice system stuffed this one up.
acknowledged by the Court that they stuffed up by making an unsafe
conviction.
>
>I've said that already. The Privy Council screwed up and made a bad
>decision. The second trial was a crock - check out the Jury - and
>indeed given the (unfixed errors) of Joe Karam's re-publication of his
>book before the second trial, very probably in many peoples opinion, sub
>judice. Given then that a Jury for the second trial could not be
>unpredacious, the result is the same - bias - unfair - and unsafe.
>
>http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/reprinting-of-david-and-goliath-
>was-a-violation-of-sub-judice
>
>http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/17158/sub-judice-rule-exists-
>protection-comment-has-its-place
>
>http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/fil
>es/889388_Bain%20case%20and%20David%20and%20Goliath_%20Ltr%20to%20Kent%
>20Parker%207_9_10_1.PDF
>
>> 3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
>> had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
>
>? your point?
If you (or anyone else) had been in priison for 13 years for a crime
>I've said that already. The Privy Council screwed up and made a bad
>decision. The second trial was a crock - check out the Jury - and
>indeed given the (unfixed errors) of Joe Karam's re-publication of his
>book before the second trial, very probably in many peoples opinion, sub
>judice. Given then that a Jury for the second trial could not be
>unpredacious, the result is the same - bias - unfair - and unsafe.
>
>http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/reprinting-of-david-and-goliath-
>was-a-violation-of-sub-judice
>
>http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/17158/sub-judice-rule-exists-
>protection-comment-has-its-place
>
>http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/fil
>es/889388_Bain%20case%20and%20David%20and%20Goliath_%20Ltr%20to%20Kent%
>20Parker%207_9_10_1.PDF
>
>> 3. Bain is now out of prison, with the same status he would have had
>> had the verdict been not guilty - but he has spent years in prison.
>
>? your point?
you had not been properly convicted of, and tha was acknowledged by
teh court, setting him free may not be enough.
>> 4. There has been a claim for compensation - which under the current
>> system is assessed by the Minister for Justice.
>
>Yes. You're saying nothing.
It is summarising a fact that others tend to forget - this is usenet
>
>Yes. You're saying nothing.
you know.
>
>> 5. The previous Minister of Justice commissioned a report, which did
>> not give the decision she wanted, and she made no decision.
>
>Bollocks. It was not a personal decision of Collins nor the Party.
Minister will consider? My statement is correct - she expressed a
dislike for the conclusions of the report and made no decision on
compenmsation - perhaps you had forgotten point 4 above?
> It
>was an objective decision based on the unsafe Binnie report that, quite
>clearly, would never stand public scrutiny.
>She later disclosed everything for everyone to see. What's to argue
>about? State it - point by point.
>Binnie's conclusions - some of which were never asked for - such as
>should compensation be paid (not his decision) - is unsafe - fullstop.
compensation. She did not make a decision. A decision still needs to
be made.
>
>> 6. There is now a new Minister considering it afresh. By attempting to
>> go back thrugh all the evidence, media and other commentators are
>> effectively trying to influence the Minister's decision
>
>I hope not. I trust Amy, or anyone in charge of such a claim, does so
>by evidence, and not public or media opinion or feeling. And certainly
>not *your* feelings (and nor mine).
details of the crime and part of the evidence. Good.
>
>
>> 7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
>> decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
>> compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
>> for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
>> not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
>
>State your problems.
>Be aware that the Government or representative of - a Minister, etc -
>should not be subject to personal or public or media influence. Please
>state for example, how Collins got that wrong on Bain. She was IMO
>totally objective. Evidence against that? And what for? (what would or
>could she, or the Party, gain from that?. Why not just say "yes" and
>pay out $6M or whatever?)
What Colins got wrong was not making a decision.
>
>> 7. Some (including me) believe that the current system of leaving
>> decisions as to eligibility for compensation and the amount of
>> compensation to a politician, without adequate agreement on principles
>> for elegibility or the amount based on various standard factors, is
>> not good practice and needs to be reviewed.
>
>State your problems.
>Be aware that the Government or representative of - a Minister, etc -
>should not be subject to personal or public or media influence. Please
>state for example, how Collins got that wrong on Bain. She was IMO
>totally objective. Evidence against that? And what for? (what would or
>could she, or the Party, gain from that?. Why not just say "yes" and
>pay out $6M or whatever?)
>
>> 8. This case also illustrates my concern that our justice system does
>> not have adequate procedures in place to review cases except on very
>
>I've already asked you to spell out those changes. Still waiting.
My concern was about problems; the changes necessary to alleviate
>I've already asked you to spell out those changes. Still waiting.
those concerns should be for the justice system and politicians to
consider.
>
>> 9. Whatever the decision, the previous inaction makes this now a
>> political issue - with the decision on both eligibility and the amount
>> of compensation being an indicator of the extent to which the
>> government is able to mae principled decisions and put right, as far
>> as possible, an evident wrong casued by problems n our justice system.
>
>What a load of fucken opinionated crap (can anyone else work out what
>this man is saying?)
>1. Speak English.
Collins sat on this issue for too long without a decision. That has
>> of compensation being an indicator of the extent to which the
>> government is able to mae principled decisions and put right, as far
>> as possible, an evident wrong casued by problems n our justice system.
>
>What a load of fucken opinionated crap (can anyone else work out what
>this man is saying?)
>1. Speak English.
made it a political issue.
Dave Doe
Jan 31, 2015, 9:25:05 PM1/31/15
to
In article <l3tqcapnkgctqg5nf...@4ax.com>, rich80105
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
fine with that.
What would you do?
Anyway; you're wrong - her hands were tied from making a decision
because of team DB's subsequent actions. Remember?
--
Duncan.
@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
> What Colins got wrong was not making a decision.
OK, so she should err on the side of caution and not pay compo. I'm
fine with that.
What would you do?
Anyway; you're wrong - her hands were tied from making a decision
because of team DB's subsequent actions. Remember?
--
Duncan.
Rich80105
Feb 1, 2015, 1:59:33 AM2/1/15
to
On Sun, 1 Feb 2015 15:25:03 +1300, Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:
>In article <l3tqcapnkgctqg5nf...@4ax.com>, rich80105
>@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
>> What Colins got wrong was not making a decision.
>
>OK, so she should err on the side of caution and not pay compo. I'm
>fine with that.
>
>What would you do?
It took the National Party a long time to realise that Collins was
>In article <l3tqcapnkgctqg5nf...@4ax.com>, rich80105
>@hotmail.com, Rich80105 says...
>> What Colins got wrong was not making a decision.
>
>OK, so she should err on the side of caution and not pay compo. I'm
>fine with that.
>
>What would you do?
"ïnappropriate" as a Minister. Previous Ministers faced with similar
problems have managed to do the job in far less time. Justice delayed
is justice denied.
>Anyway; you're wrong - her hands were tied from making a decision
>because of team DB's subsequent actions. Remember?
victor
Feb 1, 2015, 4:23:17 AM2/1/15
to
dollars.
0 new messages