Home > Social Issues > David Bain – the final call for justice

David Bain – the final call for justice

.

Full story

.

Lucy Akatere, Krishla Fuataha  , & Tania Vini

Shane Cribb

David Dougherty

Aaron Farmer

Rex Haig

Arthur Allan Thomas

et al…

And the name David Bain can be added to the above (incomplete) list of wrongful convictions in this country.

After David Bain’s re-trial and five  Not Guilty verdicts, the issue of compensation arose. The government correctly sought an impartial adjudicator from outside the country, retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie, to rule on the issue.

The above Herald article suggests that Judge Binnie will be issuing a recommendation that David Bain be offered compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

This blogger agree with that recommendation.

The Bain Case has been controversial since the initial murders, one dark wintry morning in 1994. The evidence against David Bain was circumstantial at best, and in at least one matter, was incorrectly presented to the first trial in 1995.

Based on new evidence, and correct interpretation of old evidence, the retrial in 2009 returned the only verdict possible.

This will no doubt bring a torrent of fury from any armchair “jurists” who express a fanatical – almost religious – view of David Bain’s guilt.  Some of these armchair “jurists” have cherry-picked evidence to suit their own views and prejudices. Some have watched too much American crime shows. Some are downright deranged cranks. (A minority are more considered in their views, despite holding views contrary to the Not Guilty verdict.)

No doubt there will always be a small, vociferous minority who believe that they alone ‘Know The Truth’ and contest the Not Guilty verdict. Despite not having sat through the trial nor heard all the evidence and testimony, they obviously know better than the twelve men and women who sat through the entire process.

Luckily for us all, we do not have Jury By Internet.

It would be a dire society to live in if  “armchair jurists” were to sit in judgement of any of us.

.

*

.

Sources

Forejustice.org:  Wrongly Convicted Database Index

NZ Herald: Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet

.

.

= fs =

About these ads
  1. 11 September 2012 at 2:50 am | #1

    The evidence doesn’t support murder-suicide. Just because Joe Karam has a big mouth and was an ex-All Black doesn’t make him right and just because David Bain comes across as a nice guy doesn’t mean he’s innocent. He had the motive, the means and the time to do it. Also, a basic knowledge of firearms and ballistics made it clear the gunshot wound shown in crime scene photos that featured in Joe Karam’s book could not be self-inflicted.

    HOWEVER, if I was on the jury I would’ve voted “not guilty” because the moment the police admitted they had failed to follow correct procedures for securing a crime scene the only correct course of action would’ve been to give David Bain the benefit of the doubt and let him go. That’s what should’ve happened right from the start.

    David Bain should get compensation because he did jail time when he should’ve been acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt.

    Yes, David Bain was the victim of a grave injustice but he’s not innocent.

  2. 11 September 2012 at 9:09 am | #2

    As a matter of interest, Miles, what do you think the motive was? The prosecution never tendered one, as far as I can determine…

  3. 11 September 2012 at 9:27 am | #3

    I’ll be interested to see if they can find the money for compensating David Bain while still saying they can’t find money to save the lives of sick people.

    • 11 September 2012 at 2:24 pm | #4

      Funnily enough, Allyson, they can always seem to find the necessary cash, when it suits them…

      $200 million spent on the Rugby World Cup – not a problem!

  4. 12 September 2012 at 4:36 pm | #5

    The judge actually said by all probabilites he was innocent. Justice is not determined either way by probabilities.

    David Bain was found not guilty at his retrial because there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a shadow a doubt

    Not all the evidence or witnesses from the original trial which found him guilty was available at the re
    trial. At least one of the witnessess was dead.He served nearly 13 yrs in the first trial.

    The National Government is also not bound to give him compensation. It is believed there is some division in the cabinet. Also he was not pardomed or found not guilty in an Appeal.

    The pusher for compensation is Joe Karam who wants his money back. David Bain could probably walk away from the situation.

    The killer of the Bain family has to be David Bain or his late father, Robin. But there has never been any real evidence suggesting Robin did it. So was a ghost responsible?

  5. Deborah Kean
    12 September 2012 at 7:16 pm | #6

    I’ve never understood why so many people still think he’s guilty!
    Being a bit of a weirdo, doesn’t make you a murderer…
    David Bain served as many years as if he had been guilty, and I don’t believe he was, whatever the still unanswered questions are..
    Give him compensation, by all means!
    Deb

  6. tim
    8 December 2012 at 1:50 pm | #7

    David Bain is guilty.Besides all the evidence against him you need to look at the other tell tale things he has done.
    Like recently wearing a jumper that he knows full well looks like the jumper “freddy kruger” out of the horror movie wears.WHY WOULD HE DO THAT??because he’s laughing at the portion of N.Z that thinks he’s innocent,thats the same reason he wanted the rifle back(the same rifle that was used to kill his whole family)from the justice dept after being found not guilty.What kind of person does things like that,people like David Bain do things like that,just plain creepy.I sure wouldn’t want to be any where near that rifle,let alone want it back.
    Another thing that was never really mentioned that i find telling is David mentioning to a relative or friend after the murders(being in one of the books on the case)how he felt and kept on going on about “black or shadow hands”coming to get him,which is the very same thing that was mentioned by the killer(who said he had black or shadow hands coming to get him)who killed his whole family while they slept in their beds in the well known American case in Ammytiville which was written about in a book.
    Also the fact of him telling a friend that he could use his newspaper round as a cover up for a rape(not a murder,to close to the truth,what he was thinking about etc)says a lot.
    Sure in a trial its about facts but common sense never goes astray/is vital as well as long as it is COMMON sense.Though i dont think there was much of that in his last trial as i thought durys were supposed to remain netural so it sickened me all the more after hearing of his not guilty verdict to see dury members hugging him outside the court.Biased or what.That alone should pretty much be a case for a mis-trial.Never seen anything like it,bet David was laughing hard at them,
    confused.

    • 23 January 2013 at 12:38 am | #8

      Mate, I don’t know if he’s guilty or not. I haven’t followed it.

      But if your “analysis” is anything to go by, I’ll stick with the jury verdict.

      • Tim
        23 January 2013 at 9:09 am | #9

        Fair enough,but to base your thoughts on only one paragraph of my whole arguement is a little narrow minded,dont you want to at least give yourself a fair go.
        Or were you just trying to say that my point you bought up is stupid,which baffles as when taken in context with all my points it makes fair and even sense so your reply is a little confusing.
        Maybe your a Bain supporter defending him from any arguement against him???

  7. 8 December 2012 at 4:34 pm | #10

    Tim – that has to be the most deranged explanation I’ve ever heard.

    I assume you’re taking the piss?

    • tim
      10 December 2012 at 9:24 am | #11

      Are you dis-allousned or just closed minded.I dont think you know what your talking about.Why not an explaination about why my post is “deranged”?i think because like i said,you dont know what your talking about.
      Also it wasn’t so much an explaination as it is a summary of facts.

  8. LL
    10 December 2012 at 5:05 pm | #12

    tim :

    Are you dis-allousned or just closed minded.I dont think you know what your talking about.Why not an explaination about why my post is “deranged”?i think because like i said,you dont know what your talking about.
    Also it wasn’t so much an explaination as it is a summary of facts.

    Funny thing is he was found NOT guilty despite all your weird “summary of facts”. Perhaps you know something that all the witnesses, the evidence, and jurors don’t?

  9. LL
    10 December 2012 at 5:07 pm | #13

    tim :

    David Bain is guilty.Besides all the evidence against him you need to look at the other tell tale things he has done.
    Like recently wearing a jumper that he knows full well looks like the jumper “freddy kruger” out of the horror movie wears.WHY WOULD HE DO THAT??

    So you think he’s guilty because of the jumper he wore? Well bugger me. That’s a new one.

    What about his hat, do they indicate his guilt?

  10. LL
    10 December 2012 at 5:14 pm | #14

    tim :

    thats the same reason he wanted the rifle back(the same rifle that was used to kill his whole family)from the justice dept after being found not guilty.What kind of person does things like that,people like David Bain do things like that,just plain creepy.I sure wouldn’t want to be any where near that rifle,let alone want it back.

    That’s because you’re a moron who doesn’t understand that it was his DEFENCE TEAM that wanted the rifle so it could be sent to Victoria, Australia, for forensics analysis.

    And guest what? Despite the NZ Police kindly removing nearly all the blood stains, the Victorian ESR was still able to find minute traces of blood stains on the rifle. The stains were not human, they were animal blood stains.

    Anything else you need to know?

    • tim
      12 December 2012 at 9:51 am | #15

      Moron?I might get some things wrong(not saying i believe your reasoning on the rifle situation)but at least im not an angry person with issues.What is it with people like you who reply in forums with insults?says a lot about you.Also you have some growing up to do,saying i think he’s guilty because of a jumper he wore,when its plain as day i said i think he is guilty because of all the facts in the court case that found him guilty(without predgudiced jury members)and because of all the other facts which were printed in a book about the Bain case.As for you saying prehaps i know something that the jury,witnesses etc dont know,not sure what your trying to say,maybe just more blind shallow reasoning by someone who thinks they know it all.(state of you.)Not guilty by a biased jury,and you stand on that,says a lot too.Amused.

      • 12 December 2012 at 4:42 pm | #16

        Tim, I think LL was referring to your comment linking your belief that David is guilty and reference to his clothing,

        Besides all the evidence against him you need to look at the other tell tale things he has done.
        Like recently wearing a jumper that he knows full well looks like the jumper “freddy kruger” out of the horror movie wears.WHY WOULD HE DO THAT??because he’s laughing at the portion of N.Z that thinks he’s innocent

        As for your statement,

        Not guilty by a biased jury,and you stand on that,says a lot too

        Why do you think that the jury was biased? Even if one or two may have had pre-determined ideas, it is hard to accept that all twelve jurors were biased. Remember that jurors are more or less selected randomly.

  11. LL
    10 December 2012 at 9:16 pm | #17

    The stains [where David's palm-prints were embedded in blood] were not human, they were animal blood stains. Which is what he used the rifle for, shootong rabbits and possums.

  12. LL
    10 December 2012 at 9:18 pm | #18

    milesmadrants :

    He had the motive

    What motive was that?

    Because neither the Police nor Crown offered any motive.

  13. 12 December 2012 at 4:42 pm | #19

    I would remind everyone posting here of my posting rules here: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/about-3/

    “Moron” is unacceptable and further use of such language will result is comments being removed. I appreciate everyone’s co-operation in this matter.

  14. tim
    13 December 2012 at 1:30 pm | #20

    Not guilty by a biased jury,and you stand on that,says a lot too

    Why do you think that the jury was biased? Even if one or two may have had pre-determined ideas, it is hard to accept that all twelve jurors were biased. Remember that jurors are more or less selected randomly.

    Apart from having one or two biased jury members my own”im right”biased mind tells me the jury was biased.Besides,i think,if one or two of those biased jury members were “strongly opinionated”and dominated there talks,while a couple of the others were succeptable(though not necessiraly obviously so)next thing you know you could have 5 or 6 in one camp while the rest,IF in the other camp might start to think maybe the other camp has something to it(being fairly strong with 5-6 peers thinking the opposite)
    Sure that situation could go either way in terms of guilty or not(if in fact it ever does happen)but sway might also obviously lend itself to general puplic opinion,punishment already served,and although im sure the Judge had already talked about that people are still pretty stubborn when it comes to what THEY think is right or wrong.
    At the end of the day Frank,only the jury knows(and each individual)why they did what they did,and why.

    • 13 December 2012 at 4:49 pm | #21

      Apart from having one or two biased jury members my own”im right”biased mind tells me the jury was biased.Besides,i think,if one or two of those biased jury members were “strongly opinionated”and dominated there talks,while a couple of the others were succeptable(though not necessiraly obviously so)next thing you know you could have 5 or 6 in one camp while the rest,IF in the other camp might start to think maybe the other camp has something to it(being fairly strong with 5-6 peers thinking the opposite)

      Or not.

      Or possibly.

      You can guess at anything that may or may not have happened. It’s a futile exercise and proves precisely nothing.

      As you rightly point out, Tim, “only the jury knows(and each individual)why they did what they did,and why”.

      What the rest of us do know is the eventual outcome; five verdicts of Not Guilty. That’s what counts in the end.

  15. Will
    21 December 2012 at 5:15 am | #22

    I think that someone whom possesses such a poor command of English punctuation and spelling, such as Tim, would serve himself far better by relieving those of us with basic intelligence of his opinions.

    • Tim
      29 December 2012 at 10:17 am | #23

      For your information the words i spelled wrong i knew they were wrong but knew people would still know what the word was and would(thought would be) be intelligent and mature enough to overlook the spelling and take my opinion for what it is,my opinion.
      If you dont agree with it thats ok but to nit pick about my spelling and assume you and others on this forum are more intelligent than me in every way because of my spelling says something of your intelligence,maturity.
      Its only my opinion Will,no need to get personal.

      • 29 December 2012 at 7:38 pm | #24

        What I don’t get, Tim, is that despite the Privy Council Law Lords finding that there had been a miscarriage of justice; a re-trial delivering a unanimous “not guilty” verdict; and Justice Binnie coming to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities, that Bain was innocent – you (and other “armchair experts” like you) have come to a conclusion all of your own.

        If you cherry-pick bits and pieces, you can prove anyone is guilty of anything. That’s easy.

        Yet, those who have seen all the evidence; heard all the witnesses; and sat through the actual trial have arrived at a Not Guilty verdict.

        How can you (and other “armchair experts” like you) – who did not attend the trial, nor heard all the witnesses, nor seen all the evidence – expect to know the so-called “truth” behind Bain’s guilt/innocence?

        How do you explain that?

        And do you think it fair and reasonable that you (and other “armchair experts” like you), who are not privy to the full re-trial, should be given credence over 12 randomly-selected jurors who did sit through the entire event?

        It’s interesting tio note that after Arthur Allan Thomas’s pardon by Prime Minister Muldoon, and the Commission of Inquiry that uncovered the truth that evidence had been planted to incriminate Thomas, that there were still those who believed Thomas to be guilty.

        Those people simply chose to ignore the truth; that the cartridge cases had been planted.

  16. 23 January 2013 at 9:25 am | #25

    Tim :

    Maybe your a Bain supporter defending him from any arguement against him???

    Yeah whatever. That’s one hell of a dumb statement to make mate. Your taking this very personally yourself. Maybe your one of the cops who has it in for him?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 594 other followers

%d bloggers like this: