Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Just as a matter of interest, which bucket would you put Tamihere in?
Should David Bain get compensation?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Just as a matter of interest, which bucket would you put Tamihere in?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I have replied in the David Tamihere thread so as not to further derail this one
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11022773#post11022773
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,079
At least some people have done well out of it:
"An estimated $1 million has been spent on hiring the three former judges"
I imagined you would read Karam's book before repeating your fiction. Let's see, staged suicide, blood on his wrist above the glove line, precise mark from ramming cartridge, honestly you are blind.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
The only thing I have any interest in reading by or about Joe Karam is his death notice, and it won't be soon enough for my liking.
As to fiction, you might like to consider your own words first:
Yeah, it was amazing how he managed to commit suicide so cunningly that he was still able to alter the scene after he died.
That level of clever will always win.
Staged suicide my backside. Curious to know - how did he manage to shoot himself in the back of the head? Were his arms unusually long?
Given the amount of blood around, I'm not sure what you think this proves beyond "people bleed when shot".
Utter nonsense, long since discredited.
As the teacher used to say, you are guessing, Atheist.
It is not easy to create a staged suicide, in fact as close to impossible as it comes. If it walks and quacks like a duck, that's what you have.
Still, a victory for Miss Piggy Collins. That should make your day.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Nope. Backed by evidence, as you yourself state:
And in Robin's case no effort was made to make it look very suicidal. It was just another example of thick pigs not doing their job because they were wetting their pants at having nailed the perpetrator.
That's why the evidence wasn't preserved.
I find it quite ironic that Baino got out for exactly the opposite reason to A A Thomas. Thomas was fitted up by planting false evidence - Baino was so clearly the killer that they failed to keep the actual evidence.
Quite right! Baino shoots like one as well.
Still, a victory for Miss Piggy Collins. That should make your day.
Not quite. Him going back to jail for another 40 years would be a good outcome. Paying him would have been a worse outcome than his wandering about, so it's a small consolation, but a valid one.
You got this one totally wrong. I thought your way till I read the book. It is impossible to believe he is guilty after reading it.
And logic dictates anyway that a young man does not kill his family.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Ah, I'm beginning to see your problem.
We decide guilt & innocence by evidence and facts on this planet, not what some hacked out ex-All Black, league turncoat, short-man's syndrome dickhead creates in his own mind.
If the judges who have reviewed the case see Baino as "not innocent" that's factual enough for me.
That is a spectacularly silly statement.
"Logic" would dictate fathers not killing their own babies.
"Logic" would dictate that 11 year olds do not commit murder.
Logic is waaaay overrated when you're talking about humans, a completely illogical species.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I have a different take on this.
Regardless of whether I think Bain killed his family (I am 50/50 on that, I favour the murder-suicide scenario - Robin killed his family, David killed his father), I am somewhat disturbed by a number aspects of the dubiousness of the process here.
Firstly, I consider it a gross injustice that a person, having been found not-guilty, has to further prove their innocence. The question of guilt or innocence should rest solely at trial, and once a person has been found not guilty, they're NOT GUILTY... Period!. The facts are that Bain was found not guilty at his retrial. For me, that should mean the guilty verdict in the first trial was automatically wrong, and he should never have been sent to jail in the first place.
Secondly, the Government has clearly gone judge-shopping to get the decision they wanted. I have no doubt that they would not have gone past the first judge if they had got what they wanted first up, just as I am sure they would have kept shopping for new judges if they kept getting told what they didn't want to hear. I liken this to the forensics in the Mark Lundy case where the Police shopped internationally until they found some dubious forensic "gun-for-hire" scientist who was willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Thirdly, I disagree with the whole process of making compensation a political decision. The question of compensation should be dealt with as a separate phase in the retrial, in much the same way that a sentencing phase is part of a murder trial. After the accused is found not guilty, the judge retires to consider the question of compensation. Alternatively, it could be dealt with by a panel of five judges of the supreme court, whose decision is final and cannot be appealed by either party. The level of compensation would roughly follow the margin of their decisions.. 5-0 would indicate a large compensation, 4-1 would be less, 3-2 would be even less.
Regardless of whether I think Bain killed his family (I am 50/50 on that, I favour the murder-suicide scenario - Robin killed his family, David killed his father), I am somewhat disturbed by a number aspects of the dubiousness of the process here.
Firstly, I consider it a gross injustice that a person, having been found not-guilty, has to further prove their innocence. The question of guilt or innocence should rest solely at trial, and once a person has been found not guilty, they're NOT GUILTY... Period!. The facts are that Bain was found not guilty at his retrial. For me, that should mean the guilty verdict in the first trial was automatically wrong, and he should never have been sent to jail in the first place.
Secondly, the Government has clearly gone judge-shopping to get the decision they wanted. I have no doubt that they would not have gone past the first judge if they had got what they wanted first up, just as I am sure they would have kept shopping for new judges if they kept getting told what they didn't want to hear. I liken this to the forensics in the Mark Lundy case where the Police shopped internationally until they found some dubious forensic "gun-for-hire" scientist who was willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Thirdly, I disagree with the whole process of making compensation a political decision. The question of compensation should be dealt with as a separate phase in the retrial, in much the same way that a sentencing phase is part of a murder trial. After the accused is found not guilty, the judge retires to consider the question of compensation. Alternatively, it could be dealt with by a panel of five judges of the supreme court, whose decision is final and cannot be appealed by either party. The level of compensation would roughly follow the margin of their decisions.. 5-0 would indicate a large compensation, 4-1 would be less, 3-2 would be even less.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Except civil and court cases differ, so there's good precedent for compensation. It isn't always awarded.
It's one time I'm very happy the decision is political. The first judgement would have seen Baino pocketing about a million for each of his victims, and I think that would be immensely unreasonable.
This from wiki all looks pretty familiar after reading Joe's book.
After a year long investigation, Binnie concluded, in a 180-page report,[66] that Dunedin's police had made "egregious errors" and that there were "numerous instances" of investigative ineptitude that led directly to the wrongful conviction. In particular, he described the failure of the Crown to preserve evidence in the murder investigation, by burning down the house, as one of the "extraordinary circumstances" that the Cabinet should take into account.[67] Another was the failure of the police to test Robin’s hands and clothing for residue of firearms discharge.[68] Police also failed to investigate information that Laniet had accused her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family and failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability despite the Detectives Manual specifically instructing police to pursue the issue of motive. They also misled the first jury on where the lens of David's spectacles was found and knowingly gave the jury the wrong time for the switching on of the family computer. Altogether, Binnie identified 12 different mistakes or failings by the police.[69]
Binnie decided the evidence established that "the miscarriage of justice was the direct result of a police investigation characterised by carelessness and lack of due diligence"[70] and wrote: "in what is essentially a circumstantial case, it is noteworthy that the Police chose to exclude the one suspect (Robin) who was alleged to have a plausible if challenged motive, and pursue for 15 years the other suspect (David) for whom they had found no motive whatsoever."[71] He concluded that "on the balance of probabilities" Bain was innocent of the murders in 1994 and should be paid compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.[72]
Also
Judge Binnie subsequently noted that "The 2009 jury did not reach a different conclusion on the same record [as the first trial]; it was presented with a very different and far more extensive factual picture, and the testimony of numerous additional experts of impressive credentials, than had been made available to the jury in 1995.[54]
Atheist, You clearly decided early and have left nothing to chance by closing your ears and eyes since. I see the same forensic pattern as Knox, Lundy, Faria, Avery, Thomas, Pora, Cosima and Sabrina Misseri and the list goes on and on.
You have this one wrong, the old man shot himself.
Last edited:
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Your take and my take are exactly the same. I agree 100% with every one of your points.
Either you're found guilty or not guilty by the court, any opinion on the case made outside the court is irrelevant. No matter how many retired judges they get to assess the case, their opinions are just that, and have no legal standing. Bain was found not guilty, therefore was wrongly imprisoned, therefore is due compensation.
Reading the tea leaves, Bain will get his compensation. Karam and Adams seem to be communicating OK. And it is even possible Adams has the smarts to see motive and opportunity do matter. It is also possible she will enjoy shafting Collins as another pretender to the crown.
It might even be a good training run for the Lundy compensation....
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
No, and you know for certain what you're saying is incorrect, because I publicly admitted that evidence had made me change my mind on Lundy and I am now utterly convinced of his innocence and you know that was not the case at the start.
With Bain, you are looking at the evidence incorrectly and accepting the made up crap that Karam spewed all over his book.
And that's the crux of the matter. The idiotic morons that pass for pigs in NZ have themselves entirely to blame for the verdict. They failed to protect the damned evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Robin was murdered.
I'll bet a whole truckload of chocolate fish against your dead match you're completely wrong.
It would be a disaster for National and will not happen. Public opinion is split and will definitely sway back into the guilty camp after the leak and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Key would allow it.
Wow, sorry I spoke!.
look this is the thread to explain what I am missing. You must have a vital datapoint, and particularly a few specific illustrations of Karam's errors. I am genuinely interested.
Binnie said this.
37. It strikes me as inherently implausible that David Bain, however incompetent, would kill
four people, then take time out to do a paper route in clothes smeared in blood (albeit covered
in part by a red sweat shirt), anxious to be seen by customers along the way, leaving the scene
of the massacre open to discovery by Robin before his return.**Robin was often up and about
the house soon after his alarm went off at 6.30 am.15**Occasionally Robin was up earlier.16**He
sometimes used a downstairs door to come in from the caravan.17**This would have led him
directly to the scene of the murders.**Had Robin done this on the morning of 20 June, he would
immediately have discovered the carnage while David was out, and called the Police before
David got home.***
38. Such a mindless “four before one after” plan attributed to David, a university student, is
just not credible in the absence of (i) any expert evidence that David suffered from an
abnormality of the mind or (ii) possessed sub‐normal intelligence.***