The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
Failed miserably.
Hard luck. This one's dead and buried.
I just feel sorry for the poor bloody offspring of that pair of utter mutants.
Should David Bain get compensation?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Failed miserably.
Hard luck. This one's dead and buried.
I just feel sorry for the poor bloody offspring of that pair of utter mutants.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
I trust a few guffaws were heard when it was decided the other day to give Baino the rifle back...
Well, except Joe Karam has requisitioned the items, and no doubt will do further testing.
Maybe he is getting bored and plans some private prosecutions against the mendacious crown experts.
Or will test to see how blood gets smeared on the victims wrists when you shoot them with that gun.
Or was the blood instead left over from washing, changing clothes, leaving one's own blood in the laundry on items, then shooting self.
Come on atheist, the science is well settled in this case. You are better than the baying crowds and poll driven cabinet who have cheated Baino.
Where did you read that?
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
I thought so too.
Atheist is far smarter than the Martin van Beynen listers of what you would need to believe.
I have no doubt Judith Collins bought in, for a range of reasons.
The list is a disgrace, but holds sway in controverting scientific evidence. Let us see how Atheist answers Fixit.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
It sure is. Pity nobody on the jury understood it and went with the sympathy verdict instead.
"Poor David... he's suffered so much."
Exactly unlike his family.
I feel sorry for Stephen fighting his father for dear life, not implicated in bizarre rituals with mum, incest with Laniet, arguments with the older girl, all who died quickly....
Why do I bother? Because that is what this forum is designed for. You are opposing its natural purpose by orbiting the evidence and looking the other way.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
...<snip>....
I admire your defence of the guilty but innocent, as in Mark Lundy, but your defence of the guilty, as in David Bain/William David Cullen Davies, weakens your case a lot.
...<snip>...
Edited by jsfisher:
Edited to remove text at odds with Rules 11 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Joe's impeccable research was on ebook I would post tracts that would change your view. I will suggest to him he converts trial by ambush.
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
First, I still think there is merit is the two murderers theory - Robyn Bain murdered his family, David murdered his father in retribution. On that basis, I personally don't think David Bain deserves compensation because IMO he was guilty of one of the murders he was charged with.
Second, the matter of the standards of proof required for compensation is something I have an issue with. If you are found not guilty of a crime, then that should be that in the eyes of the Law; you are deemed to have not committed that crime., Why should you now have to further prove you didn't do it in order to get compensation for being wrongfully convicted in the first place? On that basis, Bain ought to be compensated, even though I personally don't believe he deserves it.
IMO, the only reason for the system we have now is because the Department of Justice wants to avoid admitting their errors (and the deep flaws in the justice system in this country) and the Government is trying to avoid paying out money.
The standard for compensation should be the verdict of the jury. If you are found not guilty in a retrial after a wrongful conviction, then you should be automatically entitled to compensation. Further, I would make it part of the trial itself (rather like the opposite of a "Penalty Phase" in a US court guilty verdict for first degree murder when the death penalty is on the table). Once the jury find the convicted defendant not guilty, the trial moves on to the "Compensation Phase". The Attorney General (or their representative) and the defendant's solicitor argue in front of the jury, the amount of compensation to be paid, and the jury decides on a figure. That figure is binding an not open to appeal by either party.
Second, the matter of the standards of proof required for compensation is something I have an issue with. If you are found not guilty of a crime, then that should be that in the eyes of the Law; you are deemed to have not committed that crime., Why should you now have to further prove you didn't do it in order to get compensation for being wrongfully convicted in the first place? On that basis, Bain ought to be compensated, even though I personally don't believe he deserves it.
IMO, the only reason for the system we have now is because the Department of Justice wants to avoid admitting their errors (and the deep flaws in the justice system in this country) and the Government is trying to avoid paying out money.
The standard for compensation should be the verdict of the jury. If you are found not guilty in a retrial after a wrongful conviction, then you should be automatically entitled to compensation. Further, I would make it part of the trial itself (rather like the opposite of a "Penalty Phase" in a US court guilty verdict for first degree murder when the death penalty is on the table). Once the jury find the convicted defendant not guilty, the trial moves on to the "Compensation Phase". The Attorney General (or their representative) and the defendant's solicitor argue in front of the jury, the amount of compensation to be paid, and the jury decides on a figure. That figure is binding an not open to appeal by either party.
Last edited:
That hybrid theory just does not stack up. Joe Karam does all the forensics of timing of computer turn on. It is bullet proof. The contact wound and the least contortionate suicide trajectory further dispel this concept, and a host of other factors.
There is no doubt left, a bit like the other cases, Lundy, MacDonald, Pora, Thomas, Tamihere and probably Watson and so on. Not to mention Peter Ellis and the parent bribing. The police have screwed so many communities in these few cases, it is time the composite whole are used to raise dramatically the bar for arrest and prosecution. This is where the trouble begins and face saving takes over.
The stupid idea we will prosecute and do our best is a disaster. Guilt is dead easy to prove to a jury where it really exists. Despite the claims of the family, I suspect that Quinton Winders did murder George Taiora, a reading of the judge's decision demonstrates incompatibilities with any theory of innocence. Yet it looked all over a gang killing and mistaken identity. This is just one example where absolute proof is scarce, but no other explanation for his behaviour and history fits. Good Kings college boy but.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Definitely. I would like this thread to work the case, it needs some resolution.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
There are only three scenarios worth investigating
Scenario 1: David Bain murdered his entire family in the early hours of the morning, went out to do his paper round, then returned, turned on the computer, wrote the famous message "Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay"
Scenario 2: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family, turned on the computer, wrote the message and then committed suicide, and David arrived home to find them all dead
Scenario 3: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family. He then turned on the computer, and wrote the message just as David arrived home to find them all dead. David and Robyn fought, a David killed him.
There are two possible times that the Bain computer could have been turned on...
Martin Cox, a software engineer from the University of Otago worked out a start time of 6.41.06am, however his methodology involved some assumptions and was hampered by the fact that the computer clock was correctly because the BIOS battery was flat so the clock only started when it was turned on. He also had to use a Policeman's analogue wrist watch that was two minutes fast and had no second had as a time reference to work back to when the computer might have been started. It is difficult to see how Mr Cox could come to such an accurate time given the inaccuracies in his measuring equipment.
Another computer expert Maatern Kleintjies employed more sophisticated technology than Cox used, said that the time could only be established as somewhere between 6.39.49am and 6.49.11.
If we take Joe Karam's assertion that whoever turned on the Bain's computer is the murderer, then we are still no wiser because David's estimate was that he arrived home at around 6:42/6:43, and this was confirmed by a neighbour, Denise Laney, who saw David at his gate just before 6.45 a.m.
If we take Maarten Kleintjes estimate as accurate, then the computer might just as easily have been already on when David arrived home, or it might not yet have been turned on. This would fit any of the three scenarios
If we take Martin Cox' less than satisfactory evidence, the computer switch-on time could only have been before David arrived home. This would rule out scenario 1
Essentially, the estimated computer start times are meaningless, and the two murderers theory is not ruled out by any of the possible start times
Scenario 1: David Bain murdered his entire family in the early hours of the morning, went out to do his paper round, then returned, turned on the computer, wrote the famous message "Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay"
Scenario 2: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family, turned on the computer, wrote the message and then committed suicide, and David arrived home to find them all dead
Scenario 3: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family. He then turned on the computer, and wrote the message just as David arrived home to find them all dead. David and Robyn fought, a David killed him.
There are two possible times that the Bain computer could have been turned on...
Martin Cox, a software engineer from the University of Otago worked out a start time of 6.41.06am, however his methodology involved some assumptions and was hampered by the fact that the computer clock was correctly because the BIOS battery was flat so the clock only started when it was turned on. He also had to use a Policeman's analogue wrist watch that was two minutes fast and had no second had as a time reference to work back to when the computer might have been started. It is difficult to see how Mr Cox could come to such an accurate time given the inaccuracies in his measuring equipment.
Another computer expert Maatern Kleintjies employed more sophisticated technology than Cox used, said that the time could only be established as somewhere between 6.39.49am and 6.49.11.
If we take Joe Karam's assertion that whoever turned on the Bain's computer is the murderer, then we are still no wiser because David's estimate was that he arrived home at around 6:42/6:43, and this was confirmed by a neighbour, Denise Laney, who saw David at his gate just before 6.45 a.m.
If we take Maarten Kleintjes estimate as accurate, then the computer might just as easily have been already on when David arrived home, or it might not yet have been turned on. This would fit any of the three scenarios
If we take Martin Cox' less than satisfactory evidence, the computer switch-on time could only have been before David arrived home. This would rule out scenario 1
Essentially, the estimated computer start times are meaningless, and the two murderers theory is not ruled out by any of the possible start times
Martin Kleintjes was the go to guy.
But if you go back to the Lundy thread you will find our friend HardCheese chimed in as computer expert that became fascinated by the impossibilty of Kleintjes, and the crown attributing plausibilty to his false 2002 narrative.
This of course does not make his work on Bain worthless, but it is not helpful on his CV.
The idea there was a fight between Robin and David culminating in a singular gunshot that replicated the least contortionate suicide trajectory AND was a contact shot is dealt with by Bayes. But it is actually better dealt with by common sense. What are the odds? I would rather back black 22 with my rent money than this eventuality.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I have to confess I'm pretty much completely ignorant of the intricacies of this case, my entire knowledge pretty much coming from Wikipedia. From what I understand, Scenario 1 is the prosecution case, Scenario 2 is the defence case. But why is Scenario 3 is here - if that had happened, wouldn't Bain have put that forward as his defence?
As I have said, the evidence points exclusively to 2.
It would be in Joe Karam and David Bain's interests to release his books electronically. They are profound exposees of this quasi criminal behaviour by the state. Their performance is very similar to the Italians in the Knox case that I know you follow. The cases map perfectly, where the person who discovers the crime scene is hunted into jail with fabricated and logistically and scientifically impossible scenarios..
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its not a very good idea to admit that you murdered your father in revenge for him killing your family... You will still face a lengthy prison sentence for that, and knowing the crooked Police and Justice system we have in this country, they will almost certainly try to pin the other murders on you.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Does anyone else seriously propose the two murderers theory you support?