You are incorrigible.
Van Beynen paints bad in the covering article, he is a failed lawyer, a failed journalist. I like him for that because he is a battler, but David Bain is innocent.
Should David Bain get compensation?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Van Beynen paints bad in the covering article, he is a failed lawyer, a failed journalist. I like him for that because he is a battler, but David Bain is innocent.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
No worries, mate - I'll stick to the evidence rather than your opinion.
I do find it interesting that Van Beynen is a mirror of your boy who has fought so long for Lundy.
You mean Mike White??
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Geoff Levick
Geoff is a retired very successful horticultural and agricultural chemicals importer.
He is a proper scientist, and has had plenty of contact with Joe Karam.
Despite that I have not asked what he thinks of the Bain case.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Cite, please?
As I understand it, he was a horse breeder who imported equine products which are classed as chemicals and that he isn't a scientist's backside, but I'm willing to stand corrected.
His cv on LinkedIn seems to support my view more than yours: https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-levick-53767114/?ppe=1
No university, and since he has his UE subjects in, I'd bet he'd put a degree in.
His work got the Lundy case to the privy council, who accepted it in the shortest time in 180 years.
A rogue system temporarily undid this work, but it is in the way of these cases it will be resolved. Wellington in October, enjoy.
Caveat, in New Zealand the system is so cosy that inmate is largely irrelevant in the political and private club landscape. Look what happened to David Bain.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
I wasn't discussing his work, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that you were incorrect.
I shall presume your avoidance of the question means he is not a scientist.
Geoff Levick is almost as fine a scientist as Andrew Tipping j
And Suzan Glazebrooke j
Sorry, now Sir Andrew and Dame Susan. Lovely lives, doting children and grand children, but terrible terrible liars.
I listened to the last episode of Black Hands.
Van Beynen claims it was a careful plan but that now Bain has blocked his memory of it. I can't imagine blocking the memory of constructing a careful plan over weeks.
He claims that David shot Robin from behind the curtain.
However we know with certainty the silencer was touching Robin's temple as the single shot was fired, this is an immutable data point.
What plan could count on Robin being close to the curtain and the single shot replicating a suicide trajectory?
This podcast series is a disgrace, Van Beynen should be locked up with some rocket scientists and aircraft engineers who must show their workings to make things safely airborne.
Van Beynen claims it was a careful plan but that now Bain has blocked his memory of it. I can't imagine blocking the memory of constructing a careful plan over weeks.
He claims that David shot Robin from behind the curtain.
However we know with certainty the silencer was touching Robin's temple as the single shot was fired, this is an immutable data point.
What plan could count on Robin being close to the curtain and the single shot replicating a suicide trajectory?
This podcast series is a disgrace, Van Beynen should be locked up with some rocket scientists and aircraft engineers who must show their workings to make things safely airborne.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Incorrect.
Thanks to the stupidity of the pigs, the point is neither immutable or able to be confirmed or denied.
If I prove it will you join the great and the good?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, I'm not buying this without forensic evidence. I have found nothing to corroborate this assertion, and I'm afraid the cops made such a complete pig's breakfast of their crime scene examination and the way the Robyn's body was handled, that I don't think any will be forthcoming. FFS, he was an obvious gunshot victim, found in close proximity to a potential murder weapon and with a potential suicide note on the family computer, and they didn't even bag his hands, thereby losing any chance to test for GSR. I mean, WTF!!?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
You can't. For some reason the difference between fact and supposition seems to escape you.
Exactly that.
The crown eventually ceased and desisted from contesting the contact gunshot wound at the second trial.
Judge Pankhurst instructed the jury to believe Dempster in their deliberations.
Once more:
Dr Alec Dempster, the pathologist:
He described the entry wound to Robin Bain as being 4mm in diameter surrounded by a ring of soot up to 10 mm in diameter.
"This indicates to me that this is a contact wound where the muzzle of the gun has been held in direct contact with the skin of the deceased."
Notes at the crime scene an hour after discovery.
I will for now restrict commenting until the bold arial black highlight is dealt with. For example, explain how this can be planned by a 23 year old as Van Beynen claims he planned.
Nothing else Dempster said in 17 years has any relevance
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,371
Solely because the idiot pigs didn't respect the evidence.
One expert witness? How often does that happen? There was no challenge because there was nothing to challenge.
Kudos to little Joe* and his boys for realising it, minus several million points for NZ Police.
*Did I mention he is a really short guy, with all of the attendant short man's syndrome you'd ever want? Joe Karam, certifiable midget. (He hates that, so I thought it was a good time to mention it - he Googles his name a lot.)
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not letting you poison the well that easily.
What you appear to be doing is cherry picking part of what he has said, and discarding those part which you don't agree with. That is not now expert testimony works!
"Although his view at David Bain's first trial in 1995 was the wound was a contact or close-range wound, he (Dempster) now had to accept the wound was not a tight contact wound, taking into account the marking caused to Robin Bain's skin by the gases expelled from the rifle."
I believe David killed his father, because the forensic evidence fits that scenario. The finding of blood spatter on the alcove curtain 820mm above the floor tends to suggest that Robin was close to the curtain, not sitting in a chair some distance away. The scenario of David standing behind the curtain and shooting Robin in the head makes the most sense to me.
Whether David killed his family is another matter. I still think the 'Robin murders family - David kills Robin in anger scenario' is still a viable one. I have yet to see anything that definitely rules out this scenario.
Yes it is popular, I sat at a meeting where everyone listened politely to this being the only solution by a perfectly rational journalist.
I don't buy it.
There was blood in the rifle barrel that is thrown back by the bullet not exiting the other side of the head.
That blow back requires a reasonable seal.
And Justice Ian Binnie has sentenced New Zealand. One hurring big black eye for this monstrosity against David Bain the New Zealand public and justice for all.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201853679
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201853679
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
He's right on at least one count. New Zealand has to de-politicise issues of compensation for wrongful conviction. Politicians should not be allowed anywhere near these kinds of decisions, it should be a matter for the courts and the courts alone.
As I have said before, I am very much in favour of a system that is something like the American system of a "penalty phase" after a guilty verdict in a first degree murder trial. IMO, ALL criminal trials should have penalty phase, whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. This is how I envisage it working...
When there is guilty verdict, the penalty phase is simply what happens now. The judge passes sentence, and the defendant is taken down and serves his sentence
In a not guilty verdict, first and foremost, the defendant should have ALL of their costs reimbursed, coming out of the other end of the process no worse off financially than they were going in. The defendant submits his costs schedule and the jury rubber stamps the payment. However, the jury should also be able to decide on punitive damages where the prosecutor's case was so poor that they believe it should never have gone to trial, e.g. the Ewen McKenzie trial
However, when there is a retrial and a guilty verdict is overturned (e.g. David Bain, Arthur Thomas, David Dougherty, Teina Pora), the jury should decide on the question of compensation. Both sides put their case for and/or against compensation as well as stating the amount that should be paid, and the jury retires again to deliberate.
We will never have justice for the wrongfully convicted in this country until politicians with personal agendas are taken out of the loop. Compensation claims in these cases have far too many delays.... justice delayed is justice denied. Unfortunately such a change would take an act of Parliament... and last time I heard, turkeys never vote for Christmas.
PS: I would also change our verdict system to a three verdict system, but that is another discussion.
Last edited: