• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should David Bain get compensation?

Last edited:
I think the simplest data point is the certainty of proof that Robin Bain entered the house before David, and was in the vicinity of four dead bodies, and thus unlikely to kneel obediently to be shot in such a manner suicide can also be a consistent finding.
 
62. On 22 December 1996 the forensic evidence that was collected by the Police from the
house before it was burned, and from the bodies at the mortuary, some of which was used at
the 1995 trial, was ordered by Det. Sr Sgt Doyle to be destroyed by 26 January 1996.**This was
before expiry of the time limited for seeking to appeal the convictions to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council.**The defence received no advance notice.**Fair trial rights of any accused
require the preservation of such evidence in the event (as ultimately happened) a new trial is
ordered.**The Police exhibit register 2008 lists about 30 crime scene samples that were
destroyed.**David Bain’s lawyer, unaware of the destruction, gave notice of his appeal on 31
January 1996.***
 
And this anecdotally does and should strike a chord with New Zealanders who have all made their minds up without studying a skerrick of evidence, praise them.

64. Compensation would express the government’s disapproval of such a cumulative failure
by the authorities to “take proper steps to investigate on possibility of innocence”.**It would be
an acceptance of some responsibility by the state for the shame and stigma of a wrongful
conviction and thirteen years in prison for crimes which, in my view, David Bain is unlikely to
have committed.***
 
Samson said:
And this anecdotally does and should strike a chord with New Zealanders who have all made their minds up without studying a skerrick of evidence, praise them.

64. Compensation would express the government’s disapproval of such a cumulative failure
by the authorities to “take proper steps to investigate on possibility of innocence”.**It would be
an acceptance of some responsibility by the state for the shame and stigma of a wrongful
conviction and thirteen years in prison for crimes which, in my view, David Bain is unlikely to
have committed.***
Click to expand...
It is pretty simple.

Dave the nutter just has to say what happened.

The other evidence is muddled
 
cullennz said:
It is pretty simple.

Dave the nutter just has to say what happened.

The other evidence is muddled
Click to expand...
One of the interesting observations Binnie makes is that police used his claim that only he knew the whereabouts of the key to the trigger lock as proof he was the killer.
Of course lucid Binnie points out that a man trying to cover his crime would not make that statement. He then points out that Robin Bain had ammunition that was only used with that gun in his caravan.

You see where this is all heading?
 
Rolfe said:
As a general point, not commenting on the circumstances of this particular case, yes I do think he should get compensation.

He's far from the only person to have been freed on appeal after having his life ruined by a conviction which was later overturned. The vast majority of these people are factually innocent. Why is it safe to say this? Because it's far harder to get unconvicted than to avoid being convicted in the first place, if you're innocent. There's an interesting long article somewhere called "Unarresting the arrested" detailing the difficulties of getting the cops' talons out of someone they're determined to convict. Getting "unarrested" or even more so unconvicted after a conviction, when you're actually guilty, is not a trick many people pull off.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent such people profiting from their situation, the authorities have introduced another hurdle to jump before compensation is paid. Proveing innocence beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases this can be done, for example where the cops actually identify the real culprit, or an unbreakable alibi is proved. In many cases though, it can't be done. A weak case that should never have been prosecuted in the first place is overturned, leaving some hapless soul out on the streets with nothing.

If the price of making sure that every innocent person who has had their life ruined is given proper compensation is that some money is paid out to the very occasional guilty person who lucked out on an appeal, then so be it, frankly.

(Sorry, I did start a more general thread about this on the back of an article describing a couple of different cases, but I thought I would post it here too.)
Click to expand...
Returning to this argument, yes you damn will better be factually innocent if you want out of jail.

I have read enough of Binnie to want to helter skelter from this moronic country, and am reminded of Muldoon pointing out that NZer's moving to Australia raises the average IQ in both countries.
If this Cullinan could spend a year when 30 minutes reading the first rate logician and experienced jurist Binnie proves Bain is factually innocent, and be equivocal, he has nicked our cash with the usual contempt Australians hold for NZers.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Public opinion may well be split about Bain's guilt or innocence, but what they won't have the stomach for is the Government throwing endless amounts of money at this. They've already spent $1m, and you can bet Karam is prepared to wind it out in court as long as he can. I suspect National will offer Bain some sort of confidential settlement, just so it's not still hanging around come election time next year.
 
The Atheist said:
Binnie has been both discredited and superseded.
Click to expand...
Ok how about this I sketched.

Justice Binnie made a couple of interesting observations in his report that obviously few have bothered to read. Firstly, David could be confident his father would be in the house soon after 6 30 am while he was on his paper round. Secondly, Robin could be confident David would not be.

Who killed the family, based on that bit of game theory?

Robin would ring the police when he found the bodies, but he didn't. Does anyone still wonder why?

I am fascinated (not too strong a word) by these cases. I have become preoccupied with finding simple reasoning that always exists with a wrongful conviction.

To my mind the above is the most straightforward.
Robin Bain was known to set his alarm for 6 30am.
David Bain was known to finish his paper round much later. Therefore he would have to calculate that his father might not find the bodies in order to continue his career as opera singer. If you can explain this conundrum we can move onto the other fundamental proofs that exist in the first 18 pages of Binnie.

For example the Lundy case holds a similar style proof. Lundy probably learned the police were already involved in his financial transactions at 8 30 pm, before the rum and escort. The permanently name suppressed witness talked to him for 17 minutes, and his wife had called the police to their property, at 11 that morning, alarmed at the pending altercation about money he wanted from Lundy to pay out to the father and son who supplied the root cuttings. And the plods used this to show he needed the money?! Wrong. He would never do the killing now.
 
The Atheist said:
If the judges who have reviewed the case see Baino as "not innocent" that's factual enough for me.
Click to expand...

Might help if you get the facts right then.

They didn't say that he was "Not Innocent" They said he was "Not Innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is an incredibly high standard (almost impossible I'd suggest since it requires proving a negative), so high we use it for deciding guilty in a trial. It doesn't mean that he is not innocent, it means that it could possibly be reasonably believed that he is guilty.

It is clear from the other reports and from the trial that there is a lot more reasonable doubt to his guilt, that there is to his innocence.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Might help if you get the facts right then.

They didn't say that he was "Not Innocent" They said he was "Not Innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is an incredibly high standard (almost impossible I'd suggest since it requires proving a negative), so high we use it for deciding guilty in a trial. It doesn't mean that he is not innocent, it means that it could possibly be reasonably believed that he is guilty.

It is clear from the other reports and from the trial that there is a lot more reasonable doubt to his guilt, that there is to his innocence.
Click to expand...
Having read Karam's book, I consider he proved Bain was innocent beyond any doubt. He had a complete alibi as he was seen doing his paper round after the computer was switched on. For cabinet to cling to completely discredited theories is proof they have done no homework.
 
Samson said:
Having read Karam's book, I consider he proved Bain was innocent beyond any doubt. He had a complete alibi as he was seen doing his paper round after the computer was switched on. For cabinet to cling to completely discredited theories is proof they have done no homework.
Click to expand...
Bit of a stretch.

Karam is hardly going to be unbiased
 
cullennz said:
Bit of a stretch.

Karam is hardly going to be unbiased
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but facts are very stubborn things... they don't go away, and they neither care, nor depend on who states them.

I have read Karam's book, and while I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of his conclusions, I could not fault a single fact that he claimed.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Perhaps not, but facts are very stubborn things... they don't go away, and they neither care, nor depend on who states them.

I have read Karam's book, and while I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of his conclusions, I could not fault a single fact that he claimed.
Click to expand...
It's the ones he chose to leave out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom