David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Coldrider]

I don't think courier post provides transportation and supervised access for murder weapons yet, which might explain the presence of a Police car.

Bit embarrassing for the T.V show involved, I bet they wish now they had made at least a pretense at presenting a balanced story.How many police districts has 3rd degree made fools of now, should have seen this coming, obviously exhibits are handed out willy nilly, has the Bill and Ben show asked for any yet?

[Coldrider]

You and scumdog would make a wonderful couple.No, I was breed by one, my model got a huge huge medal from the queen before he retired. Scumdog is real and the other is a plastic puppet with mouth strings.

[Winston001]

Reflecting your own health considerations onto others does not make them innocent or guilty. I too am in my fifties, I don't need a slash first thing, even before morning sex, that does not make me a rapist either. Just means some should have their prostrates checked.

Windows three wasn't that bad in its time, my boss was using it daily at the time and he was nearing retirement.

Yes that's fair comment. I can only say that bladder pressure is common in older men. And yes, it is generally prostate related. A pathologist for the defence gave an explanation for the post-mortem bladder being full so that goes in David's favour.

Still I remain skeptical that an older man would choose a computer to leave the last mesage of his life on a computer instead of a pencil and piece of paper.

[Katman]

Still I remain skeptical that an older man would choose a computer to leave the last mesage of his life on a computer instead of a pencil and piece of paper.

In the whole scheme of things that's a remarkably small issue to base your belief of David's guilt on.

As a school teacher, Robin Bain was well versed in using computers.

[mansell]

In the whole scheme of things that's a remarkably small issue to base your belief of David's guilt on.

As a school teacher, Robin Bain was well versed in using computers.

Not that time, we didn't really start using them as aprofession until about 10 years ago, and most of the older teachers didn't even know how to turn them on. As little as five years ago most schoolteachers were still hand writing reports. Teaching as a profession was one of the last to embrace ICT

[Coldrider]

Not that time, we didn't really start using them as aprofession until about 10 years ago, and most of the older teachers didn't even know how to turn them on. As little as five years ago most schoolteachers were still hand writing reports. Teaching as a profession was one of the last to embrace ICTHow many households had a PC in 94, would have been a 286 xt/at costings er $4k approx, lot of money back then not to be used. Teachers maybe, just look at novapay, but intelligent individuals were right into it. (not debating robin vs david, just debating the point which is not fact).

[mansell]

How many households had a PC in 94, would have been a 286 xt/at costings er $4k approx, lot of money back then not to be used. Teachers maybe, just look at novapay, but intelligent individuals were right into it. (not debating robin vs david, just debating the point which is not fact).

I began my working life as an industrial chemist and have been exposed to computers since my late teens but even after I obtained a household PC (late in the nineties) would still use a pen and paper for most of the writing I did. I have been teaching for quite a few years and still use pen and paper like a large number of my colleagues who are over forty. The point I was trying to make was just because Robin was a teacher doesn't mean he would use a computer to leave a message.

[fridayflash]

has anybody here read both 'the mask of sanity' by james mcneish and 'david and goliath' by joe karam?
i have, one was a well researched piece by an acclaimed investigative journolist who was sat through the
original trial from day one, the other was a weak fluff piece which ignored all strong evidence.
ive followed the case in more recent years too and firmly believe DB is guilty.
the new evidence is interesting but not convincing..i noticed the bloke with the vernier showed that the
width of the marks (17.5mm?) or so matched only against the wider portion of the case which has
a round 'rolled' profile which wouldnt leave tidy straight lines as on robins thumb..the more
narrow inner edges of the case would leave a tidy edge like that..but then are much narrower
than the 17.5 mm pair show.
if they were a closer match, id be wondering if david put that mag in his dads hand?
the large stack of evidence against david since the outset is still thoroughly relevent
as in post #41 and david bain is a mass muderer
if he is ever proved 'innocent beyond reasonable doubt' ill eat my hat

[scumdog]

You and scumdog would make a wonderful couple.

You stick to shit you know - like telling people how to avoud crashing their motorcycles.

And leave it to Indoo and I to decide if we would make a wonderful couple...;)

Anyhoo "This thread is funny" (said in a Ralph Wiggins voice)

[scissorhands]

Its those jumpers he wore and those big ears wasnt it?
I can understand bias based on his image, how could he not be guilty?

[oldrider]

has anybody here read both 'the mask of sanity' by james mcneish and 'david and goliath' by joe karam?
i have, one was a well researched piece by an acclaimed investigative journolist who was sat through the
original trial from day one, the other was a weak fluff piece which ignored all strong evidence.
ive followed the case in more recent years too and firmly believe DB is guilty.
the new evidence is interesting but not convincing..i noticed the bloke with the vernier showed that the
width of the marks (17.5mm?) or so matched only against the wider portion of the case which has
a round 'rolled' profile which wouldnt leave tidy straight lines as on robins thumb..the more
narrow inner edges of the case would leave a tidy edge like that..but then are much narrower
than the 17.5 mm pair show.
if they were a closer match, id be wondering if david put that mag in his dads hand?
the large stack of evidence against david since the outset is still thoroughly relevent
as in post #41 and david bain is a mass muderer
if he is ever proved 'innocent beyond reasonable doubt' ill eat my hat

I get the same lines on my thumbs when I work in my shed or do gardening and like Robin Bain mine are not really parallel either.

Just because you want something to be true it does not mean that it is!

There are still five unaccounted murders to be solved and while David Bain can not be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, neither can he be proved innocent!

I for one do not want tax payers money shelved out in compensation, I am however marginally satisfied that he is free!

Only David Bain knows the truth .... scary isn't it! :mellow:

[scumdog]

A quote from a juror at the DB retrial:

"There's been a lot of speculation that it means that he was found innocent. And I was a juror and I never found David Bain innocent," she said.

She pointed out that the jury was never asked to find Bain innocent, but whether or not the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

"And that they did not do," she said.;)

[Drew]

Anyhoo "This thread is funny" (said in a Ralph Wiggins voice)Wiggum.


A quote from a juror at the DB retrial:

"There's been a lot of speculation that it means that he was found innocent. And I was a juror and I never found David Bain innocent," she said.

She pointed out that the jury was never asked to find Bain innocent, but whether or not the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

"And that they did not do," she said.;)I'm shocked that a juror said that frankly. It sounds like she actually understood the brief, and did what she was meant to!

[unstuck]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xU9rSPxNn9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>:headbang::headbang:

[scissorhands]

Davids astrology suggests a devious power and money hungry taker, without thinking of others welfare
Numerology also reinforces a trend toward power and aggressive personal gain

Oh well, I guess the country will remain divided thanks to all this:oi-grr:

[Katman]

I think this quote from Justice Binnie's report sums it up nicely.

"The diversity of the conflicting opinions in this case is exceeded only by the confidence with which each conflicting opinion is advanced".

[scumdog]

As an 'experiment a mate and I loaded a 22 mag a couple of times, just the way we usually do - we did not get 'Robin Bain marks' - mainly because we discovered we were pushing the bullets into the mag with our thumbs pointing in the same direction as we were loading the bullets.

Pushing them in to try and replicate the RB marks was downright awkward:wacko:

[Edbear]

As an 'experiment a mate and I loaded a 22 mag a couple of times, just the way we usually do - we did not get 'Robin Bain marks' - mainly because we discovered we were pushing the bullets into the mag with our thumbs pointing in the same direction as we were loading the bullets.

Pushing them in to try and replicate the RB marks was downright awkward:wacko:

I was going to quit the thread and still will, but your comment recalls one of the so-called proof pics that actually showed the marks along the thumb, not across it as with Robin's.

[BMWST?]

Go read the post again. You are mis-reading it.



As for cleaning the Bain's gun. It certainly looked as if it needs it and also the attention of a qualified gunsmith. Talk about a "jam-O-matic".

Yes i see that now should read more before posting

sent from the tag

[Katman]

I was going to quit the thread and still will, but your comment recalls one of the so-called proof pics that actually showed the marks along the thumb, not across it as with Robin's.

Is there only one way to load a magazine?

[Edbear]

Is there only one way to load a magazine?

Have you done it? Or are you speaking from a position of ignorance? As I pointed out but over your head, the pic I was recalling was supposed to be supporting the Bain camp yet was the same result as Scummy's. Wrong angle.

[Katman]

Have you done it? Or are you speaking from a position of ignorance? As I pointed out but over your head, the pic I was recalling was supposed to be supporting the Bain camp yet was the same result as Scummy's. Wrong angle.

Is there only one way to load a magazine though?

[Edbear]

Is there only one way to load a magazine though?

Sigh... Why do I bother..? There will be one usual, normal and effective way used by most people. An awkward unusual way would be used by someone with a disability or maybe who uses their other hand. I use the same method as Scummy which I reckon most gun owners here would use.

Besides as you will continue to ignore incontrovertible evidence and focus on conjecture I will refrain from dignifying you any more by answering your lame posts.

[Katman]

Sigh... Why do I bother..? There will be one usual, normal and effective way used by most people. An awkward unusual way would be used by someone with a disability or maybe who uses their other hand. I use the same method as Scummy which I reckon most gun owners here would use.

Besides as you will continue to ignore incontrovertible evidence and focus on conjecture I will refrain from dignifying you any more by answering your lame posts.

One of the gun experts on the Third Degree program said that there was no set way of loading a magazine.

Is he full of shit or are you just talking through a hole in your head?

[Drew]

One of the gun experts on the Third Degree program said that there was no set way of loading a magazine.

Is he full of shit or are you just talking through a hole in your head?People usually load a mag similarly. There's an easy way to keep the shell lined up as you slide it back into place.

The marks on Robin's thumb, would have caused any shell not sliding back to go PING accross the room I expect. I have only loaded a couple of magazines though, so I am certainly no expert.

It would be fine with something like a .303 (I dunno if the decimal is meant to be there, I'm not a gun nut), with a longer shell. So if that's what he was used to loading into a mag, his method might have come from there.

[Katman]

I have only loaded a couple of magazines though, so I am certainly no expert.


Well you've loaded a couple more than me then.

[Akzle]

People usually load a mag similarly. There's an easy way to keep the shell lined up as you slide it back into place.

The marks on Robin's thumb, would have caused any shell not sliding back to go PING accross the room I expect. I have only loaded a couple of magazines though, so I am certainly no expert.

It would be fine with something like a .303 (I dunno if the decimal is meant to be there, I'm not a gun nut), with a longer shell. So if that's what he was used to loading into a mag, his method might have come from there.

we prefer the term fire arm enthusiast and suspected revolutionary.

Yes, its a decimal representing the nominal diameter of the projectile.
Ie .303 of an inch.

[unstuck]

David was playing this that morning.:devil2:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/82h2hyM4DTM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Coldrider]

I began my working life as an industrial chemist and have been exposed to computers since my late teens but even after I obtained a household PC (late in the nineties) would still use a pen and paper for most of the writing I did. I have been teaching for quite a few years and still use pen and paper like a large number of my colleagues who are over forty. The point I was trying to make was just because Robin was a teacher doesn't mean he would use a computer to leave a message.Is that just Robin, or all teachers, or just men over 50 at time ?, a very good generalisation of the people you knew at the time, which totally conflicts my associations at that time, industrial electronics.
And yes, greybearded unruly hair length roman sandle wearing teachers, but obviously from a higher decile schools.

[Coldrider]

And leave it to Indoo and I to decide if we would make a wonderful couple...;i think he has already loved and left. :weep:

[AllanB]

Fucks sake there is no new evidence. Look like old cuts to me, and yes I have a lot of experience in these. Maybe I am guilty? I do have a good scar on my thumb from a wayward hacksaw ........

But I wear much better jerseys.

Reckon that Joe Caron (sp?) has some serious man love for Bain (the killer).

[98tls]

Put like that it makes a weird kind of sense. When in shock you often full back into an automatic response mode. Stunned, in shock he realises he is covered in blood so the logical automatic thing is to wash the clothes before the blood sets especially when you consider it is his families blood, the shocked brain somehow links putting the clothes to right by cleaning off the families blood puts the situation right. :crazy:

:eek5:Joe...is that you Joe?

[scumdog]

Is there only one way to load a magazine?

Not if you want to recreate marks to match a theory...

[scumdog]

It would be fine with something like a .303 (I dunno if the decimal is meant to be there, I'm not a gun nut), with a longer shell. So if that's what he was used to loading into a mag, his method might have come from there.

I see where you're coming from but a 303 is a bad example. The majority of them are loaded just by crunching the cartidges straight down - no need to slide them back as per .22

[Goblin]

Besides as you will continue to ignore incontrovertible evidence and focus on conjecture I will refrain from dignifying you any more by answering your lame posts.-------------

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QoTPDyzzsxU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[scumdog]

The shell count is relevant because it proves the shooter had to reload, and the marks on Robins thumb bolster that very point.
I think only one (Steven) took two shots and one bullet on the floor, about half the bullet count (or just under) were left where they (the bullets) fell.

Even with the test firing of the rifle on the programme last night, the jamming was significant, particularly with the 10 shot mag.


About six live individual cartridges were left on the floor

And the rifle only really started to act up AFTER it had been oiled by the gunsmith.
Prior to that the 10 shot mag seemed to have the rifle up and running pretty much 100%

And in the assuming/generalising/guessing way a lot post on KB: I guess that due to the general unkempt, uncared for state of the house and the way the Bains lived I doubt oiling a 22 was a high priority...

[scissorhands]

western astrology and murderers lol

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1650

[Drew]

we prefer the term fire arm enthusiast and suspected revolutionary.
Hahahaha, you're fuckin suspect alright!


I see where you're coming from but a 303 is a bad example. The majority of them are loaded just by crunching the cartidges straight down - no need to slide them back as per .22Just out of curiosity, from an engineering point of view I'm kind of stumped as to how the shells get back out of the mag and into the chamber?

I imagine there is a threshold they have to be forced past for them to stay in the clip, is that opened up when it goes in the gun?


About six live individual cartridges were left on the floor

And the rifle only really started to act up AFTER it had been oiled by the gunsmith.
Prior to that the 10 shot mag seemed to have the rifle up and running pretty much 100%

And in the assuming/generalising/guessing way a lot post on KB: I guess that due to the general unkempt, uncared for state of the house and the way the Bains lived I doubt oiling a 22 was a high priority...Was the house dirty, or just untidy? There's a big difference it the types of people who live in the two categories.

[Katman]

See, the way I see it, we're asked to choose from two different scenarios.

On one hand, there's the idea that Robin Bain murdered four of his family members and then committed suicide while David was out on his paper run, and on the other hand there's the idea that David Bain murdered four of his family members, then went on his paper run (all the while risking his father coming into the house and discovering the crime), then came home and hid behind a curtain in the alcove and waited for his father to come into the lounge to pray, then shot him.

I know which sounds more plausible to me.

[Katman]

Should we talk about motive?

On one hand you have someone who's marital estrangement, his depression and the likely exposure of his incestuous affair could possibly have created a ticking time bomb while on the other hand you have someone who had no apparent motive to murder his family.

At best, the prosecution attempted to suggest that it may have been down to a dispute over the use of a chainsaw, but even they gave up on that idea and instead chose to view David's lack of a motive as simply irrelevant.

[BoristheBiter]

Just out of curiosity, from an engineering point of view I'm kind of stumped as to how the shells get back out of the mag and into the chamber?


they are pushed forward by the bolt into the chamber.

[BoristheBiter]

Should we talk about motive?

On one hand you have someone who's marital estrangement, his depression and the likely exposure of his incestuous affair could possibly have created a ticking time bomb while on the other hand you have someone who had no apparent motive to murder his family.

At best, the prosecution attempted to suggest that it may have been down to a dispute over the use of a chainsaw, but even they gave up on that idea and instead chose to view David's lack of a motive as simply irrelevant.

who was the last one standing? that's the first suspect.
Just find it hard that if robin had done it why leave david?

[Drew]

who was the last one standing? that's the first suspect.
Just find it hard that if robin had done it why leave david?Don't forget, no evidence of the struggle with Steven.

[Katman]

Don't forget, no evidence of the struggle with Steven.

There were certainly cuts on Robin's hands.

The defence even brought up evidence to suggest the presence of teeth marks on his hands.

[Katman]

Just find it hard that if robin had done it why leave david?

Maybe he wasn't in the house at the time.

[testastretta]

There is no proof that Robin had an incestuous relationship.

There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence that David is responsible for 5 murders. It is because it is circumstantial that he was found not guilty.

Of course if he didn't do the washing that morning he would have been fucked.

[Drew]

There were certainly cuts on Robin's hands.

The defence even brought up evidence to suggest the presence of teeth marks on his hands.You'll get cuts on your hands, fixing shit up like he is known to have been doing in the weeks leading up to the event.

[Katman]

You'll get cuts on your hands, fixing shit up like he is known to have been doing in the weeks leading up to the event.

That's right Drew, you can get cuts on your hands from all manner of activities.

Even illegal ones.

[Katman]

There is no proof that Robin had an incestuous relationship.


So you're suggesting that the evidence supplied to that effect was just lies?

(As well as the fact that the judge chose to suppress that evidence at the first trial).

[Crasherfromwayback]

My take on it is that Robin shot them. David wrestled the gun off him and popped a cap in his ass. Sorted.

[Drew]

That's right Drew, you can get cuts on your hands from all manner of activities.

Even illegal ones.

There is evidence to give reasonable doubt, to Davids guilt.

There is LOTS LESS evidence for than against, to suggest his father was the shooter.

It's that simple I reckon.

[Drew]

So you're suggesting that the evidence supplied to that effect was just lies?

(As well as the fact that the judge chose to suppress that evidence at the first trial).Perhaps he did so correctly. Ya know, looked at the evidence as he is meant to, and figured with NO way to prove it one way or the other, had to disallow it? I dunno, sometimes I think a bit crazy like that.

My take on it is that Robin shot them. David wrestled the gun off him and popped a cap in his ass. Sorted.D Bain, WWE champ 1994!

[testastretta]

So you're suggesting that the evidence supplied to that effect was just lies?

(As well as the fact that the judge chose to suppress that evidence at the first trial).

Yes I am. Just as I am suggesting that Laniet saying she had a black baby in PNG was a lie.

[scumdog]

The defence even brought up evidence to suggest the presence of teeth marks on his hands.

And the defence brought up a whole slew of cock-a-mamie shit to 'suggest' things so suit their agenda...;)

[Drew]

And the defence brought up a whole slew of cock-a-mamie shit to 'suggest' things so suit their agenda...;)

Oh no you di'n't!

[Katman]

Yes I am. Just as I am suggesting that Laniet saying she had a black baby in PNG was a lie.

Are you scumdog's twin?

[Katman]

And the defence brought up a whole slew of cock-a-mamie shit to 'suggest' things so suit their agenda...;)

Might come as a surprise to you but that's exactly what the police do when they decide to charge someone with an offence.

They set about trying to fit things to suit their agenda.

If you're unlucky, they plant shit to make things easier for themselves.

[scumdog]

Might come as a surprise to you but that's exactly what the police do when they decide to charge someone with an offence.

They set about trying to fit things to suit their agenda.

If you're unlucky, they plant shit to make things easier for themselves.

Oh, I am surprised - I haven't been on the course for that yet....

Maybe next year they'll train me to do as you mention above...:rolleyes:

[testastretta]

Are you scumdog's twin?

Are you Mark Lundy's prostitute?

[Katman]

Oh, I am surprised - I haven't been on the course for that yet....

Maybe next year they'll train me to do as you mention above...:rolleyes:

You're probably not too far off their mark.

Not caring about cover-ups is a good start.

[Katman]

Are you Mark Lundy's prostitute?

Nah, not me.

But I can probably put you onto someone who can help you out.

[testastretta]

Nah, not me.

But I can probably put you onto someone who can help you out.

I'm sure you can!

[Drew]

You're probably not too far off their mark.

Not caring about cover-ups is a good start.Bro, should you be on some medication?

[Katman]

Bro, should you be on some medication?

Hook me up bro.

[Drew]

Hook me up bro.
Hahahahaha, must spread...

[Erelyes]

See, the way I see it, we're asked to choose from two different scenarios.

On one hand, there's the idea that Robin Bain murdered four of his family members and then committed suicide while David was out on his paper run, and on the other hand there's the idea that David Bain murdered four of his family members, then went on his paper run (all the while risking his father coming into the house and discovering the crime), then came home and hid behind a curtain in the alcove and waited for his father to come into the lounge to pray, then shot him.

I know which sounds more plausible to me.

To me it seems implausible that Robin decided David deserved to live, yet also decided that he'd remove evidence of his crimes - with it not once crossing his mind that David'll get the rap.

I personally wonder why the prosecution ruled out David having done the deeds after he returned home from the paper run. 24 minutes is a lot of time.

[Katman]

I personally wonder why the prosecution ruled out David having done the deeds after he returned home from the paper run. 24 minutes is a lot of time.

Clearly the prosecution didn't think killing 5 people and attempting to clean up after the fact could be performed in that time frame.

[scumdog]

You're probably not too far off their mark.

Not caring about cover-ups is a good start.

There's a cover-up somewhere?:shit:

One I should care about?:blink:

I'm off to the ANZAC thread to see if I can find the cover-up...:shifty:

[Erelyes]

Clearly the prosecution didn't think killing 5 people and attempting to clean up after the fact could be performed in that time frame.

Well yes, but it'd be interesting to know why.

If he did do it, he didn't do much if any cleanup anyway (Bloodied Gondoliers jersey was only sponged; bloodied gloves left in situ; rifle prints not wiped etc).

Either of the current theories have enough holes in em, such that David was found not guilty when given a proper trial, and any posthumous trial of Robin would surely find him not guilty too.

[Katman]

Bloodied Gondoliers jersey was only sponged......

And bear in mind that, according to the defence, the jersey belonged to Robin Bain and was too small for David.

[Swoop]

Not that time, we didn't really start using them as aprofession until about 10 years ago, and most of the older teachers didn't even know how to turn them on. As little as five years ago most schoolteachers were still hand writing reports. Teaching as a profession was one of the last to embrace ICT
There were computers appearing in high schools in 1982. Not sure when a school in butt-fuck nowhere would have received some though...


Is there only one way to load a magazine though?
No. There are many ways to load a magazine. A person might use several different methods, depending on the type of mag. I load a rotary (1022 style) mag differently to a straight one. There are also different types of .22lr straight magazine, as some have a small "knob" sticking out of one side that allows the feed spring to be compressed, easing loading of each round.


See, the way I see it, we're asked to choose from two different scenarios.

On one hand, there's the idea that Robin Bain murdered four of his family members and then committed suicide while David was out on his paper run, and on the other hand there's the idea that David Bain murdered four of his family members, then went on his paper run (all the while risking his father coming into the house and discovering the crime), then came home and hid behind a curtain in the alcove and waited for his father to come into the lounge to pray, then shot him.

I know which sounds more plausible to me.
I am left wondering about the prosecution's theory that DB shot 4 people, THEN went and did his paper run, returned and shot Robin. Leaving bodies to be found if RB got up earlier than expected?
A rather odd scenario, to say the least, that would require two "cleanups" (one before the paper-run and another before calling the cops after killing RB) that would take time.

[unstuck]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/H8HTKOS9tac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>:Punk::Punk:

[scissorhands]

David can never be guilty, Joe Karam has stacked the very core of his existence on it.

Every now and then nature seems to throw up some freakish murderer/spree/serial killer

USA seems to have more than its fair share
And many more Americans believe in Jesus too

Jesus saves

[unstuck]

David can never be guilty, Joe Karam has stacked the very core of his existence on it.

Every now and then nature seems to throw up some freakish murderer/spree/serial killer

USA seems to have more than its fair share
And many more Americans believe in Jesus too

Jesus saves

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv2pcmDynMwwO_jFhBgQP1mnMor711Q 9qp-TYiGPUg8_Mpgsi4

[Banditbandit]

Jesus saves


http://crosebrough.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/jesussavesbank.jpg

[gwigs]

284476

.........:lol:

[Banditbandit]

http://www.polyp.org.uk/cartoons/misc/polyp_cartoon_jesus_right_wing.jpg

[unstuck]

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Tui.jpg

[Banditbandit]

Tui ad


"You must spread ... "

[Erelyes]

And bear in mind that, according to the defence, the jersey belonged to Robin Bain and was too small for David.

Yes, the Green one was Robin's (or Arawa's), not David's. But the Gondoliers one was his. At the risk of quoting counterspin (can't find the original source of the court transcript)

http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-found-on-davids-gondaliers-shirt

Edit: http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZCA/2003/294.html search 'Gondoliers'

[98tls]

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Tui.jpg

Best post of the whole thread.All this speculation about some marks on the fathers hand means shite compared to the evidence pointing towards David Bains guilt.

[Smifffy]

Best post of the whole thread.All this speculation about some marks on the fathers hand means shite compared to the evidence pointing towards David Bains guilt.

Waiting for the: "Edited by admin. Reason:removed quoted inline media" edit to appear.

PS I think the quoted inline media gives the post much better context and should remain.

[Mushu]

Surprising so many are sure of David Bains guilt there are a lot of problems in the prosecutions arguments, I've read all the reports the only thing that points to David really is the fact he is alive,

Prints on the gun: it's Davids gun. (my prints are on everything I own) and there were several other prints that were not up to evidence standard and the blood (that had the prints in it) was proven to be non human

Bloody footprints: too small to be Davids. Both of Davids socks had blood on them and only left footprints were found (from after the paper round, no blood in his shoes)

washed his clothes: it was dark in the laundry, it was his job, the Jersey didn't fit him and why would he have gone to the trouble but forgot to clean the bloody hand prints off the washing machine and the detergent box

The trigger lock on the rifle: David says he was the only one who knew where the key was, but there were several fired and live rounds in robins caravan and he kept it in a jar on his desk, not too hard to find, but why would he say that if he's lying about so much else.

the position of the mag: the fact that it is strangely positioned doesn't prove anything. Robins just as likely to have put it there. Why wouldn't David have just dropped it, surely if he'd used it to put the marks on robins finger and thumb he would have mentioned it during the years he sat in jail. It could be possible that robin misfired a round and switched magazines and placed the mag on the floor while attempting to shoot himself in the side of the head

The misfired round near robins body: If robin were praying how does David clear the misfired bullet without robin doing anything about it.

And even if you can't prove him innocent you can prove the police negligent in this case and given he did 13 years I think he should be compensated by the police for robbing him of his defense by mishandling and destroying evidence.

Think about it if he's guilty and got away with it, it's the police's fault, if they hadn't destroyed the evidence it could all be retested with current methods.
If he's innocent, in one day he lost his entire family and a large portion of his life to prison and even now that he's out he can never lead a normal life, everybody in NZ has an opinion on whether or not he did it and he will be recognized everywhere he goes

[Katman]

All this speculation about some marks on the fathers hand means shite compared to the evidence pointing towards David Bains guilt.

As Mushu has pointed out above "the evidence pointing towards David Bains guilt" is weak at best.

Even the broken glasses (which were David's mother's by the way) prove nothing.

A cynic could even be forgiven for wondering if the Bain investigation team had their own version of Detective Hutton working for them. Why was there undue haste in destroying evidence before the normal timeframe?

Do you not think, if the evidence was as strong against David Bain as you seem to think it is, that he would still be in jail now?

[scumdog]

"Must spread..." for the Tuis board by unstuck!

[Murray]

As Mushu has pointed out above "the evidence pointing towards David Bains guilt" is weak at best.


Perhaps you can find some answers to some of the other questions in post #41 as well (there are a few)

And also advise why he never took the stand??

[scissorhands]

post 41 quoted below


Did anyone ever expect the journo to present a balanced unbiased story? How naive.
I've got a novel idea, why not let the jury hear (and the press report) ALL the evidence... Any of the keyboard experts know how much was excluded? I don't.
And remembering this is real life and not CSI with CCTV and Horatio isn't interviewing for admissions, there will be gaps BUT despite all the legal protections the defence could claim, was it still proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt...

This was posted elsewhere from the few facts the press reported... make up your own mind

It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies

Again a lucky guess hen DB told police officer they are all dead

The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.

The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence

The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses

The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living

David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time

David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience

Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes

Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder

The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there

Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails

David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies

The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit

Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide

That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.

Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message

Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder

Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails

Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?

That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?

That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.

That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch

That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.

That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David

That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.

That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.

That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live

That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death

That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.

That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.

That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.

That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.

That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenaged son who put up a furious fight

That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself


David bain has been found not guilty as a result of a concerted effort to create doubt in the mind of the public and jurors. Oh yeah the jurors, none of whom will not have heard of the case prior to the trial. yeah sure the evidence from back then was a little obscure, but why the fuck would the Dad have done the whole family and left Little Davey alive, there is no way he would have, Father and Son loathed each other, and David would have been the first one to have got a bullet, but as he didn't then it proves to me that Dad was the first one that got the bullet and then David lost it completely he was aware the family saw what he had done, he panicked and fried the lot of them, if only one of them had survived.

Then that lone family member, could have cast the stone at David and shown im for the cold caculating murderer he is.

He is the guiltiest fucker I have ever seen, I have followed the case closely, Defence solicitors always glorify with making the evidence look abit shabby and then the judge says it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. The defence solicitors are as fucking guilty as those who they represent.

Having been a cop in England for 14 years, I wouldnt trust a defence solicitor as far as I could throw him, they have got new defence solicitors in on this case not the old ones, but they get the old cops in that are shaky on their memory, its all unfair.

Defence Solicitors are a law to themselves and got folk off for the most horrendous things, as they have cruel mischievious minds and are borne from the same mould as these murdering evil fuckers. They know the truth and twist it to get the bad guys off. You can thank them for these horrible folk walking the earth again....a lot of them go onto reoffend too.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but how the hell can Bain live with himself, and too all those Defence solicitors how the fuck can you sleep at night, knowing that you are defending someone who has done a henious crime.

A leopard will never change his spots and all this rehabilitation bollocks, never works crims have evil and calculating minds, they do wrong knowingly. They do not deserve to walk the earth with good mortals..........

AND...

Hmm there is one other point here. If David is innocent why did he not take the stand and let the jury see the "whites of his eyes". I know he doesn't have to but I would love to see him answer the following simple questions:

1. When you got home you said you saw your mother and father dead and could hear Laniet "gurgling". So why wait 20-25 minutes before calling 111?
2. When you did call 111, why did you say "they're all dead" when you said later that you only saw your mother and father?
3. Bearing in mind the above, how did you get your brother's blood on the back of your shirt?
4. Why did you turn the washing machine on before dialling 111?

I don't believe that this was a case of multiple murderers. In this case, David would have the perfect self defence case... so why not just simply tell police what happened?

Above all else, you have to remember that the jury can only make an interpretation on the evidence put to it. that evidence is what is left after being picked over, argued about and excluded. The jury will not get ALL the evidence.
also, when a jury acquits a person... that is a finding that the jury could not find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence they were 'allowed' to see. Acquital is not a finding of innocence.

[Katman]

Perhaps you can find some answers to some of the other questions in post #41 as well (there are a few)


Fair enough.


It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies

He said he only remembered seeing two bodies. Shock can do some pretty weird shit to your state of consciousness.


The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.

According to the defence he didn't discover the bodies as soon as he entered the house. The washing was put on first. It was his job to do so.


The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence

The marks on his body were explained as being due to his fainting in his room and falling between the bed and a set of drawers.


The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses

They weren't his glasses.


The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living

The coroner photographed a number of cuts on Robin Bain's hands.


David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time

Well of course they would be - it was his gun.


David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience

If Laniet was planning to expose Robin Bain's incestuous affair with her then David's comment could have meant anything.


Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes

David more than likely did come into contact with Stephen's body. It could just as easily have been after Stephen had been killed during David's period of memory loss.


Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder

I can't see the relevance of the full bladder argument. Robin could easily have been up during the night for a piss and his bladder may not have been full enough to need immediate emptying in the morning.


The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there

The key to the rifle lock was kept in a jar on a desk in David's room. Not exactly a difficult place to find it and it's highly likely the trigger was unlocked while in David's room getting the key.


Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails

David was quite open about the fact that the jersey was part of the washing he put in the machine.


David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies

The blood on the washing machine was probably put there in the process of loading the bloody jersey.


The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit

The defence allege that David fainted - not had a fit.


That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.

So they had a computer - maybe it was easier to use than finding a pen and paper.


Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message

The prosecution ended up accepting that the computer could have been turned on quite some time before originally thought.


Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails

It wasn't David's jersey.


Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?

With a silencer on the end of the rifle any way was going to be awkward.


That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.

As already mentioned, it was alleged that they happened when David fainted.


That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch

It's highly likely that David touched a number of the dead bodies. The blood on his duvet and light switch could have gotten there quite innocently.


That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.

From the bloody jersey that was in the washing basket.


That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David

That could have meant anything.


That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.

That just sounds like the police fitting snippets of information into a pattern that suited their agenda.


That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.

I wasn't aware that he was wearing on - but what difference would it make?


That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death

The prosecution ended up accepting that dead bodies can still emit noises some time after death.


That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.

I'm not aware of any evidence presented that disproved the incest theory.


That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.

It could have been placed there just as easily by Robin.

[Katman]

Perhaps you can find some answers to some of the other questions in post #41 as well (there are a few)


Perhaps you could explain why the bloody sock prints were a different size to David's foot and why there wasn't any blood found on the inside of his running shoes.

Perhaps you could explain how, if the glasses had anything to do with Stephen's death, they had no traces of blood on them and were in fact described as 'dusty'.

Perhaps you could explain why David would shoot four of his family members, then go on his paper run and risk having Robin come into the house and discover the crime.

Perhaps you could explain what motive David had to shoot his entire family.

[Murray]

According to the defence he didn't discover the bodies as soon as he entered the house. The washing was put on first. It was his job to do so.

David was quite open about the fact that the jersey was part of the washing he put in the machine.

The blood on the washing machine was probably put there in the process of loading the bloody jersey.



Doesnt make sense, how did blood get on jersey and washing machine if according to you it was his first job on entering the house?

[Edbear]

post 41 quoted below

"That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene."

And no blood or gunpowder residue was on him or his clothing. This from court reports.

Nicely avoided as usual by the usual. :doh:

Yeah I know... :rolleyes:

[Katman]

Doesnt make sense, how did blood get on jersey and washing machine if according to you it was his first job on entering the house?

What if Robin wore the jersey and put it in the washing basket?

[Murray]

What if Robin wore the jersey and put it in the washing basket?

What if the C.I.A. masterminded it???

and lets put davids jesrsey that I have been wearing in the basket before I shoot myself??

[Katman]

"That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene."

And no blood or gunpowder residue was on him or his clothing. This from court reports.

Nicely avoided as usual by the usual. :doh:

Yeah I know... :rolleyes:

I wasn't asked to provide answers to every question Ed - I was asked to provide some answers.

I've never claimed to know all the answers.

I'm merely explaining why the Privy Council saw fit to order a retrial and why the second set of jurors found David not guilty.

Anyone who still insists that David is "guilty as sin" is doing so solely from a prejudiced viewpoint that has no grounding in factual evidence.

[Katman]

What if the C.I.A. masterminded it???

and lets but davids jesrsey that I have been wearing in the basket before I shoot myself??

Anyway, now it's your turn to answer some questions.

[Mushu]

Perhaps you can find some answers to some of the other questions in post #41 as well (there are a few)

And also advise why he never took the stand??

Firstly, the fact that David never took the stand is of no consequence, if he was happy to kill his family and lie to police he would have been capable of doing it under oath as well.

The fact that meteor is happy to have missed half the evidence and proclaim that he is guilty is interesting, given he claims to have been a UK police officer.

Robins bladder: plenty of experts have stated that this is normal for a man of his age with prostate problems, with an adrenalin high (which I'm sure you would experience while sneaking around killing your family) you become unaware of trivial things like the need to piss.

David guessing his family are dead: the first thing David did upon noticing (I forget what order he found them) was check on everyone else in the house so he already knew they were dead, then called 111.

Hearing Laniet gurgle: bodies tend to expel gases for up to an hour after death

The lock and key in Davids room: it was Davids gun, stored in his wardrobe, stands to reason that the lock would be left near where the rifle was picked up.

Blood on Davids clothes: has been attributed to innocent transfer from running room to room (I would expect franticly)

The timing of the computer: may have been turned on up to 5 minutes before David got home, one more instance of badly handled evidence.

Robin couldn't have fought off Steven: firstly Steven was 14 and robin was an active man (not sickly at all as stated in post #41) so robin was likely just as capable of fighting him as David, and the first bullet went through his hand and deeply grazed his skull, so Steven was severely injured at the start of this fight.

Claims of incest: never investigated at all, the lead investigator instructed others not to look in to it at all.

Davids injuries: David fainted in his room in the presence of the police, a natural reaction to the stress of the situation.

The computer message: there is nothing to suggest David and robin hated each other, there was a single argument over a chain saw. David was a hard working uni student, it is possible robin thought David deserved to live. And robin was the one who used the computer most and the only one who used it for anything besides video games.

All in all post #41 reeks of bias and a complete disregard for the facts, I especially like how meteor refers to the cops involved as being at a disadvantage because the defense team is new, the cops fucked this case up severely and destroyed several pieces of evidence that would have proven this case either way. including the bloody footprints, not doing gsr tests, not testing the blood under robins finger nails and most importantly burning down the house a mere 3 weeks after the murders

The police also decided on the Wednesday 2 days after the murders to charge David (this is before any test results were available) at that point it became about building a case against David rather than unbiased evidence collection.

[Katman]

All in all post #41 reeks of bias and a complete disregard for the facts.....

From a police officer?

Never! :rolleyes:

[Mushu]

From a police officer?

Never! :rolleyes:

That's why I don't trust the cunts, even if you're completely innocent there's no guarantee they'll see it that way, then you're fucked.

[Edbear]

I wasn't asked to provide answers to every question Ed - I was asked to provide some answers.

I've never claimed to know all the answers.

I'm merely explaining why the Privy Council saw fit to order a retrial and why the second set of jurors found David not guilty.

Anyone who still insists that David is "guilty as sin" is doing so solely from a prejudiced viewpoint that has no grounding in factual evidence.

It is the factual rather than conjectural evidence that convinces many he is guilty. What's more, I personally have difficulty in the claim that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The known and established facts so clearly incriminate David and exonerate Robin as to be more than reasonable. Remember no jury has ever considered Robin to be the killer. Only Karam and co suggest it and even they do not consider anyone else apart from Robin.

How can anyone explain the absence of blood and gunpowder residue on Robin and his clothing? He simply could not be the shooter on that fact alone.

[Flip]

I have some faith that the Jury got this one right.

If David is innoncent then he is very unlucky and should have got better Lawyers.

[Crasherfromwayback]

"I don't believe that this was a case of multiple murderers. In this case, David would have the perfect self defence case... so why not just simply tell police what happened?"



Ummmm...no. IF David wrestled the gun from Robin...and shot the fucker. What makes you think the poilice would believe that? Maybe David thought he'd get framed for them all and simply panicked. Then the lie got too big.

[Swoop]

That's why I don't trust the cunts, even if you're completely innocent there's no guarantee they'll see it that way, then you're fucked.

The number one rule when a policeman starts reading you your rights, and says "you have the right to remain silent"... DO SO.

Say nothing!

That TOP TIP comes from a police mate, not a lawyer.

[Katman]

"I don't believe that this was a case of multiple murderers. In this case, David would have the perfect self defence case... so why not just simply tell police what happened?"



Ummmm...no. IF David wrestled the gun from Robin...and shot the fucker. What makes you think the poilice would believe that? Maybe David thought he'd get framed for them all and simply panicked. Then the lie got too big.

Hmmm, maybe the misfired bullet next to Robin was from him trying to shoot David.

And in the same vein, maybe the computer message was written by David in a state of panic thinking that he would otherwise be automatically accused of all the deaths.

The plot thickens.

[scumdog]

That's why I don't trust the cunts, even if you're completely innocent there's no guarantee they'll see it that way, then you're fucked.

Enjoy!:bleh:

[Drew]

Enjoy!:bleh:I can understand how a fellow such as yourself might not like that comment, but I've witnessed it.

You have to know it happens, surely?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Hmmm, maybe the misfired bullet next to Robin was from him trying to shoot David.

And in the same vein, maybe the computer message was written by David in a state of panic thinking that he would otherwise be automatically accused of all the deaths.

The plot thickens.

I would've thought that upon finding your family dead...then fighting your father off and having to shoot him, that it'd be pretty easy to think in your obvious state of panic that you may well think you'd get blamed for them all and not want to tell the truth.

[Mushu]

"That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene."

So many tests were not done that should have been, every member of that family had likely been in every room of that house, I find it hard to believe that nothing could have been found if the police were actually doing their jobs, and there is also none of Davids blood, skin or DNA found.


It is the factual rather than conjectural evidence that convinces many he is guilty. What's more, I personally have difficulty in the claim that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The known and established facts so clearly incriminate David and exonerate Robin as to be more than reasonable. Remember no jury has ever considered Robin to be the killer. Only Karam and co suggest it and even they do not consider anyone else apart from Robin.

How can anyone explain the absence of blood and gunpowder residue on Robin and his clothing? He simply could not be the shooter on that fact alone.

The initial investigation was actually a murder/suicide, it stands to reason the defense would continue along this line of reasoning.

The gsr tests were not immediately done and it is clear that if robin did it he cleaned himself up after and likely even wore the gloves found in Stevens room, it is likely that he had originally not planned to commit suicide untill after he had killed everyone else, or possibly just decided he wanted to die in clean clothes.


I have some faith that the Jury got this one right.

If David is innoncent then he is very unlucky and should have got better Lawyers.

The lawyer wasn't the problem, the polices mishandling if evidence removed any chance of proving this case either way conclusively. There was traces of blood under robins nails that was never tested, the offices watches were not syncronised so timing is far from exact, no gsr tests were done at the scene (and nobody tested positive when they were done) time of death wasn't established for any of the victims (although it is accepted that robin was last as his body was significantly warmer than the others). This is why I think David should be compensated, he was robbed of his defense by the police who investigated.

[Maha]

And in the same vein, maybe the computer message was written by David in a state of panic thinking that he would otherwise be automatically accused of all the deaths.

The plot thickens.

That would make David the one who turned the computer on, when, at the first trial, a witness had him on his paper round 3 minutes? prior to the Bain computer being turned on.

The Crown would have David in your scenario, the Defence would not.

[Katman]

I would've thought that upon finding your family dead...then fighting your father off and having to shoot him, that it'd be pretty easy to think in your obvious state of panic that you may well think you'd get blamed for them all and not want to tell the truth.

Makes sense to me.

And as you've said, once the lie's been voiced there would be no going back - you'd only look more guilty of the bigger crime.

[Katman]

That would make David the one who turned the computer on....

Why is that?

Robin could have turned it on.

Simply typing a message on a computer doesn't prove that you were the person who turned it on.

Are you sure you're MENSA material?

[scissorhands]

Wouldnt the keyboard have finger prints on the relevant keys?

An important piece of evidence yet why was it never dusted??

Also history may show very few sibling shootings, whilst depressed religious paedophile fathers may feature quite highly

[Maha]

Why is that?

Robin could have turned it on.

Simply typing a message on a computer doesn't prove that you were the person who turned it on.

Are you sure you're MENSA material?

Skim reading again as per usual, just to fit your own failings...:baby:
The Crown says DAVID was the one who turned the computer on (not me, I don't know because I was not there) the defence had a witness who says otherwise...did you read it this time?

You think I insinuate you're an idiot?... that happens long before I join any thread you're involved with.

[Murray]

I would've thought that upon finding your family dead...then fighting your father off and having to shoot him, that it'd be pretty easy to think in your obvious state of panic that you may well think you'd get blamed for them all and not want to tell the truth.

Yeah but you have to get the washing done first

[Katman]

Skim reading again as per usual, just to fit your own failings...:baby:
The Crown says DAVID was the one who turned the computer on (not me, I don't know because I was not there) the defence had a witness who says otherwise...did you read it this time?

You think I insinuate you're an idiot?... that happens long before I join any thread you're involved with.

You should read those couple of posts again Mark - this time slowly.

Get Anne to help you.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yeah but you have to get the washing done first

So Robin can't have come downstairs upon hearing David doing the washing? I can't even remember if it was a two storied house (too long ago that I followed it all sorry), I'm just thinking and typing out loud.

[Mushu]

The number one rule when a policeman starts reading you your rights, and says "you have the right to remain silent"... DO SO.

Say nothing!

That TOP TIP comes from a police mate, not a lawyer.

If I were ever questioned in respect to a major crime like murder I would be very quick to ask for a lawyer, I would continue to tell the cops involved what I thought of them until my lawyer arrives though.

[Katman]

So Robin can't have come downstairs upon hearing David doing the washing? I can't even remember if it was a two storied house (too long ago that I followed it all sorry), I'm just thinking and typing out loud.

The laundry was down on a lower level. All the other rooms were up on the same level.

According to the defence, David came in the front door and went straight into his bedroom (first door off to the left of the hall) and then down into the laundry.

Robin was in the lounge which was the first door off to the right of the hall.

[Mushu]

So Robin can't have come downstairs upon hearing David doing the washing? I can't even remember if it was a two storied house (too long ago that I followed it all sorry), I'm just thinking and typing out loud.

It's possible that Robin shot himself before David turned the machine on, or possibly shot himself when he realized David was home. It was a 2 story house.

[Katman]

It's possible that Robin shot himself before David turned the machine on.......

Bearing in mind that the computer could have already been turned on by Robin.

(Just to keep Maha happy).

[unstuck]

http://www.notjustok.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/King.DavidCD.jpg

[Maha]

The laundry was down on a lower level. All the other rooms were up on the same level.

According to the defence, David came in the front door and went straight into his bedroom (first door off to the left of the hall) and then down into the laundry.

Robin was in the lounge which was the first door off to the right of the hall.

So not straight to the computer that was ''already on'' to type a message in a state of panic thinking that he would otherwise be automatically accused of all the deaths as stated earlier?

[scumdog]

I would continue to tell the cops involved what I thought of them until my lawyer arrives though.

And they would be SO impressed by that..:rolleyes:

[Murray]

An interesting read

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2012/08/david-bain-closer-look-at-someone.html

[Laava]

If I were ever questioned in respect to a major crime like murder I would be very quick to ask for a lawyer, I would continue to tell the cops involved what I thought of them until my lawyer arrives though.

So you are a murderer with a bad attitude?

[Katman]

So not straight to the computer that was ''already on'' to type a message in a state of panic thinking that he would otherwise be automatically accused of all the deaths as stated earlier?

Who ever said he went "straight to the computer"?

[Mushu]

So you are a murderer with a bad attitude?

Assuming I didn't do it, I would have a bad attitude being questioned for such a major offense when I have to rely on the judgment of people I have zero faith in (police). If I did do it I'd probably be very polite and quiet hoping to get them to like me so they try looking for other suspects.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Assuming I didn't do it, I would have a bad attitude being questioned for such a major offense when I have to rely on the judgment of people I have zero faith in (police). If I did do it I'd probably be very polite and quiet hoping to get them to like me so they try looking for other suspects.

Not beinag a smart arse...serious question. But if someone raped your dog/cat/wife/daughter (don't know your personal situation)...would you call the police?

[Laava]

Assuming I didn't do it, I would have a bad attitude being questioned for such a major offense when I have to rely on the judgment of people I have zero faith in (police). If I did do it I'd probably be very polite and quiet hoping to get them to like me so they try looking for other suspects.

Haha! Good answer!

[Madness]

Not beinag a smart arse...serious question. But if someone raped your dog/cat/wife/daughter (don't know your personal situation)...would you call the police?

Just seeking clarification as an interested observer... Is this alleged rapist a police officer or a civilian? (you know, considering the odds in this country if it going either way).

:innocent:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Just seeking clarification as an interested observer... Is this alleged rapist a police officer or a civilian? (you know, considering the odds in this country if it going either way).

:innocent:

Obviously a civilian dummy. The police only rape in packs.

[phill-k]

In NZ we subscribe to a fundamental right that a person under criminal law is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, Our prosecuting arm of the court after his right to due process appealing his first conviction was quashed by our highest court then failed to convince a jury of his peers in the ordered retrial that he was guilty of the crime of killing his family, regardless of whether he was responsible for the crime or not.

Thus all be it painfully slowly for David the system has worked and as he was found not guilty by the system we in NZ subscribe to he is entitled to be compensated for the time he was incarcerated, if there has been a failure it is the fact that a cabinet minister in our elected parliament seems to feel she can deny his compensation based on her own beliefs rather than the justice that has been seen to be done.

For it is better that 12 guilty are freed than one innocent is imprisioned.

[gwigs]

For it is better that 12 guilty are freed than one innocent is imprisioned.

Well said..having done jury service I have to agree..:niceone:

[scumdog]

Assuming I didn't do it, I would have a bad attitude being questioned for such a major offense when I have to rely on the judgment of people I have zero faith in (police). If I did do it I'd probably be very polite and quiet hoping to get them to like me so they try looking for other suspects.
Yeah, why bother with a judge or jury when we know it's the police that make the judgement<_<

[scumdog]

Didn't take long for my annual red-bling to rebound with this:

"you mean by the way the system DOESNT work? And if so, why are they involved in its perpetuation? Why not take guns to the people making it shit?"

Mwahahaha:clap::clap::killingme:rofl:

BTW: If you reckon that's the way to make the 'system' change for the better just lead the way big boy, lead the way...

[Erelyes]

most importantly burning down the house a mere 3 weeks after the murders

With David's consent.


This is why I think David should be compensated, he was robbed of his defense by the police who investigated.

Actually, any cockups by the cops just mean 'missing evidence' which makes it harder to convict. It's the first court case that is to blame for his times. It's more difficult to appeal a guilty conviction, than it is to defend it in the first instance.


Thus all be it painfully slowly for David the system has worked and as he was found not guilty by the system we in NZ subscribe to he is entitled to be compensated for the time he was incarcerated, if there has been a failure it is the fact that a cabinet minister in our elected parliament seems to feel she can deny his compensation based on her own beliefs rather than the justice that has been seen to be done.

Actually, all she was doing was due diligence. Personally I think Justice Binnie did things pretty averagely (e.g. stating the magazine on the floor was empty when it clearly wasn't). You should see what a mess his 'reply' to Fisher is.

[phill-k]

Actually, all she was doing was due diligence. Personally I think Justice Binnie did things pretty averagely (e.g. stating the magazine on the floor was empty when it clearly wasn't). You should see what a mess his 'reply' to Fisher is.

I guess my real point is he has been found not guilty, he has not been pardoned or some such but has been found not guilty in a trial ordered by what was our highest court, I do not believe that a cabinet minister or for that matter Justice Bennie's findings come into it, Collins is looking to mitigate down his compensation based on her perceived ideas as to his guilt or innocence, that is not justice, he is entitled to full compensation for the time he has been in prison based only on presidents already in place not Colins personal beliefs

[pete376403]

Remember no jury has ever considered Robin to be the killer. How can anyone explain the absence of blood and gunpowder residue on Robin and his clothing? He simply could not be the shooter on that fact alone.

1. Was either jury ever asked to consider that Robin was the killer?
2. Was Robin tested for GSR? (given that the police failed to bag his hands, what else could they have missed?)

[Erelyes]

I guess my real point is he has been found not guilty, he has not been pardoned or some such but has been found not guilty in a trial ordered by what was our highest court, I do not believe that a cabinet minister or for that matter Justice Bennie's findings come into it, Collins is looking to mitigate down his compensation based on her perceived ideas as to his guilt or innocence, that is not justice, he is entitled to full compensation for the time he has been in prison based only on presidents already in place not Colins personal beliefs

I thought that as Justice minister she totally came into it, as it's her call whether he gets compo. If she felt the answer should be no she would have just said so. Instead she chose to have Binnie's report reviewed; and given that the review was scathing I feel that's justified. She still hasn't said no as far as I know? The matter is still anything but closed.

Perhaps we should pay him X mill and fuggedabowdit, but
A) That's not how the justice system works (for better or worse)
B) I doubt that would see the end of the matter anyway

[Erelyes]

1. Was either jury ever asked to consider that Robin was the killer?

Given that the entire defence case was that Robin did the deed and David came home to it - I think there's a chance.

[Edbear]

1. Was either jury ever asked to consider that Robin was the killer?
2. Was Robin tested for GSR? (given that the police failed to bag his hands, what else could they have missed?)


Given that the entire defence case was that Robin did the deed and David came home to it - I think there's a chance.

Yup, even the defense only presented two possible suspects. Now regardless of any other considerations, the fact I mentioned from the court papers that no other blood or gunshot residue we found on Robin or his clothing rules him out. That only leaves David and if atone has read through all the evidence, it clearly implicates David.

You can argue semantics until the cows come home, it very clearly was not Robin.

[Katman]

Yup, even the defense only presented two possible suspects. Now regardless of any other considerations, the fact I mentioned from the court papers that no other blood or gunshot residue we found on Robin or his clothing rules him out. That only leaves David and if atone has read through all the evidence, it clearly implicates David.

You can argue semantics until the cows come home, it very clearly was not Robin.

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.

[scissorhands]

Why were the computer keys not dusted for fingerprints?

Surely that would be absolute proof? Unless David made Robin type whilst at gunpoint

[Smifffy]

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/new-evidence-implicates-robin-bain-in-murder-of-scott-guy/

[Mushu]

Yeah, why bother with a judge or jury when we know it's the police that make the judgement<_<

The police investigate, and in that position it is quite easy to skew the facts, plenty of innocent people have been sent away (I have seen it first hand when a good friend of mine went away based on police testimony which was clearly untrue), some of them because the cops wanted them in jail, they can alter the facts, intentionally ignore evidence or even just plant some evidence.

[Smifffy]

The police investigate, and in that position it is quite easy to skew the facts, plenty of innocent people have been sent away (I have seen it first hand when a good friend of mine went away based on police testimony which was clearly untrue), some of them because the cops wanted them in jail, they can alter the facts, intentionally ignore evidence or even just plant some evidence.

I've always been the good conservative person who has had a reasonable respect for the police. This year i have had a couple of dealings with them, including being interviewed as a potential person of interest in a major murder investigation. I was easily eliminated and had a rock solid alibi, but still they were shitty about it.

I have lost practically all respect for them.

[Mushu]

Not beinag a smart arse...serious question. But if someone raped your dog/cat/wife/daughter (don't know your personal situation)...would you call the police?

The police are only good for 2 things, diffusing a situation that has gone over the top (like an out of control party) and for insurance reasons if I got robbed or in a accident I'd call them.

If someone were to seriously harm a member of my family (including the dog) I'd take it on myself to make them pay and if I went to extremes to do so, as I said before, I would be really friendly with the police in the hopes they can skew the evidence in my favor.

[Mushu]

I've always been the good conservative person who has had a reasonable respect for the police. This year i have had a couple of dealings with them, including being interviewed as a potential person of interest in a major murder investigation. I was easily eliminated and had a rock solid alibi, but still they were shitty about it.

I have lost practically all respect for them.

Cops are lazy like everyone else, by having a solid alibi they now have to go find someone else, if you didn't have a strong alibi you could be sitting in a cell praying that something will prove your innocence during the trial, the police don't care they have nothing to lose by putting innocent people in jail.

[Erelyes]

the police don't care they have nothing to lose by putting innocent people in jail.

Dude, your trolling is a bit too obvious. Try being a bit more subtle, it'll work better.

[Winston001]

I guess my real point is he has been found not guilty, he has not been pardoned or some such but has been found not guilty in a trial ..

...Collins is looking to mitigate down his compensation based on her perceived ideas as to his guilt or innocence, that is not justice, he is entitled to full compensation for the time he has been in prison based only on presidents already in place not Colins personal beliefs

Understand what you are saying but that isn't how it works.

In New Zealand there are one or two convicted people released from prison every month because they have successfully appealed their convictions.

But it is rare for the government (taxpayer) to pay any compensation.

To obtain compensation the wrongly convicted person has to establish that on the preponderance of evidence, that person should not have been convicted. In reality this is tantamount to a finding of innocence. It is a tough hurdle to cross.

In law a person may be found not guilty after a retrial or appeal but in 98% of cases there was better than prima facie evidence against them. In other words, the prosecution case pointed to that person but for whatever reason (eg. later exclusion of evidence) the conviction has been overturned. That is a long way from innocent.

[Katman]

Did Arthur Allan Thomas prove his factual innocence?

[scissorhands]

With Watson and Pora waiting in the wings, they're playing hardball.
Political tactics and laying the foundations for similar future scenarios

[Katman]

With Watson and Pora waiting in the wings, they're playing hardball.
Political tactics and laying the foundations for similar future scenarios

Wow, thanks for that. I'd never heard about the Teina Pora case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

[Katman]

And a bit more information.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877229

[Banditbandit]

Wow, thanks for that. I'd never heard about the Teina Pora case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

Fuck .. where have you been for the last gawd knows how many years ????

Are we suddenly going to see KAtman, the erstwhole motorcycle safety nut now turned champion of the poor locked up innocents ???

[Edbear]

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.

No they didn't. All they said was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is, Robin could not have done it, end of.

[Katman]

The fact is, Robin could not have done it, end of.

Well if that really was fact Ed then how could the jury have had reasonable doubt that David did it?

No-one else was ever suggested as the killer.

It's basic logic Ed. If the jury had reasonable doubt that David was the killer then they must have considered that there was a possibility that Robin was the killer.

[Edbear]

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.


Well if that really was fact Ed then how could the jury have had reasonable doubt that David did it?

No-one else was ever suggested as the killer.

It's basic logic Ed. If the jury had reasonable doubt that David was the killer then they must have considered that there was a possibility that Robin was the killer.

Once again your lack of comprehension shows. Even the jurors emphased they did not consider either Robin as a suspect or that David was innocent. They clearly stated that it was simply that the Prosecution had not presented their case such that it met the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[Katman]

Once again your lack of comprehension shows. Even the jurors emphased they did not consider either Robin as a suspect or that David was innocent. They clearly stated that it was simply that the Prosecution had not presented their case such that it met the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

You're not very good at logic, are you Ed?

[scissorhands]

Bain, Pora and Watson all look a bit autistic to me....:facepalm:

It high time peeps with birth defects and mental disorders get correct services at a young age.

Poor souls get spawned and raised by unhealthy parents, then undiagnosed and unseen disorders have them struggle with school and peers. Then due to everyone hating them and the cops wanting to 'keep the peace' the cops put the boot in. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

How much time and money gets sucked up by good sorts all over NZ, trying to right these wrongs??

A stitch in time
Diagnose them early
Retrain the dogs

[Edbear]

You're not very good at logic, are you Ed?

Pfft! You are appalling at accepting fact over conjecture. You never have let facts influence your pet theories. You are an expert at ignoring factual evidence in favour of your "logic".

Once again you have shown yourself to be unworthy of being taken at all seriously.

[Banditbandit]

It high time peeps with birth defects and mental disorders get correct services at a young age.



People get put in jail for underage sex in this country !!!

[Katman]

Once again you have shown yourself to be unworthy of being taken at all seriously.

Hey, I'm not the one struggling to understand basic logic.

[Crasherfromwayback]

. The fact is, Robin could not have done it, end of.

That's not a fact at all.

[Katman]

"Police have released forensic evidence to defence lawyers in the Teina Pora case - 16 months after a court order told them to".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893134

Why the hold-up?

[scissorhands]

People get put in jail for underage sex in this country !!!

Lock all the kids up till they reach 16!!!

[Edbear]

That's not a fact at all.

So explain how he could have done it without getting anyone else's blood on him or his clothing, without any gunshot residue, and without any injuries from fighting with his son.

[Katman]

So explain how he could have done it without getting anyone else's blood on him or his clothing, without any gunshot residue, and without any injuries from fighting with his son.

See, you're just assuming that the marks on his thumb weren't residue from the magazine.

I don't think that's been categorically ruled out yet.

And, he had injuries to his hands. The coroner photographed them.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So explain how he could have done it without getting anyone else's blood on him or his clothing, without any gunshot residue, and without any injuries from fighting with his son.

Simply because I can't give you a good reason for any of that shit does not make it a *fact* that he didn't do it.

[Edbear]

See, you're just assuming that the marks on his thumb weren't residue from the magazine.

I don't think that's been categorically ruled out yet.

And, he had injuries to his hands. The coroner photographed them.

Good thing you are not a forensic pathologist then. Does not alter my statement above.


Simply because I can't give you a good reason for any of that shit does not make it a *fact* that he didn't do it.

Yes it does. Ask any forensic pathologist.

[Katman]

Do you agree Ed, that there was some doubt in the jury's mind that David was the killer?

[noobi]

So explain how he could have done it without getting anyone else's blood on him or his clothing, without any gunshot residue, and without any injuries from fighting with his son.

Possible that after topping the family, he took of the bloody jersey and put it in the washing basket? There seems to be conflicting information about the jerseys.
I thought Robins hands were never tested for residue?
There were injuries on his hands?

More than likely, the jury were told not to consider any other suspect, as the police never made any attempt to investigate anyone else.
I don't know about you, but if I was on a jury and someone was suggesting that it wasn't the defendant, I would be asking well then who was it?

That's not how courts work though, the court says its this person, the defence says its not.

[Winston001]

Did Arthur Allan Thomas prove his factual innocence?

1. The Cabinet Guidelines for compensation for wrongful conviction were drawn up in 1998, many years after Thomas.

2. Arthur Allan Thomas gained a pardon and was then granted $1 million in compensation. This was a big step forward in our justice system because prior to that, compensation was not considered. A pardon or acquittal was considered a big win by itself.

3. Thomas gained the above because Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister became convinced he was wrongly convicted (following the Royal Commission). There were no rules for comp, Muldoon made the decision.

4. Thomas was pardoned and paid not because he proved his factual innocence but because the evidence against him may have been planted by a police officer.

5. A wrongly convicted person does not have to absolutely prove innocence - that's often impossible. It is enough that the balance of evidence strongly suggests innocence. It is a high barrier.

6. Since 1998 there have been seven people who have received compensation. It is very very rare. About one person every two years.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yes it does.

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what a *fact* is.

[Katman]

It's interesting that Teina Pora doesn't appear on the Sensisble Sentencing Trust's database of violent or sexual offenders.

I suppose scumdog will be along soon enough to tell us that anyone stupid enough to make a false confession deserves a life imprisonment.

[Katman]

1. The Cabinet Guidelines for compensation for wrongful conviction were drawn up in 1998, many years after Thomas.

2. Arthur Allan Thomas gained a pardon and was then granted $1 million in compensation. This was a big step forward in our justice system because prior to that, compensation was not considered. A pardon or acquittal was considered a big win by itself.

3. Thomas gained the above because Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister became convinced he was wrongly convicted (following the Royal Commission). There were no rules for comp, Muldoon made the decision.

4. Thomas was pardoned and paid not because he proved his factual innocence but because the evidence against him may have been planted by a police officer.

5. A wrongly convicted person does not have to absolutely prove innocence - that's often impossible. It is enough that the balance of evidence strongly suggests innocence. It is a high barrier.

6. Since 1998 there have been seven people who have received compensation. It is very very rare. About one person every two years.

Thanks for the clarification.

The way I see it though is, if the first jury had been given full disclosure in the case then they may well have ruled the same way that the second jury did.

If that were the case then David Bain spent 13 years in prison that he quite possibly would never have had to.

[Winston001]

Well if that really was fact Ed then how could the jury have had reasonable doubt that David did it?

No-one else was ever suggested as the killer.

It's basic logic Ed. If the jury had reasonable doubt that David was the killer then they must have considered that there was a possibility that Robin was the killer.

Well, NO.

Juries have to convict or discharge the defendant on the strength of the evidence presented. The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.

Its the defence job to raise doubt and often that will be pointing to another person. The jury doesn't have to accept that. In the Bain case the first jury was convinced and David was convicted of murder. In the second trial the jury decided the evidence wasn't strong enough and acquitted. Neither jury necessarily thought Robin was the murderer.

[Katman]

Well, NO.

Juries have to convict or discharge the defendant on the strength of the evidence presented. The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.

Its the defence job to raise doubt and often that will be pointing to another person. The jury doesn't have to accept that. In the Bain case the first jury was convinced and David was convicted of murder. In the second trial the jury decided the evidence wasn't strong enough and acquitted. Neither jury necessarily thought Robin was the murderer.

I see you've removed your mention of the Kahui case.

I'm relieved to see that, as a lawyer, you recognise that the Bain case was quite different.

Do you agree that the second jury had some doubt as to David's guilt?

(And thankfully, criminal cases are not allowed to be decided on by "gut instinct").

[Edbear]

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what a *fact* is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

[Hinny]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
..So here is a 50 something man getting out of bed and deciding to shoot his entire family, but he doesn't piss first...


...
1. Full Bladder - originally this convinced me by itself. As a 50ish male it is impossible to imagine waking up and not taking a piss. Immediately. If you were nervous then you'd be up in the night and still need to urgently pee in the morning. Nevertheless a pathologist testified at the second trial that he autopsies deceased males with full bladders, so it is possible.


2. Computer message. This is a 50+ yr old man, a school teacher, in 1994, a man who grew up using a fountain pen, graduated to a ballpoint, and normally used chalk and a pencil. He murders his wife - then he murders his children whom he gave life to, and in the process has a fight with Stephen - then knowing David is due in the house any minute, he switches on the computer?? And waits for it to boot up so he can open the word processor to type a final message? Really? Would anybody here do that?


Joe Karam dismisses the full bladder stating Robin didn't have very much urine in his bladder considering an average male can hold THREE to FOUR LITRES OF URINE in their bladder.

He states the old fashioned writing style indicates Robin wrote it as he used punctuation and young people don't do that.

He was able to overpower Stephen as he was fit and strong and Stephen had a 1" (25mm) deep wound across the top of his skull.

Convincing? I don't think so.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> ‘There is medical evidence that people overlook any urge to urinate in a stress situation. We all know that when we are distracted or very busy we forget to urinate.’
Michael Reed QC

David Bain's address to the International Justice Conference in Perth on March 10.
’Good morning - I'm so nervous I should have gone to the toilet.’

[Banditbandit]

The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.



THat's the ideal .. but is it the reality ??? A crown prosecutor I knew (now a judge) said he once privately asked a juror how the verdict was reached - and he said he was so horrified at the answer that he never asked another juror that question ..


I (And thankfully, criminal cases are not allowed to be decided on by "gut instinct").

No ?? I know of a couple that were ... who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ...

I watched three Mongrel Mob members found guilty of a manslaughter which the evidence failed to show they actually did .. one of the jurors privately said to me "I don't care whether they did it or not -They were Mongrel Mob members - they deserve to go to jail ..."

That doesn't look like justice to me .. and just pisses off the thee men ... is it any wonder they are angry at a society that locks them in jail for stuff they didn't do ???

[Katman]

THat's the ideal .. but is it the reality ??? A crown prosecutor I knew (now a judge) said he once privately asked a juror how the verdict was reached - and he said he was so horrified at the answer that he never asked another juror that question ..



No ?? I know of a couple that were ... who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ....

I was part of a jury many years ago.

An elderly jury member sat through the trial, appearing to be asleep half the time and the rest of the time he spent slurping away at a bottle of cough medicine (I figured it was the only way he could get alcohol into himself while in the jury box).

When we retired to consider our verdict the first words out of his mouth were "They're all guilty - I want to go now".

He was informed that he could sit there for however long it took us to reach a decision.

We were there for a full 12 hours.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kkHILZARF_o?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well done!!!

[unstuck]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKDXHQUGmduxp_MkaLl6BXJpPy53pjo ADWgEOo-tyXjXL4O3unRA

http://liz-green.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/changes-next-exit.jpg

[Swoop]

"Police have released forensic evidence to defence lawyers in the Teina Pora case - 16 months after a court order told them to".

Why the hold-up?
They forgot what the secret donut recipe was.

Odd that it took so long, compared with the release of the Bain rifle for testing.


Possible that after topping the family, he took of the bloody jersey and put it in the washing basket? There seems to be conflicting information about the jerseys.
Have any of you actually done a paper run?
The newsprint turns your hands black. If your clothes have been in contact with the papers then you will know about it really quickly.
I remember in the distant past, doing a paper run and the first thing after putting the bicycle away, was to change and wash.
The concept of coming in and going straight to the laundry is not one that would be intelligently challengable.


...who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ...
Sadly, I have been on quite a few juries now and know the process quite well...
I was foreman on the last one and strangely haven't been called up for a few years since then. Up to then it was virtually every second year.
There hasn't been an instance of a "rogue juror" but the evidence presented is thoroughly gone over.

[noobi]

Have any of you actually done a paper run?
The newsprint turns your hands black. If your clothes have been in contact with the papers then you will know about it really quickly.
I remember in the distant past, doing a paper run and the first thing after putting the bicycle away, was to change and wash.
The concept of coming in and going straight to the laundry is not one that would be intelligently challengable.


I have, but was referring to why Robin didn't have any blood on him, which Ed proposed. Not whether its plausible that David came straight home and did the washing. That, in my mind, is completely feasible after doing a paper run.

[Edbear]

I have, but was referring to why Robin didn't have any blood on him, which Ed proposed. Not whether its plausible that David came straight home and did the washing. That, in my mind, is completely feasible after doing a paper run.

It is important to read the court papers carefully. The document I posted was from the Privy Council and covers everything very thoroughly. It is reading through that that convinces me of Robin's innocence and David's guilt. Prior to reading that I thought David was guilty but was prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Now I have no doubt at all.

[Katman]

It is important to read the court papers carefully. The document I posted was from the Privy Council and covers everything very thoroughly. It is reading through that that convinces me of Robin's innocence and David's guilt. Prior to reading that I thought David was guilty but was prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Now I have no doubt at all.

That's funny Ed, I read the same document and became convinced that there was no actual proof of David's guilt.

[Edbear]

That's funny Ed, I read the same document and became convinced that there was no actual proof of David's guilt.

Just proves everything I have said about you, that's all.

[Katman]

Prior to reading that I thought David was guilty but was prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Now I have no doubt at all.

Maybe that's simply due to your preconceived prejudices.

[scumdog]

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.

I've already posted what one juror thought - and she wasn't alone.

Big difference from not guilty to innocent.

For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off on a technicallity (and some of these technicalities are appalling).
They were pissed (over the legal limit), driving a vehicle and on a legal road.

So while they 'got off' (found not guilty) they weren't innocent.

[Katman]

I've already posted what one juror thought - and she wasn't alone.

Big difference from not guilty to innocent.

For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off on a technicallity (and some of these technicalities are appalling).
They were pissed (over the legal limit), driving a vehicle and on a legal road.

So while they 'got off' (found not guilty) they weren't innocent.

I don't think David had been drinking.

[scumdog]

I don't think David had been drinking.

Nor driving

But he HAD been on a road!!:bleh:

[Maha]

I've already posted what one juror thought - and she wasn't alone.

Big difference from not guilty to innocent.

For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off on a technicallity (and some of these technicalities are appalling).
They were pissed (over the legal limit), driving a vehicle and on a legal road.

So while they 'got off' (found not guilty) they weren't innocent.

Which is why David Bain has yet to be paid out (compensated) it's increasingly likely that, that wont ever happen. You can keep on arguing your thoughts and voicing an opinion, fact is, four years after Bain was released from prison, he is still an out of work paper boy with an over anxious besty that wants recompense. A good story line for Shortland Street.

[Katman]

Which is why David Bain has yet to be paid out (compensated) it's increasingly likely that, that wont ever happen. You can keep on arguing your thoughts and voicing an opinion, fact is, four years after Bain was released from prison, he is still an out of work paper boy with an over anxious besty that wants recompense. A good story line for Shortland Street.

But David Bain didn't get off on a technicality though, did he?

[98tls]

If he wasnt guilty then fuck him send the cunt a bill for all those years bed n breakfast.

[Katman]

For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off on a technicallity (and some of these technicalities are appalling).


Yeah, been a few of your crew guilty of that, hasn't there?

[scumdog]

Yeah, been a few of your crew guilty of that, hasn't there?

You seem to make it sound wrong somehow - tis' the law you know, open for everybody to abuse.

(And I guess YOU too can get some sort of 'perk' from your job just be the knowledge you have???)

[Edbear]

But David Bain didn't get off on a technicality though, did he?

The reason was that the Prosecution had omitted to say that the "technicalities" put forward by the Defense were possible and could have persuaded the jury differently. He was found not guilty on the jury considering said technicalities raised enough of a question to make the Prosecution case as not meeting the standard.

So he did get off on a technicality and I personally, after reviewing all the evidence on both sides, believe the jury was far too lenient on what is pure conjecture as against factual evidence. As has been noted several times, the jurors, despite that, did not consider David innocent.

[Madness]

For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off on a technicallity (and some of these technicalities are appalling).
They were pissed (over the legal limit), driving a vehicle and on a legal road.

"Technicality" is just another way of saying "popo not doing their job properly", innit?

[scumdog]

"Technicality" is just another way of saying "popo not doing their job properly", innit?

Yes, sometimes, so?

[Madness]

Yes, sometimes, so?

Let me spell it out for you...


For example, just look at the number of pissed drivers who get off as a result of the popo not doing their job properly (and some of these shortcomings are appalling).
They were allegedly pissed (over the legal limit), driving a vehicle and on a legal road but the popo couldn't prove this in many cases due to their own incompetence.

This in itself is a crime against our society yet nobody in the NZ Police ever seems to be held accountable, just as there has been no accountability for the piss poor attempt in properly investigating the Bain murders.

[Murray]

I personally, after reviewing all the evidence on both sides, believe the jury was far too lenient on what is pure conjecture as against factual evidence.

Yeah but David was buying the beers at the end of the trial!!!

[Madness]

So he did get off on a technicality and I personally, after reviewing all the evidence on both sides, believe the jury was far too lenient on what is pure conjecture as against factual evidence. As has been noted several times, the jurors, despite that, did not consider David innocent.

Pity you're not a High Court Judge & only a mere importer of over-priced batteries, otherwise what you believe after reviewing all the evidence (which I find a little far fetched) would actually amount to something.

[scumdog]

This in itself is a crime against our society yet nobody in the NZ Police ever seems to be held accountable,

So it is OK for Joe Citizen to get off on a 'technicality' - but NOT for a cop??


Hey, maybe David bain was a cop and that's how he 'got off':msn-wink:

[98tls]

Yeah but David was buying the beers at the end of the trial!!!

Betcha Joe had a tab going.

[Edbear]

Pity you're not a High Court Judge & only a mere importer of over-priced batteries, otherwise what you believe after reviewing all the evidence (which I find a little far fetched) would actually amount to something.

Hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion... ;)

[Maha]

Betcha Joe had a tab going.

...and now I bet he wishes he hadn't, the bigger picture hadn't been drawn at that point.

[Madness]

So it is OK for Joe Citizen to get off on a 'technicality' - but NOT for a cop??


Hey, maybe David bain was a cop and that's how he 'got off':msn-wink:

You're mis-reading what I said, not soo good at attention to detail. In the case of a drunk driver getting off because the popo didn't do their job properly I think it's only fair that Joe Citizen walks. The popo are highly trained, resourced & well-paid to do their job. If I fuck up at work there are consequences, just as there should be in cases of popo fucking up due to incompetence.

I wasn't talking about popo themselves getting off charges on "technicalities" as this is something I think most of us expect to happen in most cases.

[Madness]

Hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion... ;)

True, and most of us these days see it for what it is.

http://www.thenewsgrind.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/dog_pooGrind.jpg

[mr bucketracer]

david did it the end

[98tls]

...and now I bet he wishes he hadn't, the bigger picture hadn't been drawn at that point.

Never say never,my message to Joe would be keep all those receipts.Failing that Bain could just deliver his paper for eternity though i would stipulate the washing machine and computer were outta bounds.

[scumdog]

You're mis-reading what I said, not soo good at attention to detail. In the case of a drunk driver getting off because the popo didn't do their job properly I think it's only fair that Joe Citizen walks.

And when a lawyer gets his client 'off' for the following reason; during the 10-minute mandatory waiting time for his client to decide to go for a blood sample or stick with the breath test the cop wrote down:
"Start of ten minute period: 11:20pm"
"Finish of ten minute period: 11:30pm"

And commented: "Driver elected to stay with breath sample"



Lawyer says "How do you know my client had a full ten minutes to decide, how do you know it was not nine minutes and fifty seconds, the minute hand might not have actually passed the hour, he may have changed his mind in those last 10 seconds"

Cops says "I can't prove he had the full ten minutes".

So client walks out a free man...

True story - and that's just one of them.

So how did the cop above screw-up - what could he have reasonably done better??

[Edbear]

True, and most of us these days see it for what it is.]

Well considering the number and quality of people who agree with me I couldn't care less what you think. As with our poor deluded Katman and his ilk, the fact that you are against me is comforting. :lol:

[Edbear]

And when a lawyer gets his client 'off' for the following reason; during the 10-minute mandatory waiting time for his client to decide to go for a blood sample or stick with the breath test the cop wrote down:
"Start of ten minute period: 11:20pm"
"Finish of ten minute period: 11:30pm"

And commented: "Driver elected to stay with breath sample"



Lawyer says "How do you know my client had a full ten minutes to decide, how do you know it was not nine minutes and fifty seconds, the minute hand might not have actually passed the hour, he may have changed his mind in those last 10 seconds"

Cops says "I can't prove he had the full ten minutes".

So client walks out a free man...

True story - and that's just one of them.

So how did the cop above screw-up - what could he have reasonably done better??

That is an indictment on the Judge!

[Madness]

And when a lawyer gets his client 'off' for the following reason; during the 10-minute mandatory waiting time for his client to decide to go for a blood sample or stick with the breath test the cop wrote down:
"Start of ten minute period: 11:20pm"
"Finish of ten minute period: 11:30pm"

And commented: "Driver elected to stay with breath sample"



Lawyer says "How do you know my client had a full ten minutes to decide, how do you know it was not nine minutes and fifty seconds, the minute hand might not have actually passed the hour, he may have changed his mind in those last 10 seconds"

Cops says "I can't prove he had the full ten minutes".

So client walks out a free man...

True story - and that's just one of them.

So how did the cop above screw-up - what could he have reasonably done better??

So this situation obviously isn't exclusive to the particular case you're reffering to, is it? Pretty fucking simple I would have thought, either write down the exact time (including seconds) or allow 11 minutes.

Sheesh, it's a wonder anyone gets convicted in this country.

[Madness]

Well considering the number and quality of people who agree with me I couldn't care less what you think. As with our poor deluded Katman and his ilk, the fact that you are against me is comforting. :lol:

Ed I couldn't give any less of a rats arse who you think agrees with you. There's no shortage of brain-dead fuckwits in this world, hell I had two of the fuckers knock on my door on the weekend. Don't flatter yourself either Ed; I'm not against you, I just think you're a fuckwit.

[Edbear]

Ed I couldn't give any less of a rats arse who you think agrees with you. There's no shortage of brain-dead fuckwits in this world, hell I had two of the fuckers knock on my door on the weekend. Don't flatter yourself either Ed; I'm not against you, I just think you're a fuckwit.

Like I said, comforting to know. :niceone:

[scumdog]

So this situation obviously isn't exclusive to the particular case you're reffering to, is it? Pretty fucking simple I would have thought, either write down the exact time (including seconds) or allow 11 minutes.

Sheesh, it's a wonder anyone gets convicted in this country.

Up until that incident EVERYBODY had been writing down ten minutes of time, never had a problem before.

And when it was decided by the bosses to give additional time 'to make sure' - guess what? some lawyer then used the defence that the extra time 'confused' his client...

I guess working with the system lets me see more of this daftness...

If I was sarcastic I could say "Geez, you have all the answers" - but some lawyer(s) have come up with all the answers before you...

Anyway, back to 'David the Deathdealer' before we get a ticking off for going o.t...;)

[Madness]

Up until that incident EVERYBODY had been writing down ten minutes of time, never had a problem before.

And when it was decided by the bosses to give additional time 'to make sure' - guess what? some lawyer then used the defence that the extra time 'confused' his client...

I guess working with the system lets me see more of this daftness...

If I was sarcastic I could say "Geez, you have all the answers" - but some lawyer(s) have come up with all the answers before you...

Anyway, back to 'David the Deathdealer' before we get a ticking off for going o.t...;)

Discussing incompetence & lack of intelligence amongst our serving popo is hardly off topic I would have thought.

So the concept of minutes and seconds is beyond the cognitive skills of some of your colleagues then? Is this what you're saying by not saying it?

[Maha]

It's entirely plausible that neither Robin nor David did the killings.

[unstuck]

Most of the bobbys on the beat that I have dealt with have just seem to be normal blokes making a living. Those detectives on the other hand.:shifty::whistle:

[Katman]

Anyhow Ed, do you have any answers for post #336?

[oldrider]

The perfect crime?

"Five people dead", primary suspect walks free, taxpayers "clamouring" to pay compensation!

Doesn't get much better than that!

Only in New Zealand. :mellow:

[Katman]

Well considering the number and quality of people who agree with me I couldn't care less what you think.

Yeah, I bet you and Maha argue for hours over who has the highest IQ.

[testastretta]

It's entirely plausible that neither Robin nor David did the killings.

That was Karam's defence if they had to go to a third trial.

If Robin did it like many of David's supporters think he did, then why has David only had good things to say about his father and that he doesn't believe that there was an improper relationship between Robin and Laniet?

Oh I know why. Its because he told him that he is the only one who deserved to live. Gee thanks Dad! :niceone:

I bet that Arawa, Laniet and Stephen must have been shits of kids.

[scumdog]

So the concept of minutes and seconds is beyond the cognitive skills of some of your colleagues then? Is this what you're saying by not saying it?


Ain't 20-20 hindsight great!!:lol:

SO, how good at 100% perfection and foresight are your work colleagues.... ;)

[98tls]

Still puzzled as to why he didnt use this.

[Madness]

Ain't 20-20 hindsight great!!:lol:

SO, how good at 100% perfection and foresight are your work colleagues.... ;)

My work colleagues are irrelevant to this discussion although if one of them screws up there's a chance someone ends up either dead or extremely sore. We're yet to kill anyone as far as I'm aware so we must be doing okay.

The point is the 10 minute period is a legal requirement. 10 minutes is equal to 600 seconds. It would have taken all of about three or four seconds of the popo's time to note the exact start & finish time so is it a case of laziness or more of a systematic problem originating from HQ? Who has been held accountable for this fuck-up?

I could understand the frustration (and maybe even Ed's baseless attack on the presiding Judge) if the issue was one of nano-seconds. As road-users we're all asked to remember the "three-second rule" so it's hardly rocket science is it?

:facepalm:

[Edbear]

My work colleagues are irrelevant to this discussion although if one of them screws up there's a chance someone ends up either dead or extremely sore. We're yet to kill anyone as far as I'm aware so we must be doing okay.

The point is the 10 minute period is a legal requirement. 10 minutes is equal to 600 seconds. It would have taken all of about three or four seconds of the popo's time to note the exact start & finish time so is it a case of laziness or more of a systematic problem originating from HQ? Who has been held accountable for this fuck-up?

I could understand the frustration (and maybe even Ed's baseless attack on the presiding Judge) if the issue was one of nano-seconds. As road-users we're all asked to remember the "three-second rule" so it's hardly rocket science is it?

:facepalm:

The guy was guilty! Why let him off in a stupid technicality? What if next time he kills one of your loved ones?

I bet you think you possess common sense, too...:facepalm:

[scumdog]

The point is the 10 minute period is a legal requirement. 10 minutes is equal to 600 seconds. It would have taken all of about three or four seconds of the popo's time to note the exact start & finish time so is it a case of laziness or more of a systematic problem originating from HQ? Who has been held accountable for this fuck-up?



The cop wrote down the correct time - but the lawyer went hair-splitting about the cops accuracy in reading the time - NOT that his client 'only got nne minutes and fifty seconds' per se - but that it might not have been a full 10 minutes.

And a person would REALLY suddenly change their mind in a second?

None that I've met - when asked at the end of their ten minutes they have already made up their mind - some before the ten minutes even starts.

"Walk a day in my moccassins" instead of sniping away on a key-board - oh and tell me what you do so's I can find fault with you/your workmates/procedure etc??



Nah, don't worry about it, I'm above doing that.

And apart from that, even if I did so it would be as productive as your criticisms - nowt will change because of them.

[Madness]

The guy was guilty!

That's very prejudicial of you Ed. You know no more about this case than the rest of us here which is about five-eighths of sweet fuck all. Certainly not enough to go screaming "guilty". You should ask for forgiveness from your imaginary friend for being so short-sighted.


Why let him off in a stupid technicality? What if next time he kills one of your loved ones?

Based on what I know about the case Scummy has shared with us (as much as you do) he wasn't "let off in a stupid technicality" at all. The case was thrown out because the popo had failed (once again) to meet the requirements of THE LAW. If my loved ones were killed and the defendant walked under the circumstances Scummy has described I'd be angry as fuck - with the NZ Police.


I bet you think you possess common sense, too...:facepalm:

No more or less than the average bloke. You on the other hand are obviously well short of average.

Sharpen up Ed.

[Madness]

The cop wrote down the correct time - but the lawyer went hair-splitting about the cops accuracy in reading the time - NOT that his client 'only got nne minutes and fifty seconds' per se - but that it might not have been a full 10 minutes.

And a person would REALLY suddenly change their mind in a second?

None that I've met - when asked at the end of their ten minutes they have already made up their mind - some before the ten minutes even starts.

"Walk a day in my moccassins" instead of sniping away on a key-board - oh and tell me what you do so's I can find fault with you/your workmates/procedure etc??



Nah, don't worry about it, I'm above doing that.

And apart from that, even if I did so it would be as productive as your criticisms - nowt will change because of them.

Oh, cry me a fucking river why don't you!

The job of the popo is to uphold the law by working within the law. If you pillocks can't do that effectively it's either because the law needs re-writing to make it simpler for you cunts to understand or you chumps just aren't up to the task.

I hope the driver in question didn't injure anyone, it would suck if that were the case.

Sharpen up, NZ Police.

[scumdog]

If my loved ones were killed and the defendant walked under the circumstances Scummy has described I'd be angry as fuck - with the NZ Police.



Now THAT'S the Kiwi way:clap:

Slap the drunk driver on the back and blame the cops.


Don't worry, Judges don't accept technicilities the same way they use to, a lot of loopholes (badly written laws) have been blokes off.

So there's less chance of you needing to be 'angry as fuck'.

BTW: How should those that shoot through to Aussie be handled, how should the cops nail that technicality???

[98tls]

That's very prejudicial of you Ed. You know no more about this case than the rest of us here which is about five-eighths of sweet fuck all.



Based on what I know about the case Scummy has shared with us (as much as you do) he wasn't "let off in a stupid technicality" at all. The case was thrown out because the popo had failed (once again) to meet the requirements of THE LAW. If my loved ones were killed and the defendant walked under the circumstances Scummy has described I'd be angry as fuck - with the NZ Police.



No more or less than the average bloke. You on the other hand are obviously well short of average.

Sharpen up Ed.

Wonder what would happen in such a case if a judge grew some balls and told the defendants lawyer to stop wasting his time and convicted said defendant.Many in this country would applaud i am guessing but no doubt there would still be an uproar from the tree huggers.

[Madness]

Now THAT'S the Kiwi way:clap:

Slap the drunk driver on the back and blame the cops.

I'm certainly not slapping anyone on the back. Fact is, the guy wasn't convicted therefore he should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. It's the law and if you don't like it maybe it's time for a career change?


Don't worry, Judges don't accept technicilities the same way they use to, a lot of loopholes (badly written laws) have been blokes off.

So there's less chance of you needing to be 'angry as fuck'.

Law changes won't eradicate popo incompetence though so there's always a chance, eh?


BTW: How should those that shoot through to Aussie be handled, how should the cops nail that technicality???

In the case of someone rowing a boat or kayaking, there's probably fuck all that can be done. This probably never happens though in reality. If defendants are escaping to overseas countries through an airport whilst on charges or worse, on bail, then someone's fucked up, again. Who's held accountable when this happens? That's right, fucking no-one.

Now THAT'S the Kiwi way.

[98tls]

Oh, cry me a fucking river why don't you!

The job of the popo is to uphold the law by working within the law. If you pillocks can't do that effectively it's either because the law needs re-writing to make it simpler for you cunts to understand or you chumps just aren't up to the task.

I hope the driver in question didn't injure anyone, it would suck if that were the case.

Sharpen up, NZ Police.

:shit:Katman...is that you?

[Madness]

Wonder what would happen in such a case if a judge grew some balls and told the defendants lawyer to stop wasting his time and convicted said defendant.Many in this country would applaud i am guessing but no doubt there would still be an uproar from the tree huggers.

It would have gone to the High Court on appeal and if the case was thrown out in the District Court as Scummy has intimated, I'd say the appeal would be successful. The law is the law. These pricks get paid good money to uphold it and get all the support of the Crown Law Office. There's no excuse, it just amazes me it so long for a clever defence lawyer to think of it.

I'd hazard to guess that you'd be pretty stoked if you were the defendant in question, tree-hugger or not.


:shit:Katman...is that you?

Great minds...

[scumdog]

I'm certainly not slapping anyone on the back. Fact is, the guy wasn't convicted therefore he should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. It's the law and if you don't like it maybe it's time for a career change?



Law changes won't eradicate popo incompetence though so there's always a chance, eh?



In the case of someone rowing a boat or kayaking, there's probably fuck all that can be done. This probably never happens though in reality. If defendants are escaping to overseas countries through an airport whilst on charges or worse, on bail, then someone's fucked up, again. Who's held accountable when this happens? That's right, fucking no-one.

Now THAT'S the Kiwi way.


(a)Doesn't worry me.

(b)Tell me how you propose to eliminate this 'incompetence'

(C)And you know I wasn't talking about boats or kayaks. - So how WOULD you expect that 'technicality' to be eliminated?

C'mon man, you're starting to bore me...

[98tls]

It would have gone to the High Court on appeal and if the case was thrown out in the District Court as Scummy has intimated, I'd say the appeal would be successful. The law is the law. These pricks get paid good money to uphold it and get all the support of the Crown Law Office. There's no excuse, it just amazes me it so long for a clever defence lawyer to think of it.

I'd hazard to guess that you'd be pretty stoked if you were the defendant in question, tree-hugger or not.



Great minds...

You only have to read the court news in any paper throughout the country to see how much support coppers get,sfa.

[Madness]

(a)Doesn't worry me.

(b)Tell me how you propose to eliminate this 'incompetence'

(C)And you know I wasn't talking about boats or kayaks. - So how WOULD you expect that 'technicality' to be eliminated?

C'mon man, you're starting to bore me...

A) Why did you bring it up then?

B) By instilling a culture of accountability in the NZ Police, just as there is in almost every other Govt. Department / Private Sector.

C) Are there not Police stationed at every International Airport in this country? If so, are they only tasked with searching for minute amounts of Cannabis and chatting up Flight Attendants? It's hardly what I would call a technicality anyway. If you (the popo) don't want a defendant to travel overseas do something about it within THE LAW.

I'm not here to entertain you Scummy, I certainly don't get paid for that so I refuse to be held accountable for it.

[Madness]

You only have to read the court news in any paper throughout the country to see how much support coppers get,sfa.

I'm not talking about hot cups of tea & cuddles. I'm talking about legal support from above, of which they get a metric shit-load more than any defendant.

[scumdog]

I'm not here to entertain you Scummy, I certainly don't get paid for that so I refuse to be held accountable for it.

WELL!
That's the end of a beautiful relationship....

[scumdog]

C) Are there not Police stationed at every International Airport in this country? If so, are they only tasked with searching for minute amounts of Cannabis and chatting up Flight Attendants? It's hardly what I would call a technicality anyway. If you (the popo) don't want a defendant to travel overseas do something about it within THE LAW.

HAH!
Let's see you get that legislation changed..

"Nah mate, off to my brothers wedding, I'll be back in time for Court no sweat..."

So I guess (notice I said guess) your idea would be: "You are summonsed to Court on xxx date, you are required by law to surrender your passport forthwith" - or somat similar?


The boredome is getting worse...

[scissorhands]

I have spawned a monster

[Madness]

HAH!
Let's see you get that legislation changed..

"Nah mate, off to my brothers wedding, I'll be back in time for Court no sweat..."

So I guess (notice I said guess) your idea would be: "You are summonsed to Court on xxx date, you are required by law to surrender your passport forthwith" - or somat similar?


The boredome is getting worse...

How is this any different to failing to appear simply because they've absconded to Gore? It's not!

I think it's you lot that are struggling and maybe need a law change, I couldn't care less.

[Katman]

I have spawned a monster

Are you scumdog's father?

[98tls]

I'm not talking about hot cups of tea & cuddles. I'm talking about legal support from above, of which they get a metric shit-load more than any defendant.

From above:killingmeBetween judges/probation officers and parole boards decisions any support from anywhere else is surely negated.Fuck me just tonight i overheard on the news yet another fuck up going back to jail for yet another killing after only just unpacking his toothbrush.

[scumdog]

How is this any different to failing to appear simply because they've absconded to Gore? I think it's you lot that are struggling and maybe need a law change, I couldn't care less.


Oh yeah, hiding forever in Gore and not appearing in Court will work just as well as going to Aussie for the same reason, why waste the air-fare..:woohoo:Tuis moment here.

You've bored me off this thread foor the meantime...maybe if somebody else posted??

Sayonara:bye:

[Madness]

From above:killingmeBetween judges/probation officers and parole boards decisions any support from anywhere else is surely negated.Fuck me just tonight i overheard on the news yet another fuck up going back to jail for yet another killing after only just unpacking his toothbrush.

Has no-one ever told you before - Judges are supposed to be impartial, they are not there to provide support to the popo or the defence. Once again, I was referring to the resources available to the popo by way of legal support, not the other facets of our justice system "taking sides" with the popo.

[Madness]

Oh yeah, hiding forever in Gore and not appearing in Court will work just as well as going to Aussie for the same reason, why waste the air-fare..:woohoo:Tuis moment here.

You've bored me off this thread foor the meantime...maybe if somebody else posted??

Sayonara:bye:

Weak Scummy, very weak. Must try harder. We know you can put the effort in when you want to...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=265181&d=1339907031