David Bain's "I shot the Prick" 111 call?

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 12th June 2009, 18:00

Originally Posted by oldrider

When I was growing up in this country, murder was "rare", now it looks like it has become the "National Pastime"!

I might give it a go... I could murder a coffee right about now...

**Hinny** · 12th June 2009, 18:00

If I ever get in trouble I want Michael Reed QC for my lawyer.
He's as good as OJ's lawyers.

**Mom** · 12th June 2009, 18:12

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

I'm with you there... 98% anyway. I agreed with what you say because I don't know of a better system.

I will take this one step further for consideration.

Imagine this scenario if you will. A slime ball, dirt bag, disgusting, revolting sicko, who also happens to be a well respected pillar of the community makes some inappropriate advances to your son, among others. By inappropriate I am talking about buying him things like cell phones, top ups, PS2 games, oh a little (not really a little to be fair) financial contribution towards an overseas trip for him and a mate. Tells the travel agent he is a friend of the family mind you so as not to arouse too much suspicion. Buys them hot chocolates, takes them back to his house for a swim, you get the picture.

After finding a printout from the travel agent with this vile mans name and phone number on it, you ring him to ask WTF GOES ON?

His explanation leaves you cold all over and rather than reassure you, makes you really worried. You go to the Police and talk to them about what is happening. They are VERY interested, as there is a charge available to them, it is called grooming. Your son is just over the legal age of consent, so grooming does not apply. They decide to bring him in anyway for a bit of a chat, warn him he is over stepping what is considered acceptable in normal society. You warn him off your boy, as do the cops and it is over right?

Eighteen months later, you get a phone call from a decetective who wants to talk to you about this dirt bag, apparently he has just been arrested for indecent assault on a 16 year old boy! So gleefully you go to the Police Station and give a statement about your previous experience of this thing pretending to be a wonderful member of society. He case is sent to court and there is a depositions hearing. You duley turn up to support your statement as requested, and your statement is deemed inadmissable because it is prejudicial to this cnut's case. YOU WHAT! Yes folks, the fact that the cops had warned him off inappropriate contact with young men was prejudicial to his case.

He went on to sucessfully defend himself against the indecent assault charge I might add. Good for him. I have money on the fact that this was not the first time, nor will it be the last. Why the hell at the low end of the offending scale was your statement disallowed? Hope this (little smaller as a result of the case) pillar of the community does not do something again, for the sake of the legal system that does not allow knowledge to be shared.

**Hinny** · 12th June 2009, 18:17

Originally Posted by hospitalfood

whatever, the first jury did not even hear about the dad sleeping with his daughter you muppet.

Apparently the high rate of incest in this country is mind boggling.
It does not seem to lead to parents killing off those they 'love'.
In or out, the 'evidence' of any in or out has little relevance to the interpretation of plausible conclusions given the rest of the evidence in my opinion.
Much like many of the other stories Laniet is reported to have come out with.
The suppressed evidence is far more compelling to my way of thinking. I can understand why the defence team fought so hard to have it suppressed.

Watching Michael Reed at work is like watching a magician. A veritable tour de force. Some may say he comes across as a bumbling plonker with a plum in his mouth, but to get that result I think is pure genius.
Putting words in witnesses mouths, making illogical conclusions from their evidence etc., with conviction, would no doubt have bamboozled the jury to the point that they only heard his interpretation of the evidence. No matter how illogical it may have been.

I can appreciate the calls for the adoption of the inquisitorial approach to jurisprudence.
Kind of bizarre that it should come from both camps!

**Winston001** · 12th June 2009, 19:26

Originally Posted by Mom

I will take this one step further for consideration.

Imagine this scenario if you will. A slime ball, dirt bag, disgusting, revolting sicko, who also happens to be a well respected pillar of the community makes some inappropriate advances to your son, among others....

Eighteen months later, he has just been arrested for indecent assault on a 16 year old boy! So gleefully you go to the Police Station and give a statement about your previous experience of this thing pretending to be a wonderful member of society. He case is sent to court and there is a depositions hearing. You duly turn up to support your statement as requested, and your statement is deemed inadmissable because it is prejudicial to this cnut's case. YOU WHAT! Yes folks, the fact that the cops had warned him off inappropriate contact with young men was prejudicial to his case.

I don't want to minimise or dismiss your experience - I'd be drawn to violence in your shoes. That was a shocking experience.

The rule simply is that only evidence directly relating to the offence can be adduced in court. So something which happened months before to another person and no charges arise, is not relevant to the current case.

Clearly the Crown tried in your situation to bring in your evidence because otherwise you would never have even known about the prosecution. The judge must have ruled it out.

There is a rule of where evidence of propensity to offend is admissible. It's an exception to the norm and tough to get from a judge.

You were probably told this but its hard to accept.

**Winston001** · 12th June 2009, 19:34

Originally Posted by Hinny

Watching Michael Reed at work is like watching a magician. A veritable tour de force. Some may say he comes across as a bumbling plonker with a plum in his mouth, but to get that result I think is pure genius.
Putting words in witnesses mouths, making illogical conclusions from their evidence etc., with conviction, would no doubt have bamboozled the jury to the point that they only heard his interpretation of the evidence. No matter how illogical it may have been.

Personally I'd never heard of the guy before - if he has a criminal practise its not well known.

He and Helen Cull were either brilliantly stupid or just ordinarily good. Probably the latter.

So long as the defence could bring experts to dispute the Crown evidence, it was always likely the jury would be confused enough to acquit. Standard defence stuff. Make enough noise over 13 weeks and acquittal has to be a strong chance.

I can appreciate the calls for the adoption of the inquisitorial approach to jurisprudence.
Kind of bizarre that it should come from both camps!

Yes it arises every few years. Don't know. Used to think the European system of investigating magistrates was better than our "battle by champions" but many democracies still use the British model. It's robust and the judge doesn't get to control the prosecution.

**Winston001** · 12th June 2009, 19:36

Originally Posted by Hinny

If I ever get in trouble I want Michael Reed QC for my lawyer.
He's as good as OJ's lawyers.

That's cos he's a witch!

**Mom** · 12th June 2009, 19:53

Originally Posted by Winston001

You were probably told this but its hard to accept.

Interestingly enough, I was not told this, I was told that it was pathetic that my statement was deemed inadmissable, when my sons statement was not. The court/judge/legal system needs to re-think this as far as I am concerned. Yet again today I read that a bloke is convicted for raping and killing a little girl (teenager) who has raped before.

Something is really friggen wrong with a society that not only allows but seemingly supports denying the truth to be heard about someone, when they are being tried for a similar crime. I go back to my original statement here. If I am innocent of the crime, then I am innocent and am guaranteed a fair trail. No matter what I may have done in the past, this time I did not do it. The evidence will prove I did not do it, ergo I have nothing to worry about. I am sorry but nothing will convince me that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. They are very clearly instructed to disregard anything that has gone before and only judge on the evidence presented to them.

Not one single juror on the David Bain jury could hand on heart say they knew nothing about what had happened before I am certain, yet they were allowed to serve and judge.

**candor** · 12th June 2009, 19:53

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Karam acted in the belief of an injustice. I thought you of all people could understand that. Apparantly not. Or are you so self centred that acting on a belief only applies to yourself...

For the record I think Karam got it wrong..............but fortunately society allows for that.

Skyryder

Way off base. Of all the people you could meet I am the least likely to act on a belief (without strong evidence to back it), and the most suspicious of those who do adopt causes. I'm a woman of science overall - so concerned not to judge what I do not know (even if I may have no trouble formng an opinion) that I would NEVER go on a jury. Several times have declined under the religious belief opt out, saying it is against my belief to judge things when I do not know. I add that in too many trials there is no ability to know - and the material that is presented is so manipulated by Judges and lawyers as to often present no relation to salient facts. They haven't sued me yet!

My strong "belief" is in not expending energy on passions - anger and drive like Karams is typically borne of ego and causes cancer of cardiac issues so is best avoided unless you've a hankering to die young. To have such hyperactive passion over a (perceived) injustice - especially when it likely isn't - is not admirable in my book but certifiable. Unless you're people of red setters or Weimeraner type. Developmentally it is 5 year olds who stomp and stew over apparent "its not fair" scenarios, and often immature adults who are attracted to dramas with whiffs of unfairness. Life is not fair - thats why its so interesting, but please set priorities on "altruism" with some discernment - work with reality in a mingling way not by playing god.

If Karam had turned his inner wound to some really concerning cause like starving kids caused by loan usury in the third world, I might have more sympathy. In this case he should have just had a cup of tea and after doing some digging walked away - but I believe at some point it just became about winning to him. Expending such energy on a well looked after Kiwi in one of the best prisons in the world - who likely did do heinous things but got promoted from arrested adolescent paper boy to engineer - is a disgrace.

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. I just think that those who celebrate Karam could find far better specimens to put on pedestals if they have such a need. But never mind me - I also think the same re Edmund Hilary. Maybe I was born wrong side of the world. But heros to me are everyday people who don't seek the limelight - Karam is out of perspective, he is a fanatic who has won over the weak minded (including some journos) imo.

The cannabis buyer who took a bullet for the cops (they said he was just dropping by for coffee on 3 news tonight!) in Napier. The guy I know spending everyday at the bedside of his son who is brain injured from a rugby game, the ABs who visited him a couple of days ago, the 17 year old I work with who has for 2 years nursed her puppy love who has serious cancer (and her Dad just died) yet still smiles at work and is a light to many adults and peers - I have ultimate respect for that girl.... yup I can reel off about 1000 Kiwis I'd admire more

Karam thread anyone? Heard a DJ saying "Bain sees him as a Father figure"... audible gulp.

**98tls** · 12th June 2009, 20:04

[QUOTE=candor;1129256735

We are put on this earth once, and have a grateful responsibility to use the time well. [/QUOTE] Yep agreed though whats important is we have choices as to what we find using the time well,Mr Karam obviously felt he was,wether you or anyone else agrees is irrevelant i guess,not exactly rocket science eh.

**MattRSK** · 12th June 2009, 20:07

Thread Closed

**candor** · 12th June 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by 98tls

Yep agreed though whats important is we have choices as to what we find using the time

Agreed, the essential prob I have is that K just seems so cut off from the victims perspective. I'd say his investigation was biased by his relationship with the survivor, and dislike that much

**Skyryder** · 12th June 2009, 20:14

Originally Posted by Mom

Interestingly enough, I was not told this, I was told that it was pathetic that my statement was deemed inadmissable, when my sons statement was not. The court/judge/legal system needs to re-think this as far as I am concerned. Yet again today I read that a bloke is convicted for raping and killing a little girl (teenager) who has raped before.

Something is really friggen wrong with a society that not only allows but seemingly supports denying the truth to be heard about someone, when they are being tried for a similar crime. I go back to my original statement here. If I am innocent of the crime, then I am innocent and am guaranteed a fair trail. No matter what I may have done in the past, this time I did not do it. The evidence will prove I did not do it, ergo I have nothing to worry about. I am sorry but nothing will convince me that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. They are very clearly instructed to disregard anything that has gone before and only judge on the evidence presented to them.

Not one single juror on the David Bain jury could hand on heart say they knew nothing about what had happened before I am certain, yet they were allowed to serve and judge.

As you state nothing will convince you that knowing about previous form/history sholuld influence a jury. But with others it might. There are clear reasons why past history should not be bought up in a trial and that is so the jury find on the evidence presented to court in relation to the charge. It's one of the fundemental aspects of our legal system along with innocent untill proven guilty.

That it works is evident in the Davis case.

The Bain trial is a different matter. There is no way that information that jurors heard prior to the trial can be completely erased from opinion. I'm sure that if he had have been found guilty then many would have argued that the jurors may have been prejidiical due to the publicity and media attention. In many ways it was a no win situation. In hindsight I think a pardon may have been the best option but on this I'm not too sure that it was legally possible.

The justice system is not infalliable nor is justice it's goal. Most important, and we sometimes forget this, is that the law is upheld in seeking convictions and in most cases the law does not allow historical convictions to be submitted as evidence.

Skyryder