David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[oneofsix]

Did you read this? http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-...in...A.../file

It is a link to the complete trial and appeal records.

Notable is a comment by the Appeals Court:

"There is no evidence positively implicating Robin Bain on any tenable basis. Motive and the state of his mind must be seen in that light. Those matters could not possibly be seen by a reasonable jury as producing a reasonable doubt as to David's guilt which is so clearly proved by the combination of affirmative poinbts to which we have drawn attention."

Also noted and never answered is the fact that;

"David confidently denied matters that he could not remember even though they actually happened." David said they did not happen when in fact they did.

And in the case of Robin Bain;

"no-one else's blood was found on him."
"No gunpowder traces were found on his hands."
"His fingerprints were not on the rifle."

Now can any bright spark here tell us how Robin did it in the light of these facts?

These would be the NZ courts and appeals that the privy council said got it wrong and should start again?
How can they say his prints weren't on the gun when there were prints on the gun they couldn't identify. Jsut shows the privy council and only true trail are right - case against David not proven.

[Madness]

O.M.Fucking G!

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/new-evi...-of-scott-guy/

[Edbear]

These would be the NZ courts and appeals that the privy council said got it wrong and should start again?
How can they say his prints weren't on the gun when there were prints on the gun they couldn't identify. Jsut shows the privy council and only true trail are right - case against David not proven.

So you haven't read it then? Have you also read the Privy Council's report?

You make unsubstantiated comments without reference. Typical of many here.

I like to know what I'm talking about, so I go and read stuff, you know, like the actual case files..?

[Katman]

So you haven't read it then?

I just keep getting the message 'The requested page could not be found on the Ministry of Justice website'.

[Drew]

Did you read this? www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic.../David-Bain...A.../file

I just keep getting the message 'The requested page could not be found on the Ministry of Justice website'.

Yep, link no worky worky.

[Madness]

Yep, link no worky worky.

Ed's been using this site for his links again it seems.

[Edbear]

I just keep getting the message 'The requested page could not be found on the Ministry of Justice website'.

Yep, link no worky worky.

This came up on Google after putting in the question, "Whose blood was found on the rifle in the David Bain case?"

[PDF]05 Appendices_Tab A to Tab E.pdf - Ministry of Justicewww.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic.../David-Bain...A.../file‎Cached
the appellant David Cullen Bain was convicted on each of five counts of murder. ... jury, that if that jury had had the opportunity to consider the case with the benefit of that fresh .... David's bloodied fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. (3) ..... Appeal against whose decision the Board refused leave to appeal. The.

Clicking on the link brought up the PDF file.

[Drew]

This came up on Google after putting in the question, "Whose blood was found on the rifle in the David Bain case?"

[PDF]05 Appendices_Tab A to Tab E.pdf - Ministry of Justicewww.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic.../David-Bain...A.../file‎Cached
the appellant David Cullen Bain was convicted on each of five counts of murder. ... jury, that if that jury had had the opportunity to consider the case with the benefit of that fresh .... David's bloodied fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. (3) ..... Appeal against whose decision the Board refused leave to appeal. The.

Clicking on the link brought up the PDF file.

Came up empty still. But I did find this.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/e...e-murder-rifle

Have a read, lemme know what you think.

[Edbear]

Came up empty still. But I did find this.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/e...e-murder-rifle

Have a read, lemme know what you think.

Try this? I saved the file.

[Indoo]

The photos () show residual,

So would this residue rub off or blur upon contact with any other surface? hence explaining why it wasn't visible to the pathologist?

[Katman]

Try this? I saved the file.

Well so far I'm about a fifth of the way through it and have to say, I'm not surprised that the case was referred to the Privy Council and that the subsequent retrial found him Not Guilty.

[Edbear]

Well so far I'm about a fifth of the way through it and have to say, I'm not surprised that the case was referred to the Privy Council and that the subsequent retrial found him Not Guilty.

Why am I not surprised...?

[Katman]

Why am I not surprised...?

For a start, the original jury were never made aware of Robin Bain's state of mind, and they were never made aware of the relationship between Laniet and Robin.

The bloodied sock print would more likely fit Robin's foot size than David's and the blood on the rifle which contained David's fingerprints was never even questioned as to whether it was human or animal blood.

I'm sure I'll come up with plenty more once I've read a bit more.

[Katman]

It sounds to me like the judge in the original trial had made up his mind and set about convincing the jury that David was guilty.

The series of following Appeal Hearings held in New Zealand sounds like the Court of Appeal were simply unwilling to risk undermining the performance of that original judge and jury.

[Edbear]

For a start, the original jury were never made aware of Robin Bain's state of mind, and they were never made aware of the relationship between Laniet and Robin.

The bloodied sock print would more likely fit Robin's foot size than David's and the blood on the rifle which contained David's fingerprints was never even questioned as to whether it was human or animal blood.

I'm sure I'll come up with plenty more once I've read a bit more.

All those points are addressed in the report. Nothing alters the established facts. It is all conjecture and possibilities, nothing that stands any test of proof. Points of technicalities of law, mainly.

But then you like to ignore concrete evidence for conjecture...