Would he get time served or be up for another 17 - 25 minimum?Originally Posted by Patrick
As I recall the father was shot behind the ear with a .22 rifle fitted with a silencer. How long were Robin's arms?
Salted Pork
Would he get time served or be up for another 17 - 25 minimum?
As I recall the father was shot behind the ear with a .22 rifle fitted with a silencer. How long were Robin's arms?
Salted Pork
How many murder accused are granted bail? Why should this one be any different?
Easily wound up!!
Actually, it seems to me that if I were trying to shoot myself with a gun as long as my arm, behind the ear would be the easiest way to do it.
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
The instructions are simple...
That much is true....but when was the last time sentences were imposed cumulatively? And theory is...life = out in 10 (with good behaviour) unless a minimum term is added.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Salted Pork
Put a silencer on a normal length rifle and see how easy it is to position it in that area, why wouldn't he just put it in his mouth like any other suicide victim? At least that would have made it relatively clear that it was suicide.
Also, pathology showed he (Robin) had a very full bladder, it doesn't make any sense to me that you would go around murdering your family while you were busting for a piss. Wouldn't you take the time to have a leak first? Even a cold blooded killer would suffer from high levels of anxiety while they were murdering five people and having a violent struggle with at least one of the victims, which would make it highly likely that they would loose bladder control if they were busting.
Tornado Alley
Yeah, I know... but still out after 16 years for killing 5 people doesn't add up. Life should be that. You get out in a box.
Tornado Alley
9 foot long, apparently.
Tornado Alley
Two good points so quickly forgotten by those who say he is innocnet...
Forum whore
If I recall I believe that it has been demonstrated how the father cold have done this. More to the point is why, when he could have just placed the barrel under the chin and acheived the same result.
I've given some thought to the bladder thing. We tend to look at this trough our own 'normal' eyes. The first thing I do in the morning is to go and have piss. But then I do not have 'murder on my mind as indeed I would suggest do any of us. But and it is a big 'but,' who knows how important it is to have a leak when you are about to top off your family.
I am not prepared to promote Bain's innocence like I am with Watson. Bain may or may not have commited the murders but and this is a smaller 'but' there e is some doubt as to whether he killed or not. Personaly I think he is guilty. I think Bain is more clever than most give him credit for. I hold Ellis in the same regard, there's doubt and that investigation was nothing but a witch-hunt. But Ellis innocent? I think he's another clever deceiver.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Easily wound up!!
I thought cadavers had no bladder control... for that matter why didn't he go for a slash before going to say is prayers? Why didn't he notice the bloody footprint or any other signs of the struggles? Doesn't gunfire smell? Four shots in a house would leave some sort of smell surely.
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
Salted Pork
Its a pretty big why.
The point I was making is that there will still be a lot of rather compelling evidence against Bain despite the new evidence produced by Karam etc.
Tornado Alley
Everything else aside, the bladder thing is THE biggest thing in my book... geez, I have a nervy piss when I go out on the bike go for a run, whatever... If you were to top your entire family, you'd definitely be having a nervous pee...
Forum whore
Yes it is a big why. Along with the bladder is 'why' he did not go and have a pee. To me it's the most compelling evidence of Bain's guilt. But these two issues are not in themselves compelling enough to produce a guilty verdict on their own.
On other issues including the rifle, Karaem's counter claim's have produced doubt.
I have not read the Judgment of the Privy Council but from what I understand they ruled on the trial and 'not' from Karem's book. That's an important issue, that, to date the guilty lobby have not countered.
One aspect of this whole issue is what I call the motive supposition. We have only the word of one indavidual that Bains's sister Lanait was going to claim incest. He was a friend of hers and was never called to testify at the trial. If I recall the defence were unaware of this indaviduals testimoney which again brings ethical issues into the mix. But I diverse. How much credeance to Laneit's claim of incest can be taken from her as being accurate? Remember she was part of the Bain's dysfunctional family and could have made this story up for reasons that we will now never know. Her reliability has to my knowledge never been investigated. And yet on this hearsay evidence the old man has been painted as evil and having motive. Just not good enough in my view.
There will always be those who will proclaim innocence or guilt but I think the vast majority and I am of the opinion that those of the above camp will acknowledge that there is reasonable doubt. On that basis it would appear that justice at this point in time has prevailed.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Salted Pork
There is doubt, in that I agree, in particular around the crime scene management by the police and as I've said before I've always felt that this was enough to have warranted a retrial.
Doesn't mean I think he's innocent though. If the retrial eventuates and he is acquitted then that decision will have to be accepted on its merits in the same way that the original trial decision was.
Forum whore
Just a breif summary from Wikipedia.
Evidence
The emergence of much new evidence after the trial led to the later appeals and the eventual overturn of Bain's convictions. Nine of the most important items were reviewed in the Privy Council findings:
1. Robin Bain's mental state
The jury did not know that he was "quite seriously disturbed", had reportedly hit a student at the school where he was principal, and had published brutal and sadistic children's stories in the school's newsletter, one of which involved the serial murder of members of a family.[5]
2. Motive
Laniet had apparently told a friend just before the killings that she was planning to confront her parents that weekend about an incestuous relationship between her and her father Robin, but the trial judge had ruled the friend's evidence inadmissable because he saw it as unreliable. The jury therefore never heard about this possible motive for Robin.[6] (The exclusion of this evidence was the principal question in the first appeal.)[7] Since then, two other people had come forward stating that Laniet had told them about the incest, and another two had given supporting statements.[8]
3. Size of bloody sock prints
Prints from a right sock impregnated with blood were detected using luminol in Margaret's room, going in and out of Laniet's room, and in the hallway outside Margaret's room. They all seemed to be from the same foot, measured at 280 mm in length. These were in places where Robin would not have gone under the Crown's theory of events. It was accepted during the trial that the prints were David's, and the prosecutor summed up saying they were too big to be Robin's. The jury were not told Robin's feet were measured to be 270 mm in length. Later measurements showed David's feet to be 300 mm in length. According to the Privy Council report, the new evidence "throws real doubt" on the assumption during the trial that the prints could not have been Robin's.[9]
4. Time the computer was switched on
The jury was told and later reminded by the judge that the computer was turned on at precisely 6:44 am, just after David had returned home. However the exact time was not precisely recorded. A computer advisor employed by Otago University determined the time that the computer was switched by identifying how long it had been going, and what the current time of day was. However he was not wearing a watch himself and relied on the watch of an accompanying constable, DC Anderson. The constable's watch had no seconds hand and only five minute interval divisions, and later upon examination appeared to be two minutes fast. During the Privy Council appeal both sides agreed that the computer could have been turned on as early as 6:39:49 am.[10]
5. Time David returned home
Someone was seen by a passing motorist entering the gate at 65 Every St at 6:45 am. The reliability of this time was left more doubtful than necessary in the minds of the jury, because they were not told that the police had checked the car's clock. Nor were they (or the defence) told of a second statement made by the motorist, in which she mentioned that she saw the yellow paper bag over his left shoulder. After retiring, the jury asked to read the motorist's statement, regarding when David arrived home; the judge then re-read her (first) statement.[11]
6. Ownership of glasses
The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were the mother's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.[12]
7. Left-hand lens
The left-hand lens of these glasses was found in Stephen's room. During the trial, Detective Weir testified that it was found there in the open. This was more consistent with the Crown's case that it become dislodged during the struggle there than what is now accepted, that it was found under a skate boot under a jacket, and was covered in dust. This may have misled the jury.[13]
8. David's bloody fingerprints on rifle
David's fingerprints were found on the rifle, impressed there by bloody fingers. During the trial it was assumed that this was human blood. (Other blood on the rifle was definitely human.) A test of the fingerprint blood afterwards did not test positive for human DNA, and the prints may have resulted from possum or rabbit shooting months beforehand.[14]
9. Laniet's gurgling noise
The jury was told that only the murderer could have heard Laniet gurgling. The second Court of Appeal heard some contradictory evidence and concluded it was not so clear-cut. The third Court of Appeal decided that it was, but was criticised by the Privy Council for having stepped outside its reviewing role here.[15]
The Privy Council ruled that the third Court of Appeal had exceeded its role as a reviewing body in deciding the implications of all this new evidence. The Council also addressed three points which the third Court of Appeal had relied on in confirming David's guilt:
1. Knowledge of spare key to rifle[16]
2. Bloody rifle clearer around David's fingerprints[17]
3. Spare magazine standing upright[18]
They found that the implications of the first point were contentious, while the other two should have been decided by a jury instead of an appellate court. They felt they did not need to consider in detail several other contentious points that the third appeal court saw as pointing towards David's guilt, including blood on David’s opera gloves, Stephen’s blood being found on David’s black shorts, the timing of the washing machine cycle, David’s head injuries, and Robin’s full bladder.[19]
[edit]
I never did think that removing the right of appeal to the Privy Council was a good idea. This judgment confirms it.
Skyryder
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks