Bain is being retried.

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:13

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Read the McNeish book too.

http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=112
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=114

There was another fine piece of journalism in the Listener from some time ago, (can't recall her name, has the same name as Peter JACKSONS Mrs... and not Mrs JACKSON either!!!) where she slams KARAMS interviewing methods... if Police used the "methods" he was using, the "evidence" obtained was clearly tainted, forced and unworthy.

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:14

Originally Posted by MSTRS

That's not exactly fair, is it? His face was hardly shown after the arrest...and guilty or not, I'll guarantee that you would smile too if it was you being released....

Yep, coz 60% of those surveyed think a mass murderer is innocent....

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd June 2007, 16:16

'Funny' how it is 'fine journalism' when an article purports to find Bain guilty....

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd June 2007, 16:17

Originally Posted by Patrick

Yep, coz 60% of those surveyed think a mass murderer is innocent....

What's that got to do with Bain showing, or not, emotion?

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:17

Originally Posted by Hitcher

You don't have to agree with them. They represent one interpretation of what may have happened in this case. If you're not interested in forming a balanced view, that's quite OK. Hopefully you won't be selected for the jury next year.

I deal with "facts," not theories......

Have seen the "theories" and have a very balanced view, which is clear enough now, thanks....

Can't be on a jury, ever... Yay!!!

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:19

Originally Posted by MSTRS

'Funny' how it is 'fine journalism' when an article purports to find Bain guilty....

No, but it is worth a read.... where theories are raised and then challenged by the facts... huge difference.

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:19

Originally Posted by MSTRS

What's that got to do with Bain showing, or not, emotion?

Coz he and Karam have pulled the wool over the sheeps eyes...

**Winston001** · 22nd June 2007, 16:22

Originally Posted by oldrider

I am absolutely in favour of the new trial.

I have got some questions about the new trial and today's law and penalties.

Will the "new" trial be committed under the law at the time of the crime or under the law and penalties of today?

If he is not guilty, I do not believe the evidence points to Bain's father, in which case there must be some one else out there, (enjoying life) that the police did not even look at because they were too focused on nailing Bain!

He'll be tried under the law as it was at the time of the murders - and face the related penalties. Essentially the charges still lie against him, he is just out on bail.

I don't know enough about it but the police concluded at an early point that only David or Robin committed the murders. They will have forensic reasons for that. Must admit I've always wondered why a stranger was dismissed as a suspect. Maybe we'll hear why.

**Hitcher** · 22nd June 2007, 16:25

Originally Posted by Patrick

Yep, coz 60% of those surveyed think a mass murderer is innocent....

An alleged mass murderer. The Privy Council quashed his conviction. Remember that?

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd June 2007, 16:27

Originally Posted by Patrick

Coz he and Karam have pulled the wool over the sheeps eyes...

You are calling the (nominally) highest court in the world 'sheep'? Wouldn't want to be in your shoes if they find out who you are...

**Hitcher** · 22nd June 2007, 16:27

Originally Posted by Winston001

He'll be tried under the law as it was at the time of the murders.

Presumable this means a unanimous jury decision, rather than a majority one?

**Swoop** · 22nd June 2007, 16:30

Originally Posted by Winston001

Must admit I've always wondered why a stranger was dismissed as a suspect. Maybe we'll hear why.

Perhaps a "grassy knoll"?

The Bain household did appear to be a book repository...

**Winston001** · 22nd June 2007, 16:33

Originally Posted by Mom

I agree there are so many unanswered questions, at least there is an outside chance that all evidence will be made available to a jury this time???????

Good point Mom. Here we have the disconnect between talkback radio, conspiracy theorists, smoko-room gossip and actual evidence. The rules regarding what evidence is actually heard in Court are strict. This is to protect the accused - he only has to face direct facts, not suggestions, possibilities or gossip.

So for example if you think someone will get in the witness box and say Laniet was being abused by Robin...........think again. That would be hearsay - unless there is something dramatic we don't know about. If David's defence tries this, he lays himself open to attack on his personal character.

And what if David doesn't give evidence? He cannot be compelled to. Where does that leave Joe Karram and the rest of us?

**Patrick** · 22nd June 2007, 16:38

Originally Posted by Hitcher

An alleged mass murderer. The Privy Council quashed his conviction. Remember that?

and they also said he should remain in prison until the decision is made for a retrial... remember that one????

Originally Posted by MSTRS

You are calling the (nominally) highest court in the world 'sheep'? Wouldn't want to be in your shoes if they find out who you are...

No, not the court at all... see just above (they can see it for what it is, but it is not their call... they suggested a retrial..) just the general McNair Survey mob.

I'm not at all hard to find.....