Bain, what's the answer going to be?

**MIXONE** · 5th June 2009, 14:42

I lived about 100 metres away from Emery St. at the time of the murders and subsequently followed the case very closely and at the time was convinced of David's guilt.I have since read Karam's book and was totally convinced of his innocence.Now having followed the retrial I just don't know anymore.I'm
glad I'm not on the jury!!!
IMO I think he is guilty but too much doubt remains to convict him.

**short-circuit** · 5th June 2009, 14:49

Originally Posted by MIXONE

I think he is guilty but too much doubt remains to convict him.

Me too.

I think he most likely did the lot of them.

If he didn't, he most certainly topped his old man.

**chucky19** · 5th June 2009, 15:05

Originally Posted by Mikkel

Gee, you certainly come across openminded and objective on this whole subject. I hope not too many working cops share that attitude, if so we are in deeper shit than I could have imagined...

Between the 29th clause of the Magna Carta (and what follows from it) and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" the legal system is, generally speaking, put together so that there's a greater risk of acquitting the guilty than condemning the innocent.
Would any of us really have it any other way? If so, there's plenty of places around the world where they don't fuck around - Saudia Arabia anyone? - that doesn't lead to less violent or criminal societies though.

If the evidence doesn't hold up, the prosecution fails and he walks - whether he did it or not - just like he should.

Your sarcasm in your opening sentence is just as strong as your interpretation of the legal process.

It is the duty of the police to fairly investigate crimes and to gather evidence to bring perpetrators of those crimes before the Court. If there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against a suspect then the trial would never be able to proceed, and that is not decided by the police but by the Courts. It is up to the police and their experts to gather and interpret the evidence for the purposes of proving the ingredients of the charges against the accused.

The suspect is 'innocent until proven guilty' in the eyes of the Court only. If one of your family members was murdered would you expect the police to investigate the local corner dairy owner with the same intensity as the prime suspect?? They are not there to investigate every Tom, Dick or Harry suspect, they are there to collect relevant and admissable evidence. (Unfortunately for the police the rules regarding admissable evidence are stacked heavily in favour of the accused. I hope that one day some of that evidence will come out in this case.)

Surely if credible evidence to the contrary arises or if witnesses recant their stories then charges against a suspect will be dropped, and it occurs daily when victims of domestic violence withdraw their statements. If they don't do this then sure, vilify and malign them all you want.

Believe me, there would have been nothing the guys at the Every St scene would have liked more than to have written the scene off as a murder/suicide, and i suspect that some vital evidence was not pursued properly due to the fact that in the first instance they believed that it was Robin that had committed the murders. You can be sure that if it was collected the defence would have had to call more 'experts' to try and confuse the jury.

Yes leave it up to the Court to determine guilt or innocence.

Are jury trials the best solution?? No - unless you are guilty.

**MSTRS:Me** · 5th June 2009, 15:29

Originally Posted by chucky19

It is up to the police and their experts to gather and interpret the evidence for the purposes of proving the ingredients of the charges against the accused.

Quite right. But playing fast and loose with evidence is a no-no. And that happens too often. Wilful tampering or otherwise, it happened in this case too.

**YellowDog** · 5th June 2009, 15:46

If DB was innocent, all he had to do was to take the stand and explain and describe what happened.

He and is team are trying to get off on a technicality.

OJ Simpson got away with murder, so why shouldn't DB?
(BECAUSE IT IS WRONG)

**Maha** · 5th June 2009, 16:44

'Not Guilty'

**twotyred** · 5th June 2009, 16:44

justice finally!!

**MattRSK** · 5th June 2009, 16:45

That was quick!

**madmal64** · 5th June 2009, 16:45

That will cost us

**twotyred** · 5th June 2009, 16:46

Originally Posted by madmal64

That will cost us

and so it should...

**98tls** · 5th June 2009, 16:46

Originally Posted by Maha

'Not Guilty'

Go figure eh.

**Laxi** · 5th June 2009, 16:47

NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES!!! how much did that crap cost the country, fked up justice department

**98tls** · 5th June 2009, 16:48

Getting the money will be a lot harder than getting a not guilty verdict.

**Str8 Jacket** · 5th June 2009, 16:48

Based on only the small amount of facts that the media "fed" us I believe that there was always reasonable doubt to not have been convicted in the first place.

I really hope that he is not guilty.