Bain, what's the answer going to be?

**chucky19** · 5th June 2009, 18:48

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Errr, if you're referring to David Bain's case evidence was tampered with in situ ,and a large chunk of it was thrown away in 1995.

Forgive me for being thick, but Not Guilty is about as good a reference for innocence as you'll get out of the court system.

Tampered with?? If investigators have a crystal ball and can plot every step they make into a scene with no care given to finding out if people are dead or not, or if someone with a gun is still actually in the scene then they can go into a scene and not 'tamper'. Unfortunately they don't.

A large chunk thrown away?? He had been found guilty and the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal. The investigation happened 14 years ago and things were a lot different back then forensically. The evidence thrown away had very little chance of being useful after 14 years anyway, the DNA would more than likely have completely degraded. As with the blood stains on David they would just have been explained away after being analysed, he would have 'remembered' doing things to suit the results. Experts that Karam employed that didn't agree with his version were ignored, how's that for being unbiassed.

Not Guilty may be a reference, but it's a far cry from not being culpable.

I'll accept that you are thick, I don't know if I have to forgive you for it.

Perhaps David and Chris Kahui could start a club - I hope they wave.

**smoky** · 5th June 2009, 18:49

Originally Posted by short-circuit

Hey calm down there. A finding of Not Guilty is not proof of innocence

And it would be very wrong to think him to be guilty as well

generally I have found those who have read the books and actually know a bit about the case have always thought he was innocent, which is the legal description for him - 'innocent until proven guilty'
No proof of guilt - then he's innocent

You can think what you like - but at the end of the day he can call himself legally innocent

While waiting for his retrial, he stayed at my place for a weekend, I have met him a few times. had a few drinks with him and talked late into the night.
Prior to him staying my house I spoke to the police about his bail conditions, I was surprised that every cop I spoke to thought he was innocent, including one who worked in Dunedin and was part of the original investigation

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 18:51

Originally Posted by James Deuce

They couldn't present all the evidence. They threw a big chunk of it away once David was jailed.

So all the evidence was available in 1994 then?

**smoky** · 5th June 2009, 18:51

Originally Posted by James Deuce

They couldn't present all the evidence. They threw a big chunk of it away once David was jailed.

Bullshit they did

**martybabe** · 5th June 2009, 18:51

Originally Posted by peasea

parrrrrrrrrteeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!

He sure does look like the personification of a party animal, prolly have a quite night in with a loud jersey, some cosy slippers and a milo.

**98tls** · 5th June 2009, 18:52

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

No just mucking around...........I have no idea but the reality is we will never know the real truth....if he did not kill him I am pleased....if he did then I am also pleased that he will live with that too...

More importantly did he keep the jersey?With the advent of Trade me it should fetch a fortune.

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 18:53

Originally Posted by MattRSK

Where does legal aid come from Grahameeboy?

Geeze not that old "Taxpayer" argument dude....I knew you would come back and say that...so "we had no direct input into the outcome"...

**testastretta** · 5th June 2009, 18:53

I wonder if David is going to hunt down his other family members now.You know...Laniets kids?

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 18:54

Originally Posted by 98tls

More importantly did he keep the jersey?With the advent of Trade me it should fetch a fortune.

or the socks............buy one get one free...

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 18:57

Originally Posted by 98tls

More importantly did he keep the jersey?With the advent of Trade me it should fetch a fortune.

Was thinking, maybe he could use the jersey to do a Persil whiter than white advert....

**JimO** · 5th June 2009, 18:58

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

So all the evidence was available in 1994 then?

just what the cops wanted to use.........then all that pesky "xtra" evidence was destroyed

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 19:00

Originally Posted by jimjim

just what the cops wanted to use.........then all that pesky "xtra" evidence was destroyed

Another Police conspiracy then.....

**James Deuce** · 5th June 2009, 19:05

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Another Police conspiracy then.....

It's not a conspiracy. It's a series of amateurish cock ups. Right through the current retrial, the police have been forced to admit to moving things like cartridge cases at the scene, moving one body so that the blood ran magically uphill, and misidentifying the lense from a pair of glasses as belonging to David.

**Grahameeboy** · 5th June 2009, 19:07

Originally Posted by James Deuce

It's not a conspiracy. It's a series of amateurish cock ups. Right through the current retrial, the police have been forced to admit to moving things like cartridge cases at the scene, moving one body so that the blood ran magically uphill, and misidentifying the lense from a pair of glasses as belonging to David.

So still a conspiracy then?

**smoky** · 5th June 2009, 19:07

Originally Posted by marty

So on that theory, no-one should be denied bail.

And the only one who REALLY knows, is bain himself.

I doubt that he'll get compo - does everyone who gets found not guilty get it? would you be happy with a patched gang member being found not guilty getting compo for his trouble?

Man your head is so far up your own arse .......
It's one thing to express a point of view as to if he should get compensation or not, but comparing him to a patched gang member!!! What a...