David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Katman]

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...

Of course they're addressed in the report - that's where I got them from.

Might I remind you that David Bain was eventually found Not Guilty.

That didn't happen by accident.

[Edbear]

Of course they're addressed in the report - that's where I got them from.

Might I remind you that David Bain was eventually found Not Guilty.

That didn't happen by accident.

The Timeline.
http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bain-ti...5/Default.aspx

http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bain-fo...9/Default.aspx

Not guilty does not mean innocent.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10848471

[oneofsix]

The Timeline.
http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bain-ti...5/Default.aspx

http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bain-fo...9/Default.aspx

Not guilty does not mean innocent.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10848471

oh fuck, we are back there again. Not Guilty means he wasn't guilty, case wasn't proved so he shouldn't have been locked up. Add the review where the Justice Binnie said he was innocent and not guilty in this case does mean innocent.

[Indoo]

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

Exactly, and there is nothing unreasonable about people who agree with that verdict. There is however with people who equate it with innocence, especially given that members of the Bain jury actually contacted the media expressing their outrage that it was being construed as such.

Add the review where the Justice Binnie said he was innocent and not guilty in this case does mean innocent.

So you would prefer a report with glaringly obvious factual errors in it, to the one conducted by Sir Thomas Thorpe that concluded the opposite. At best they negate each other.

And I'd be interested in your opinion on whether the gun shot residue replicated in the T.V show would rub off or blur upon contact with another surface?

[Banditbandit]

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.

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...

Why don't you two piss off back to that other thread you came from ....

[Drew]

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.

I might have made it that far at best.

It's impossible for me to read the whole thing. My eyes are stinging and dry, and I'm so bored I'm fuckin tempted to top my family and then myself!

Seemed to me that the original judge was not impartial, and swayed the jury.

But I agree with one point, that cannot be refuted. David's prints were sharp and clean, in blood, on the gun. Had they been months old at the time of initial scrutiny, they would have worn off.

He did it I think, and he did a fuckin piss poor job of hiding the fact.

[Drew]

Why don't you too piss off back to that other thread you came from ....

You seem to be an educated man, use the right bloody "two" would ya.

[Katman]

So you would prefer a report with glaringly obvious factual errors in it,

And what exactly were those "glaringly obvious factual errors"?

[Edbear]

oh fuck, we are back there again. Not Guilty means he wasn't guilty, case wasn't proved so he shouldn't have been locked up. Add the review where the Justice Binnie said he was innocent and not guilty in this case does mean innocent.

Naturally you have read his reports twice amended?

[Edbear]

I might have made it that far at best.

It's impossible for me to read the whole thing. My eyes are stinging and dry, and I'm so bored I'm fuckin tempted to top my family and then myself!

Seemed to me that the original judge was not impartial, and swayed the jury.

But I agree with one point, that cannot be refuted. David's prints were sharp and clean, in blood, on the gun. Had they been months old at the time of initial scrutiny, they would have worn off.

He did it I think, and he did a fuckin piss poor job of hiding the fact.

And how did Robin do it and not leave his prints or get any blood on himself or his clothes?

[Katman]

And how did Robin do it and not leave his prints or get any blood on himself or his clothes?

Do you not think that the jury in the retrial considered that question?

[Edbear]

Do you not think that the jury in the retrial considered that question?

No jury or case reviewer has considered Robin a plausible suspect, only David's defense team has tried to put him up as an alternative to David.

[Indoo]

And what exactly were those "glaringly obvious factual errors"?

Well for starters according to Binnie the magazine next to Robins hand was empty, which makes it kind of hard for him to have marks on his thumb from reloading it now doesn't it?

[Katman]

No jury or case reviewer has considered Robin a plausible suspect, only David's defense team has tried to put him up as an alternative to David.

What is your response to paragraph 43 of Justice Binnie's report?

[Katman]

Well for starters according to Binnie the magazine next to Robins hand was empty, which makes it kind of hard for him to have marks on his thumb from reloading it now doesn't it?

So he mistakenly called it empty.

What's your response to the rest of paragraph 49(iv)?