David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Katman]

Yup, even the defense only presented two possible suspects. Now regardless of any other considerations, the fact I mentioned from the court papers that no other blood or gunshot residue we found on Robin or his clothing rules him out. That only leaves David and if atone has read through all the evidence, it clearly implicates David.

You can argue semantics until the cows come home, it very clearly was not Robin.

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.

[scissorhands]

Why were the computer keys not dusted for fingerprints?

Surely that would be absolute proof? Unless David made Robin type whilst at gunpoint

[Smifffy]

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/new-evi...-of-scott-guy/

[Mushu]

Yeah, why bother with a judge or jury when we know it's the police that make the judgement

The police investigate, and in that position it is quite easy to skew the facts, plenty of innocent people have been sent away (I have seen it first hand when a good friend of mine went away based on police testimony which was clearly untrue), some of them because the cops wanted them in jail, they can alter the facts, intentionally ignore evidence or even just plant some evidence.

[Smifffy]

The police investigate, and in that position it is quite easy to skew the facts, plenty of innocent people have been sent away (I have seen it first hand when a good friend of mine went away based on police testimony which was clearly untrue), some of them because the cops wanted them in jail, they can alter the facts, intentionally ignore evidence or even just plant some evidence.

I've always been the good conservative person who has had a reasonable respect for the police. This year i have had a couple of dealings with them, including being interviewed as a potential person of interest in a major murder investigation. I was easily eliminated and had a rock solid alibi, but still they were shitty about it.

I have lost practically all respect for them.

[Mushu]

Not beinag a smart arse...serious question. But if someone raped your dog/cat/wife/daughter (don't know your personal situation)...would you call the police?

The police are only good for 2 things, diffusing a situation that has gone over the top (like an out of control party) and for insurance reasons if I got robbed or in a accident I'd call them.

If someone were to seriously harm a member of my family (including the dog) I'd take it on myself to make them pay and if I went to extremes to do so, as I said before, I would be really friendly with the police in the hopes they can skew the evidence in my favor.

[Mushu]

I've always been the good conservative person who has had a reasonable respect for the police. This year i have had a couple of dealings with them, including being interviewed as a potential person of interest in a major murder investigation. I was easily eliminated and had a rock solid alibi, but still they were shitty about it.

I have lost practically all respect for them.

Cops are lazy like everyone else, by having a solid alibi they now have to go find someone else, if you didn't have a strong alibi you could be sitting in a cell praying that something will prove your innocence during the trial, the police don't care they have nothing to lose by putting innocent people in jail.

[Erelyes]

the police don't care they have nothing to lose by putting innocent people in jail.

Dude, your trolling is a bit too obvious. Try being a bit more subtle, it'll work better.

[Winston001]

I guess my real point is he has been found not guilty, he has not been pardoned or some such but has been found not guilty in a trial ..

...Collins is looking to mitigate down his compensation based on her perceived ideas as to his guilt or innocence, that is not justice, he is entitled to full compensation for the time he has been in prison based only on presidents already in place not Colins personal beliefs

Understand what you are saying but that isn't how it works.

In New Zealand there are one or two convicted people released from prison every month because they have successfully appealed their convictions.

But it is rare for the government (taxpayer) to pay any compensation.

To obtain compensation the wrongly convicted person has to establish that on the preponderance of evidence, that person should not have been convicted. In reality this is tantamount to a finding of innocence. It is a tough hurdle to cross.

In law a person may be found not guilty after a retrial or appeal but in 98% of cases there was better than prima facie evidence against them. In other words, the prosecution case pointed to that person but for whatever reason (eg. later exclusion of evidence) the conviction has been overturned. That is a long way from innocent.

[Katman]

Did Arthur Allan Thomas prove his factual innocence?

[scissorhands]

With Watson and Pora waiting in the wings, they're playing hardball.
Political tactics and laying the foundations for similar future scenarios

[Katman]

With Watson and Pora waiting in the wings, they're playing hardball.
Political tactics and laying the foundations for similar future scenarios

Wow, thanks for that. I'd never heard about the Teina Pora case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

[Katman]

And a bit more information.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10877229

[Banditbandit]

Wow, thanks for that. I'd never heard about the Teina Pora case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

Fuck .. where have you been for the last gawd knows how many years ????

Are we suddenly going to see KAtman, the erstwhole motorcycle safety nut now turned champion of the poor locked up innocents ???

[Edbear]

Well the second jury clearly thought otherwise Ed.

No they didn't. All they said was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is, Robin could not have done it, end of.