David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[noobi]

So explain how he could have done it without getting anyone else's blood on him or his clothing, without any gunshot residue, and without any injuries from fighting with his son.

Possible that after topping the family, he took of the bloody jersey and put it in the washing basket? There seems to be conflicting information about the jerseys.
I thought Robins hands were never tested for residue?
There were injuries on his hands?

More than likely, the jury were told not to consider any other suspect, as the police never made any attempt to investigate anyone else.
I don't know about you, but if I was on a jury and someone was suggesting that it wasn't the defendant, I would be asking well then who was it?

That's not how courts work though, the court says its this person, the defence says its not.

[Winston001]

Did Arthur Allan Thomas prove his factual innocence?

1. The Cabinet Guidelines for compensation for wrongful conviction were drawn up in 1998, many years after Thomas.

2. Arthur Allan Thomas gained a pardon and was then granted $1 million in compensation. This was a big step forward in our justice system because prior to that, compensation was not considered. A pardon or acquittal was considered a big win by itself.

3. Thomas gained the above because Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister became convinced he was wrongly convicted (following the Royal Commission). There were no rules for comp, Muldoon made the decision.

4. Thomas was pardoned and paid not because he proved his factual innocence but because the evidence against him may have been planted by a police officer.

5. A wrongly convicted person does not have to absolutely prove innocence - that's often impossible. It is enough that the balance of evidence strongly suggests innocence. It is a high barrier.

6. Since 1998 there have been seven people who have received compensation. It is very very rare. About one person every two years.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yes it does.

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what a *fact* is.

[Katman]

It's interesting that Teina Pora doesn't appear on the Sensisble Sentencing Trust's database of violent or sexual offenders.

I suppose scumdog will be along soon enough to tell us that anyone stupid enough to make a false confession deserves a life imprisonment.

[Katman]

1. The Cabinet Guidelines for compensation for wrongful conviction were drawn up in 1998, many years after Thomas.

2. Arthur Allan Thomas gained a pardon and was then granted $1 million in compensation. This was a big step forward in our justice system because prior to that, compensation was not considered. A pardon or acquittal was considered a big win by itself.

3. Thomas gained the above because Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister became convinced he was wrongly convicted (following the Royal Commission). There were no rules for comp, Muldoon made the decision.

4. Thomas was pardoned and paid not because he proved his factual innocence but because the evidence against him may have been planted by a police officer.

5. A wrongly convicted person does not have to absolutely prove innocence - that's often impossible. It is enough that the balance of evidence strongly suggests innocence. It is a high barrier.

6. Since 1998 there have been seven people who have received compensation. It is very very rare. About one person every two years.

Thanks for the clarification.

The way I see it though is, if the first jury had been given full disclosure in the case then they may well have ruled the same way that the second jury did.

If that were the case then David Bain spent 13 years in prison that he quite possibly would never have had to.

[Winston001]

Well if that really was fact Ed then how could the jury have had reasonable doubt that David did it?

No-one else was ever suggested as the killer.

It's basic logic Ed. If the jury had reasonable doubt that David was the killer then they must have considered that there was a possibility that Robin was the killer.

Well, NO.

Juries have to convict or discharge the defendant on the strength of the evidence presented. The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.

Its the defence job to raise doubt and often that will be pointing to another person. The jury doesn't have to accept that. In the Bain case the first jury was convinced and David was convicted of murder. In the second trial the jury decided the evidence wasn't strong enough and acquitted. Neither jury necessarily thought Robin was the murderer.

[Katman]

Well, NO.

Juries have to convict or discharge the defendant on the strength of the evidence presented. The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.

Its the defence job to raise doubt and often that will be pointing to another person. The jury doesn't have to accept that. In the Bain case the first jury was convinced and David was convicted of murder. In the second trial the jury decided the evidence wasn't strong enough and acquitted. Neither jury necessarily thought Robin was the murderer.

I see you've removed your mention of the Kahui case.

I'm relieved to see that, as a lawyer, you recognise that the Bain case was quite different.

Do you agree that the second jury had some doubt as to David's guilt?

(And thankfully, criminal cases are not allowed to be decided on by "gut instinct").

[Edbear]

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what a *fact* is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

3: the quality of being actual : actuality

[Hinny]

..So here is a 50 something man getting out of bed and deciding to shoot his entire family, but he doesn't piss first...

...
1. Full Bladder - originally this convinced me by itself. As a 50ish male it is impossible to imagine waking up and not taking a piss. Immediately. If you were nervous then you'd be up in the night and still need to urgently pee in the morning. Nevertheless a pathologist testified at the second trial that he autopsies deceased males with full bladders, so it is possible.


2. Computer message. This is a 50+ yr old man, a school teacher, in 1994, a man who grew up using a fountain pen, graduated to a ballpoint, and normally used chalk and a pencil. He murders his wife - then he murders his children whom he gave life to, and in the process has a fight with Stephen - then knowing David is due in the house any minute, he switches on the computer?? And waits for it to boot up so he can open the word processor to type a final message? Really? Would anybody here do that?

Joe Karam dismisses the full bladder stating Robin didn't have very much urine in his bladder considering an average male can hold THREE to FOUR LITRES OF URINE in their bladder.

He states the old fashioned writing style indicates Robin wrote it as he used punctuation and young people don't do that.

He was able to overpower Stephen as he was fit and strong and Stephen had a 1" (25mm) deep wound across the top of his skull.

Convincing? I don't think so.

‘There is medical evidence that people overlook any urge to urinate in a stress situation. We all know that when we are distracted or very busy we forget to urinate.’
Michael Reed QC

David Bain's address to the International Justice Conference in Perth on March 10.
’Good morning - I'm so nervous I should have gone to the toilet.’

[Banditbandit]

The jurors may very well have a gut instinct that he is guilty but that isn't enough if there is a reasonable doubt.

THat's the ideal .. but is it the reality ??? A crown prosecutor I knew (now a judge) said he once privately asked a juror how the verdict was reached - and he said he was so horrified at the answer that he never asked another juror that question ..

I (And thankfully, criminal cases are not allowed to be decided on by "gut instinct").

No ?? I know of a couple that were ... who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ...

I watched three Mongrel Mob members found guilty of a manslaughter which the evidence failed to show they actually did .. one of the jurors privately said to me "I don't care whether they did it or not -They were Mongrel Mob members - they deserve to go to jail ..."

That doesn't look like justice to me .. and just pisses off the thee men ... is it any wonder they are angry at a society that locks them in jail for stuff they didn't do ???

[Katman]

THat's the ideal .. but is it the reality ??? A crown prosecutor I knew (now a judge) said he once privately asked a juror how the verdict was reached - and he said he was so horrified at the answer that he never asked another juror that question ..



No ?? I know of a couple that were ... who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ....

I was part of a jury many years ago.

An elderly jury member sat through the trial, appearing to be asleep half the time and the rest of the time he spent slurping away at a bottle of cough medicine (I figured it was the only way he could get alcohol into himself while in the jury box).

When we retired to consider our verdict the first words out of his mouth were "They're all guilty - I want to go now".

He was informed that he could sit there for however long it took us to reach a decision.

We were there for a full 12 hours.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

3: the quality of being actual : actuality

Well done!!!

[unstuck]

[Swoop]

"Police have released forensic evidence to defence lawyers in the Teina Pora case - 16 months after a court order told them to".

Why the hold-up?

They forgot what the secret donut recipe was.

Odd that it took so long, compared with the release of the Bain rifle for testing.

Possible that after topping the family, he took of the bloody jersey and put it in the washing basket? There seems to be conflicting information about the jerseys.

Have any of you actually done a paper run?
The newsprint turns your hands black. If your clothes have been in contact with the papers then you will know about it really quickly.
I remember in the distant past, doing a paper run and the first thing after putting the bicycle away, was to change and wash.
The concept of coming in and going straight to the laundry is not one that would be intelligently challengable.

...who really knows what happens in jury rooms and how decisions are made ...

Sadly, I have been on quite a few juries now and know the process quite well...
I was foreman on the last one and strangely haven't been called up for a few years since then. Up to then it was virtually every second year.
There hasn't been an instance of a "rogue juror" but the evidence presented is thoroughly gone over.

[noobi]

Have any of you actually done a paper run?
The newsprint turns your hands black. If your clothes have been in contact with the papers then you will know about it really quickly.
I remember in the distant past, doing a paper run and the first thing after putting the bicycle away, was to change and wash.
The concept of coming in and going straight to the laundry is not one that would be intelligently challengable.

I have, but was referring to why Robin didn't have any blood on him, which Ed proposed. Not whether its plausible that David came straight home and did the washing. That, in my mind, is completely feasible after doing a paper run.