David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Katman]

You have already proven you are incapable of reading the evidence in the case. Go and try it sometime...

Believe me Ed, I've been reading a shitload about the case over the last couple of weeks.

[Edbear]

Believe me Ed, I've been reading a shitload about the case over the last couple of weeks.

Try the court documents, interviews with Police officers, etc. you know, the real stuff, not conjecture.

I don't need to make stuff up, I even post reference to prove it, not that you read it very thoroughly.

[Katman]

Try the court documents, interviews with Police officers, etc. you know, the real stuff, not conjecture.

I don't need to make stuff up, I even post reference to prove it, not that you read it very thoroughly.

It has been repeatedly proven that the police will say and do just about anything to get a conviction Ed.

What the police say is not necessarily fact.

[Winston001]

its fucking endless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dougherty
David Brian Dougherty is a New Zealander who was convicted in 1993 on charges of abduction and the rape of an 11-year-old girl.[1] In 1997, when new DNA evidence ruled him out of the charge, Dougherty was acquitted after serving over 3 years in prison.[2][3] He received a public apology in 2001 along with $868,728 in compensation.

With respect, it is not endless. Nothing like it.

Since 1998 there have been seven people from four trials who have been paid compensation for wrongful conviction. Four trials in 14 years. Over that time there would have been 30,000 jury trials (2,700/year).

[Katman]

Since 1998 there have been seven people from four trials who have been paid compensation for wrongful conviction.

How many have there been who haven't been paid compensation?

[Edbear]

It has been repeatedly proven that the police will say and do just about anything to get a conviction Ed.

What the police say is not necessarily fact.

Not even when the defence agrees? Like I said, do your research better.

[Katman]

Not even when the defence agrees? Like I said, do your research better.

Got a reference for that?

[Edbear]

Got a reference for that?

Again? How many times do I have to post it?

[Katman]

Again? How many times do I have to post it?

I'm well aware of the link you posted earlier Ed.

Show me where in it the defense agree that the rifle was wiped down and David's fingerprints are consistent with this wiping down.

[Winston001]

Thing is though John, we're talking here about someone who the evidence points towards being wrongly imprisoned.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the government should compensate people for wrongful imprisonment.

Agree absolutely.

Where we differ is that there is a big difference between innocence and prima facie guilt which cannot quite be proven. Some juries struggle for days before reaching a verdict or simply give up.

Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jurisprudential scholars use algebra for this stuff but generally it means a 75% certainty in the jurors minds. Not 100%. Not 51%.

FYI the balance of probabilities is considered to be 66%.

[Winston001]

Anyway I'm satisfied David Bain has been acquitted even if that goes against the grain.

I do not believe he should be compensated. The weight of evidence still points at him.

[Edbear]

I'm well aware of the link you posted earlier Ed.

Show me where in it the defense agree that the rifle was wiped down and David's fingerprints are consistent with this wiping down.

Start with that Privy Council report and scroll to pages 35-37.

[Mushu]

The gun had been wiped down, leaving David's fingerprints the only clear prints on the gun and in a position consistent with the wiping down.

Try to get your facts right first.

Stevens prints were also on the gun, is it not possible that the gun was handled wearing gloves giving the impression it was wiped down.
And even if it was wiped down, why would David have gone to the trouble of wiping it down and leave clear bloody finger prints on it, and what else did he kill to get the animal blood?

[Katman]

Start with that Privy Council report and scroll to pages 35-37.

That is what the Crown submitted to the Court of Appeal.

Nowhere does it say that the Defense agreed with it.

[Mushu]

Agree absolutely.

Where we differ is that there is a big difference between innocence and prima facie guilt which cannot quite be proven. Some juries struggle for days before reaching a verdict or simply give up.

Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jurisprudential scholars use algebra for this stuff but generally it means a 75% certainty in the jurors minds. Not 100%. Not 51%.

FYI the balance of probabilities is considered to be 66%.

In this case it shouldn't be necessary to prove his innocence, he can prove that the information is unavailable because of the police, David had no input as to what evidence was collected, and was probably pressured by the police to agree to the burning down of the house. Thus not his fault.