David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Edbear]

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?

Stephen's prints were on the silencer. The attempt at wiping down the gun was not particularly thorough. Doesn't alter the fact as per the reference in the Privy Council report.

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.

Pure conjecture and obvious bias.

[Winston001]

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...

Yes that is a reasonable argument which his lawyer will no doubt make. The test for compensation is "innocent on the balance of probabilities" so they also have to address the evidence pointing at David.

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

Cabinet receives one or two claims a year so over fourteen years that is about 28 claims. Of those, 7 have been accepted and paid.

[Katman]

Stephen's prints were on the silencer. The attempt at wiping down the gun was not particularly thorough. Doesn't alter the fact as per the reference in the Privy Council report.

As I've said Ed, that "fact as per the reference in the Privy Council report" is simply what the Crown alleged to the Court of Appeal.

[Mushu]

Stephen's prints were on the silencer. The attempt at wiping down the gun was not particularly thorough. Doesn't alter the fact as per the reference in the Privy Council report.



Pure conjecture and obvious bias.

You said the bloody prints were a result of the way he held the gun to wipe it down, how do you hold a gun to wipe it?
And again I'll ask, where did the animal blood come from?
How can you tell the difference if something was wiped poorly or just handled with gloves?

There is conjecture on both sides of this debate, again, because the evidence is unavailable, tell me, who's fault is that?
Of course I'm biased, imagine David is innocent for a second and put yourself in his position, his life has been destroyed. This case should be quite simple to prove if the cops had done their job.

[scissorhands]

Which included presenting misleading evidence, and not presenting important evidence at all

David was a sitting duck with his crown solicitor and his mental handicaps, and a general dislike for him based on

'HIS FACE AND DEMEANOUR'

PURSUING A GUILTY CONVICTION IN THIS MANNER
ON WHAT AN AUTISTIC LIKE PAPERBOY
SAID IN INTERVIEWS
AND WHOS MUM DRESSED HIM FUNNY

IS PLAIN BAD POLICING

[Edbear]

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

Nowhere does it say that the Defense agreed with it.

As I've said Ed, that "fact as per the reference in the Privy Council report" is simply what the Crown alleged to the Court of Appeal.

I recall reading it in one of the papers I looked up but I will have to do a bit more digging to find it. What tells, though, is what the defense raised and what they did not raise. The only alternative the defense did raise was that the blood was old and animal. They did not argue the prints' owner or position.

Here is another source of info...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/e...e-murder-rifle

You said the bloody prints were a result of the way he held the gun to wipe it down, how do you hold a gun to wipe it?
And again I'll ask, where did the animal blood come from?
How can you tell the difference if something was wiped poorly or just handled with gloves?

There is conjecture on both sides of this debate, again, because the evidence is unavailable, tell me, who's fault is that?
Of course I'm biased, imagine David is innocent for a second and put yourself in his position, his life has been destroyed. This case should be quite simple to prove if the cops had done their job.

See the link above. You too, stop making blind conjecture and go by official records. What was the defense case? Not your own spin on it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I recall reading it in one of the papers I looked up but I will have to do a bit more digging to find it.

I recall flying to the moon once.

[Katman]

They did not argue the prints' owner or position.

Why on earth would the defence argue about who the fingerprints belonged to or their position?

[Kickaha]

ON WHAT AN AUTISTIC LIKE PAPERBOY
SAID IN INTERVIEWS

According to you fucking near everyone is autistic

[Drew]

According to you fucking near everyone is autistic

I wanna be autistic!

I suck at playing guitar at the moment.

[Katman]

Here is another source of info...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/e...e-murder-rifle

There is so much logic fail in that article.

[unstuck]

According to you fucking near everyone is autistic

It,s the autism.

[Edbear]

There is so much logic fail in that article.

Do us the favour of your interpreting skills and show it. You like to say such things but do not like to back yourself up.

[Mushu]

I recall reading it in one of the papers I looked up but I will have to do a bit more digging to find it. What tells, though, is what the defense raised and what they did not raise. The only alternative the defense did raise was that the blood was old and animal. They did not argue the prints' owner or position.

Here is another source of info...
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/e...e-murder-rifle



See the link above. You too, stop making blind conjecture and go by official records. What was the defense case? Not your own spin on it.

I refer you to justice Binnies report, chapter viii, section 3.

Some bullshit website is hardly court documents.

[Katman]

Do us the favour of your interpreting skills and show it. You like to say such things but do not like to back yourself up.

"The Defence produced expert witnesses who state that often fingerprints are not left on murder weapons after they have been used, but in the David Bain case there were fingerprints on the murder weapon, so this situation simply does not apply here".

Can you not see the stupidity in this statement?

The fingerprints present on the gun do not indicate the sum total of the gun's handling.

The killer clearly wore gloves for a period of time during the killings.

Evidence was provided that even in suicide cases guns can often return no fingerprints.