David Bain
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="603834" data-time="1470571512">
<div>
<p>Because asset forfeiture is dealt with in the civil court, this is how the Crown screw drug dealers and take their assets anyway after they've been acquitted in court because of insufficient evidence. On the balance of probabilities the flash cars, houses and bikes haven't been legitimately earned given the guy is a gang member who has never held a job, so that get seized and sold, even though they aren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt of any criminal act.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The old "no visible means of support" test...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At least NZ police are not douchebags like the Yanks, who take cash and other stuff as proceeds of crime, but even if they don't bother with criminal charges, don't return the assets...</p> -
<p>I still can't get my pea brain around the old "a principle of NZ justice is innocent until proven guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So on the day of the murders the system says "David, at the moment you are innocent but, as the system allows, we are going to charge you and find you guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>13 odd years later the system says "you are not guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"but"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"you're not innocent either - we changed the rules and the principle the system upholds :hi: "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :idiot2: I don't get it and feel a bit for him on the compo issue. The system put him through the procedure and left him in limbo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well it's better than being locked up shouldn't be an explanation for the fate of NZ citizen who has been through the gamut of the judicial system</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A principle of NZ justice is you can be a little bit guilty????</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's all a bit of a cop out and doesn't make me proud of our system (regardless if I think he did it or not)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="603603" data-time="1470518358">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">I've always thought the loser did it on his own with no involvement of his father, this guy has been involved with the case since he beginning and he does a good summary here. <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569'>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569</a></span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That theory starts off well but ends up so contradictory and unbelievable that I wouldn't convict on it if it was put to me on a jury. He is accrediting David with being calculated and cunning yet and the same time incredibly stupid. Making all sorts of moves and plans to conceal his identity then leaving obvious bloodied handprints on the washing machine? Wearing a swimming cap (why?) then when it is covered in blood throwing on top of a cupboard? </p>
<p>I think it is quite obvious that David did something that morning that he won't or can't explain. Whether he finished off something his father started or did it all by himself I don't know but while the circumstantial evidence all points at him, the inability to explain supposed events in the prosecution case also casts doubt.</p>
<p>PS: the whole Robin had a full bladder thing is rubbish IMO. Even if he didn't kill anyone he still walked from his caravan, fetched the paper and went to say his prayers without being desperate to have a slash so why is it inconceivable that he added a few shootings into the timeframe as well?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="604077" data-time="1470653277">
<div>
<p>I still can't get my pea brain around the old "a principle of NZ justice is innocent until proven guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So on the day of the murders the system says "David, at the moment you are innocent but, as the system allows, we are going to charge you and find you guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>13 odd years later the system says "you are not guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"but"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"you're not innocent either - we changed the rules and the principle the system upholds :hi: "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :idiot2: I don't get it and feel a bit for him on the compo issue. The system put him through the procedure and left him in limbo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well it's better than being locked up shouldn't be an explanation for the fate of NZ citizen who has been through the gamut of the judicial system</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A principle of NZ justice is you can be a little bit guilty????</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's all a bit of a cop out and doesn't make me proud of our system (regardless if I think he did it or not)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In the NZ system you are found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof in the murder trial is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof for compensation is "Balance of Probabilities".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Overall, the finding basically amounts to "David probably did it, but we can't say for certain" - and the government has given him a million bucks to go away.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's about the opposite of the OJ Simpson case, where they found OJ not guilty in his murder trial, but slapped him with making a $33 million compensation payment to his victim's families in the "balance of probabilities civil suit - and then the government nailed him with a 33 year sentence for what seemed like a 2 year robbery crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. Better policing work (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604225" data-time="1470702567">
<div>
<p>In the NZ system you are found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof in the murder trial is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof for compensation is "Balance of Probabilities".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Overall, the finding basically amounts to "David probably did it, but we can't say for certain" - and the government has given him a million bucks to go away.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's about the opposite of the OJ Simpson case, where they found OJ not guilty in his murder trial, but slapped him with making a $33 million compensation payment to his victim's families in the "balance of probabilities civil suit - and then the government nailed him with a 33 year sentence for what seemed like a 2 year robbery crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. <strong>Better policing work</strong> (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That seems to be the crux of what aucklandwarlord mentions a couple of pages back.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I mean would it have been too much of a hassle to think "hmmmmm this young bloke is the sole survivor, I know it's traumatic but we have to test him to rule it out...."</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604225" data-time="1470702567">
<div>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. Better policing work (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think there is a strong case for compensation simply because of the sheer incompetence of the police. Turned what should have been an open/shut case into a long running saga</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="604235" data-time="1470704270">
<div>
<p>I think there is a strong case for compensation simply because of the sheer incompetence of the police. Turned what should have been an open/shut case into a long running saga</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On the other hand, if David actually did it - and in my opinion he did - then he is a psychopathic little fucker who makes Clayton Weatherston look like a nice guy.</p> -
<p>add me to the pay him list. taking away years of someone's life, then saying, 'sorry, but you know what, we weren't really sure about that' just isn't good enough.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>innocent until proven guilty is important. giving money to a possible/probable murderer is fucking shit, but it is what should happen in this situation, and the responsibility for that falls at the feet of those who fucked it up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>i</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="604276" data-time="1470716923">
<div>
<p>add me to the pay him list. taking away years of someone's life, then saying, 'sorry, but you know what, we weren't really sure about that' just isn't good enough.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>innocent until proven guilty is important. giving money to a possible/probable murderer is fucking shit, but it is what should happen in this situation, and the responsibility for that falls at the feet of those who fucked it up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>i</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There's something in that, but - if David did it - he's attempted a carefully planned and cold blooded execution of his family, which he's tried to frame his father for. If you work from the assumption that he did it - he deserves the electric chair.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I don't really give a fuck about the money - the government would only have wasted it on something almost equally useless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If David is actually innocent, then he's been treated horrifically and deserves much more...but, I suspect he's not.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604236" data-time="1470705044">
<div>
<p>if David actually did it </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In this case, (for me) whether he did it or not isn't that relevant to the compensation. He got sent away with the police presenting a ropey and one sided case, and was then overturned at the privy council. Makes you wonder how you get justice in NZ though, as all the NZ appeal courts confirmed his conviction. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given he was then acquitted, it would seem to me to be a good case for compensation. He may well have done it, but then there is still a reasonable chance that Robin did it too. The reality is we just don't know.<br><br>
Callinan applied the test that he couldn't prove he didn't do it on balance of probabilites, so therefore recommended no compensation. I would be interested if you could make a case that Robin Bain didn't do it on balance of probablities - because there is just so much missing or discredited evidence. The computer turn on time can't even be confirmed because of (frankly) poor police work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Summary:</p>
<p>He might have done it</p>
<p>He probably can't prove to balance of probabilities that he didn't do it</p>
<p>There's probably not enough reliable evidence to do that for either person</p>
<p>Bottom line the police dropped their bundle on this one, but continue to deny it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now we should get started on Peter Ellis...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604295" data-time="1470723526">
<div>
<p>There's something in that, but - if David did it - he's attempted a carefully planned and cold blooded execution of his family, which he's tried to frame his father for. If you work from the assumption that he did it - he deserves the electric chair.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I don't really give a fuck about the money - the government would only have wasted it on something almost equally useless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If David is actually innocent, then he's been treated horrifically and deserves much more...but, I suspect he's not.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I seem to remember at the time of the trial one of his friends recounted a conversation she had with David in which he outlined how he might kill his family using his paper round as an alibi.....</p> -
<p>arent they supposed to be looking at the legislation around compensation following this case? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>While I am in the 'he done did it' camp, the fact he spent that time away on shonky evidence and they have not proved he did in fact do it, is enough for me to say he should get compo, even though the part of me that says he did it so doesnt deserve squat.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="604310" data-time="1470729020">
<div>
<p>I seem to remember at the time of the trial one of his friends recounted a conversation she had with David in which he outlined how he might kill his family using his paper round as an alibi.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the conversation was that he could rape a female jogger and use the paper round as an alibi - I think David had even worked it out in a notebook.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Male friend though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="604306" data-time="1470728746">
<div>
<p>I would be interested if you could make a case that Robin Bain didn't do it on balance of probablities - because there is just so much missing or discredited evidence. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That's the thing - there's bugger all evidence that points to Robin apart from that he was found dead with the gun beside him. And that David says "it wasn't me".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's no-one else's blood on him, he's got no bruising from the apparently violent struggle with Stephen, his fingerprints aren't on the gun - for some unknown reason he's worn David's white dress gloves while committing the murders and then hidden them when they got blood soaked fighting Stephen - and then he's come downstairs, had a good wash, possibly a shower (but not a piss), put all the murder clothes in the laundry basket, changed into fresh clothes - gone into the living room, turned on the computer to write a computer message exonerating David - and then shot himself. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604396" data-time="1470742004">
<div>
<p>That's the thing - there's bugger all evidence that points to Robin apart from that he was found dead with the gun beside him. And that David says "it wasn't me".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's no-one else's blood on him, he's got no bruising from the apparently violent struggle with Stephen, his fingerprints aren't on the gun - for some unknown reason he's worn David's white dress gloves while committing the murders and then hidden them when they got blood soaked fighting Stephen - and then he's come downstairs, had a good wash, possibly a shower (but not a piss), put all the murder clothes in the laundry basket, changed into fresh clothes - gone into the living room, turned on the computer to write a computer message exonerating David - and then shot himself. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230"><p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p></blockquote>I think that was definitely a factor. Apparently the forensic evidence was overwhelming so they thought it was a slam dunk
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230">
<div>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess if you're the cops (and the ambulance people) you're arriving to a pretty chaotic scene and your first instinct isn't necessarily going to be that the guy in the funny jersey did it. You're probably thinking "Jesus - horrible murder-suicide".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, no matter how well trained, things are potentially going to be done differently than if you arrive and think, "this guy's done it and he's attempting a stitch up".</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604405" data-time="1470742976">
<div>
<p>I guess if you're the cops (and the ambulance people) you're arriving to a pretty chaotic scene and your first instinct isn't necessarily going to be that the guy in the<strong> funny jersey</strong> did it. You're probably thinking "Jesus - horrible murder-suicide".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, no matter how well trained, things are potentially going to be done differently than if you arrive and think, "this guy's done it and he's attempting a stitch up".</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>To be honest the jersey was all the evidence I needed.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230">
<div>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If that's the case, it's a pretty poor indictment. Not testing Robin Bain's hands for gunshot residue is a fatal error. I can understand an argument for not testing Davids immediately, but FFS you test Robin Bain and the case probably just goes away. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, if the case is as clear as all that, why did Binnie recommend compensation? I didn't really follow the case closely, but read his report and it was very clear from an independent assessor. Binnie came highly recommended, but concluded the polar opposite of Callinan. I do have issues with 'judge shopping' from Govt to get the result they want. </p>