David Bain no compensation



  • Agree entirely with the decision.
     
    Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (conviction quashed) does not equal definitely did not do it (hence no compensation).
     
    Anyone who has followed the case will know it is by no means clear that it was definitely the father Robin who pulled the trigger.
     
    Edit: although I see he still got a form of payout...basically a "please leave the govt alone" payout



  • was also to help with the legal fees too I think, was an ex-gratia payment that accepts no liability.
     
    It was 'Not guilty on balance of probability' wasn't it, which is a lower threshold than the court uses when convicting 'beyond reasonable doubt'?



  • was also to help with the legal fees too I think, was an ex-gratia payment that accepts no liability.
     
    It was 'Not guilty on balance of probability' wasn't it, which is a lower threshold than the court uses when convicting 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

    I'd probably say higher threshold, but I think we mean the same thing - effectively instead of being "he might not have done it" it had to be "it's pretty certain he didn't do it".
     
    There is no way you can conclude the latter if you look into the case.



  • What about one report saying pay compo and then another saying don't? Seemed the Govt sought further advice after getting a result they didn't agree with. Haven't read enough to know if each report was comparable or if the first was flawed though.



  • I think the one that recommended he was paid compo was based on the fact he was not guilty wasn't it, rather than the standard to get compo means he had to prove he was innocent?
     
    I guess it is the same thing to some, but in the law they are quite different??



  • The Canadian's report wasn't very good I think.
     
    The compensation is basically there for a clear miscarriage of justice (Allan Arthur Thomas) leading to a wrongful conviction.  It's not there because a 2nd jury couldn't find guilty beyond reasonable doubt.



  • Can't agree.  either he's guilty or not.  
     
    He's found not guilty, thus he's spent 13 year wrongfully imprisoned.
     
    He's due compensation.



  • Can't agree.  either he's guilty or not.  
     
    He's found not guilty, thus he's spent 13 year wrongfully imprisoned.
     
    He's due compensation.

    That may be your opinion of how it should work but that is not how it does work.
     
    The original Canadian report was terrible because they recommended Bain get compensation because he was found not guilty with reasonable doubt. In New Zealand you need to be found innocent on  the balance of probabilities to receive compensation. I don't see why we should be paying money to someone who probably killed his family.



  • Can't agree.  either he's guilty or not.  
     
    He's found not guilty, thus he's spent 13 year wrongfully imprisoned.
     
    He's due compensation.

    Iam sure this has been covered but he has NOT been found innocent, in fact it appears the report says he is on probability the killer.



  • Ok, give him compo to pay Karams fees that he's charged legal aid .
    He already sees Karam as family that might make him treat Joe like family.



  • That may be your opinion of how it should work but that is not how it does work.
     
    The original Canadian report was terrible because they recommended Bain get compensation because he was found not guilty with reasonable doubt. In New Zealand you need to be found innocent on  the balance of probabilities to receive compensation. I don't see why we should be paying money to someone who probably killed his family.

    So one of 2 things is happening here.
     
    The law is allowing a man who the law believes killed his family in a violent rampage to walk around freely.
     
    The law is not compensating a man who was wrongfully convicted.
     
    Both of them stink.
     
     
    I understand that eveybody is pretty much so in the grey on this, but I don't think the law should allow for that.  If he was wrongly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then he was wrongly imprisoned and deserves compensation.



  • Yeah I just don't think you get the finer points of how the legal system works there major rage.
    It's grey for a reason as little is black and white. Sure if security cameras showed robin Bain shoot his family then turn the gun on himself I'd be all for compensation. But that case has more going against David than for him. But not definitively enough against him to exclude the possibility robin might have been the perpretator.
    Compensation = justice system stuffed up. Which is not at all the case here.



  • Your q for the day major rage: are juries reliable?



  • Yeah I just don't think you get the finer points of how the legal system works there major rage.
    It's grey for a reason as little is black and white. Sure if security cameras showed robin Bain shoot his family then turn the gun on himself I'd be all for compensation. But that case has more going against David than for him. But not definitively enough against him to exclude the possibility robin might have been the perpretator.
    Compensation = justice system stuffed up. Which is not at all the case here.

    Yeah, 100% I don't.
     
    I actually inside believe what others do.  Ok, he's released, but it seems flimsy at best, so no compensation.  What I have a problem with, is the way the legal systems is saying the same thing.    They have all the facts, I don't.  When you sentence somebody for murder (or multiple murder), it's basically either life in the slammer, or walk out of the court.   If the conviction is quashed after 13 years, then it means he should have walked out 13 year ago.  And therefore has lost 13 year of his life.
     
    Are juries reliable?  Never served on one, but  I'd suggest probably not.  Doesn't really change my view though.



  • so he had to prove his innocence on the balance of probability, which apparently was not a case of simply saying Robin or someone else did it
     
    I have added a poll



  • Out of interest does anyone here think he didn't do it?



  • so he had to prove his innocence on the balance of probability, which apparently was not a case of simply saying Robin or someone else did it
    I have added a pollIIRC the prosecution case or the police case had some procedural snafus that gave Bain wiggle room too?



  • IIRC the prosecution case or the police case had some procedural snafus that gave Bain wiggle room too?

    I think if you went through any case you'd probably be able to find holes here and there , especially if you were motivated out of greed and self aggrandisement http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2486812/Karam-gets-330-000-in-legal-aid



  • Surely anyone born prior to the late 70's, early 80's in NZ and was here still when the case hit the news has thier own opinion on his guilt/innocence, not many would be fence sitters from what you read?



  • Surely anyone born prior to the late 70's, early 80's in NZ and was here still when the case hit the news has thier own opinion on his guilt/innocence, not many would be fence sitters from what you read?

    My stepdad isn't convinced either way which I agree is pretty rare. His career was winding down when Karam shifted to play for Horowhenua and he is as convinced as I am for from his dealings with him that he's a fluffybunny. It says on his rugby museum profile his nickname was "clock" [sp?] because he was such and accurate goal kicker, my old man reckons its more to do with the fact he had an interest in a jewelers and back in the days before atms people used to carry a decent sum of cash around with them. Karam apparently used to take a few watches to the after match with him and flog them off to his team mates and opposition when they were drunk. $900000 to his son and $333000 to Joe when he has no legal qualifications seems in keeping with that kind of person.
     
    I reckon David did it, I mentioned on another thread a horrible interaction with his aunt when my boss decided to tell her how pleased he was David was acquitted.



  • I've kinda switched off to a lot of this over the years because Bain never particularly endeared himself to me ( harsh I know, those sweaters didn't help ) whereas in the early years I did take a big interest in how Schapelle Corby was going ( being trashy but a bit hot helped )
     
    So due to the fact this has been in and out of the news for over 20 years if anyone could answer some of the questions below I'd appreciate it.....
     
    How did Joe Karam get himself involved to the extent he did ? why ?
     
    Can anyone with extensive legal knowledge explain the reason for the "stalemate" which MajorRage mentions above ?
     
    EDIT: Jegga, can you explain a bit more what you mean by the money to each person bit in your post ?



  • I've kinda switched off to a lot of this over the years because Bain never particularly endeared himself to me ( harsh I know, those sweaters didn't help ) whereas in the early years I did take a big interest in how Schapelle Corby was going ( being trashy but a bit hot helped )
     
    So due to the fact this has been in and out of the news for over 20 years if anyone could answer some of the questions below I'd appreciate it.....
     
    How did Joe Karem get himself involved to the extent he did ? why ?
     
    Can anyone with extensive legal knowledge explain the reason for the "stalemate" which MajorRage mentions above ?

    Ego and money, in an interview with the listener he told the reporter he was the only ex ab that had ever used their profile to help anyone. When she pointed out what John Kirwins done for depression , Meads for the IHC , Whineray did for charities etc etc he didn't have much of a response.



  • The forensics were overwhelming I was told by someone who had access, a typical slam dunk



  • Ego and money, in an interview with the listener he told the reporter he was the only ex ab that had ever used their profile to help anyone. When she pointed out what John Kirwins done for depression , Meads for the IHC , Whineray did for charities etc etc he didn't have much of a response.

    I'm getting that you don't seem to think much of him but I've heard he's spent a fucken fortune on all of this without getting a hell of a lot in return ?



  • Compo is (and should be) for wrongful conviction i.e. when errors are made and facts distorted to get a conviction that the legal system hasn't been able to protect the accused from.
     
    In this case errors were made and there was an element of 'tunnel vision'. There was evidence withheld which 'may' have led a jury to a different conclusion (as it eventually did).
     
    Once convicted though, our compo system will only pay out if you can prove innocence (quite a hard thing to do in some cases) rather than prove that you shouldn't have been convicted (because guilt is not beyond reasonable doubt). The goalposts move after the wrongful part has happened. 
     
    I don't think that is a fair and even system myself however in this case I have both doubts on conviction AND doubts on innocence, which I believe is the very position the govt is in.
     
    On the happenings themselves I strongly suspect that Bain has convinced himself he did nothing (and may have even convinced himself very early on). There is some psych term for it that I can't remember but it is to do with extreme stress. I don't think the crown version of events is entirely correct either and that Robin played a part. The whole thing looks way more complicated an event than either party attests to.



  • I'm getting that you don't seem to think much of him but I've heard he's spent a fucken fortune on all of this without getting a hell of a lot in return ?

    Heard from who? Hes written three books about the clown and him and his son have made $1.2 mill according to the link I posted.



  • This is my favourite article on the matter. I'm on my phone so don't know how to paste the article into the post, but it's a good read - intriguing questions at the end as well.
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/8075826/Compensation-for-Bain-would-be-a-travesty



  • I used to sit next to him in psychology tutorials at Otago uni - you never forget those jerseys.
    I don't know if he did it.
    But there's something awry in our country when you lose 13 years and don't get compo. I can feel empathy for that. It's the sort of shit I'd expect from a corrupt 3rd world place.
    Yes I understand that rules are followed but I expect better.



  • Apparently they are going to look at the requirements to get compo, as it currently stands, he does not meet the threshold.
     
    I do agree somewhat that given he spent that time in prison, you could argue wrongfully, then they should be looking at it.
     
    The Crown was unable to prove him guilty (again) so he is out of prison, but by the same token he hasnt been able to prove his innocence, so therefore is not innocent, but also not guilty.... :think:



  • Heard from who? Hes written three books about the clown and him and his son have made $1.2 mill according to the link I posted.

    Well a quick read of Wikipedia confirmed that he has lost in the region of 4 mill and it's actually 4 books ( Christ, isn't one enough ? )
     
    That link from AW is pretty damning on Bain, no two ways about it.
     
    While we're on the topic can someone explain how Mark Lundy ( 500 ) got a retrial which ended in EXACTLY the same verdict ?



  • So if I understand this correctly it was either him killing everyone under the roof, or his father decided to let one of them do a paper run but kill everyone else including himself?



  • So if I understand this correctly it was either him killing everyone under the roof, or his father decided to let one of them do a paper run but kill everyone else including himself?

    I know that technology has moved on since 1994 but ( aucklandwarlord, Crazy Horse if you're around ) wouldn't a forensics team be able to tell if a gunshot wound to the head was suicide or not ?



  • While we're on the topic can someone explain how Mark Lundy ( 500 ) got a retrial which ended in EXACTLY the same verdict ?

    The Lundy one is a bit different because they had relied on scientific evidence around stomach content decomposition that 'definitively' placed the time of the murders early in the evening (based on how broken down the McDonald's in Christine lundys stomach was). However, in the years following, it transpired that the science was flawed and that time of death could have been far later in the evening so a retrial was ordered.
    The crown re-examined its case in light of the new evidence and decided that it was far more likely that Lundy made the trip at night (thus rendering the Lundy five hundy part of the trial more or less irrelevant) and killed them before casually driving back to Wellington to check out of his hotel.



  • So if I understand this correctly it was either him killing everyone under the roof, or his father decided to let one of them do a paper run but kill everyone else including himself?

    Or it was someone else, Professor Plum maybe?
     
    I think they said it was possible for him to shoot himself with the rifle used in the killings.



  • I know that technology has moved on since 1994 but ( aucklandwarlord, Crazy Horse if you're around ) wouldn't a forensics team be able to tell if a gunshot wound to the head was suicide or not ?
    The best way to tell would have been gunshot residue swabs to David and Robin Bains hands. That would tell who pulled the trigger.
    Rumour around the office a few years back had it that a junior detective constable suggested swabbing David's hands and was shouted down by a more senior member. For the life of me I don't know why it didn't happen at Robin Bain's post mortem. It would be standard practice these days



  • I'm one of the (few!?) people who haven't made my mind up firmly either way.
    Whichever side I'm hearing from always seems compelling until I hear the other... And I haven't been that interested in the case to read every last detail to conclude which trumps which. Aucklandwarlord's link is damning, but then so was the interview I heard with Justice Binny tonight too ('how can he completely prove his innocence when the police destroyed some evidence earlier than they were supposed to' - to paraphrase.)
    On compensation, goodness knows how you put a price on that sort of thing... But on the surface of it, if you've spent 13 years in prison and then been found not guilty after the Privy Council intervened, then I find it hard to argue $0. If the $900k covers the bills and then some, then maybe that does the trick...



  • The best way to tell would have been gunshot residue swabs to David and Robin Bains hands. That would tell who pulled the trigger.
    Rumour around the office a few years back had it that a junior detective constable suggested swabbing David's hands and was shouted down by a more senior member. For the life of me I don't know why it didn't happen at Robin Bain's post mortem. It would be standard practice these days

    Bugger, that would have saved a whole lot of hassle...



  • The single most disturbing aspect of the case was one of the jurors in the 2nd trial joining Bain for celebratory drinks afterwards...



  • I'm one of the (few!?) people who haven't made my mind up firmly either way.
    Whichever side I'm hearing from always seems compelling until I hear the other... And I haven't been that interested in the case to read every last detail to conclude which trumps which. Aucklandwarlord's link is damning, but then so was the interview I heard with Justice Binny tonight too ('how can he completely prove his innocence when the police destroyed some evidence earlier than they were supposed to' - to paraphrase.)
    On compensation, goodness knows how you put a price on that sort of thing... But on the surface of it, if you've spent 13 years in prison and then been found not guilty after the Privy Council intervened, then I find it hard to argue $0. If the $900k covers the bills and then some, then maybe that does the trick...

    So to sum up it sounds like Police investigating more thoroughly could have saved a hell of a lot of time, money and delivered a more concrete verdict all those years ago ?
     
    I mean who can completely understand a families dynamics but I'd say it would be EXTREMLY unlikely that Robin Bain would have done away with them all except one ( but any family in which a 22 year old still has a paper run isn't quite run of the mill so who really knows )



  • Well a quick read of Wikipedia confirmed that he has lost in the region of 4 mill and it's actually 4 books ( Christ, isn't one enough ? )
    That link from AW is pretty damning on Bain, no two ways about it.
    While we're on the topic can someone explain how Mark Lundy ( 500 ) got a retrial which ended in EXACTLY the same verdict ?

    With an ego like his 4 books is probably just the start. If the 4 mill figure is a quote from him I'd take it with an Ayers rock sized grain of salt too.
     
    The Dunedin cops at the time seemed like they had some serious issues . The poisoned professor case was around this time too and it resulted in two hung juries and an acquittal despite the accused telling her friend she would poison someone the exact way her ex was subsequently poisoned .
    I don't know how much of this book is true but if even half of it is the cops down there were in a very sorry state around the time Bain killed his familyhttp://nzpca.co.nz/cover-ups-and-cop-outs-the-book/


Log in to reply