David Bain
-
<p>Agree entirely with the decision.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (conviction quashed) does not equal definitely did not do it (hence no compensation).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: although I see he still got a form of payout...basically a "please leave the govt alone" payout</p> -
<p>was also to help with the legal fees too I think, was an ex-gratia payment that accepts no liability.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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'?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="602349" data-time="1470111829">
<div>
<p>was also to help with the legal fees too I think, was an ex-gratia payment that accepts no liability.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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'?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There is no way you can conclude the latter if you look into the case.</p> -
<p>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.</p>
-
<p>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?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess it is the same thing to some, but in the law they are quite different??</p> -
<p>The Canadian's report wasn't very good I think.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="602373" data-time="1470114205">
<div>
<p>Can't agree. either he's guilty or not. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's found not guilty, thus he's spent 13 year wrongfully imprisoned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's due compensation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That may be your opinion of how it should work but that is not how it does work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="602373" data-time="1470114205">
<div>
<p>Can't agree. either he's guilty or not. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's found not guilty, thus he's spent 13 year wrongfully imprisoned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's due compensation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="602377" data-time="1470114519">
<div>
<p>That may be your opinion of how it should work but that is not how it does work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>So one of 2 things is happening here.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The law is allowing a man who the law believes killed his family in a violent rampage to walk around freely.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The law is not compensating a man who was wrongfully convicted.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both of them stink.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
Yeah I just don't think you get the finer points of how the legal system works there major rage. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Compensation = justice system stuffed up. Which is not at all the case here. -
Your q for the day major rage: are juries reliable?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="602389" data-time="1470115490">
<div>
<p>Yeah I just don't think you get the finer points of how the legal system works there major rage.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Compensation = justice system stuffed up. Which is not at all the case here.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah, 100% I don't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are juries reliable? Never served on one, but I'd suggest probably not. Doesn't really change my view though.</p> -
<p>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</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have added a poll</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="602395" data-time="1470117846"><p>
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<br><br>
I have added a poll</p></blockquote>IIRC the prosecution case or the police case had some procedural snafus that gave Bain wiggle room too? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="602400" data-time="1470118649">
<div>
<p>IIRC the prosecution case or the police case had some procedural snafus that gave Bain wiggle room too?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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 <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2486812/Karam-gets-330-000-in-legal-aid'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2486812/Karam-gets-330-000-in-legal-aid</a></p> -
<p>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?</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="602403" data-time="1470118934">
<div>
<p>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?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
