Not Guilty
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
I just had another look at DPF's list of things the jury would have to get past to find Bain not guilty.
Interesting comparison with Jarrod Booker's reasons to acquit in the Weekend Herald.
It strikes me that there would have been at least as much doubt -- and perhaps more -- in an attempt to prove Robin Bain's guilt as David's, but he, of course, was not on trial.
It still seems a a paradox to me that the defence was able to introduce some pretty tenuous stuff to depict a propensity to murder on Robin's part -- the school essays, the bookmark in a book in the caravan -- but something similar, and arguably more compelling, was ruled out as prejudicial with respect to David. I understand why -- Robin was not the defendant -- but it is a paradox.
-
It still seems a a paradox to me that the defence was able to introduce some pretty tenuous stuff to depict a propensity to murder on Robin's part
The defence also, in my view, pushed some pretty distasteful buttons around Robin Bain's alleged "depression".
Just when you think we're taking a step beyond ignorant and ugly stigmatising of mental illness, take two back. And perhaps I'm a little naive, but one might think professional educators would be a little careful about throwing around medical assessments like "clinically depressed" they were neither qualified nor in a a professional position to make, let alone after fifteen years.
-
Thanks Rich,
Lundy was convicted of axing his wife & daughter to death, but to do so, it seems he had to drive from Petone to Palmie, park the car half a k away, enter his house, butcher his family, clean himself up, get back to his car & drive back to Petone in less than 3 hours.
The timing is determined by when the coroner estimated the deaths took place & two phone calls from Lundy's phone, originating from Petone.
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3346/features/2168/three_hours_to_kill.html
-
I understand why -- Robin was not the defendant -- but it is a paradox.
I wonder how the whole thing would be different if the defence were trying to say "It was the other guy" and the other guy was still alive.
Probably a lot easier to do when your alternative killer isn't alive to defend themselves.
-
Who was Lundy and who did he kill, anyway?
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=10286
As I understand it, the question about whether this a wrongful conviction or not revolves around whether it would have been physically possible for him to get between A and B to actually commit the crime.
-
It still seems a a paradox to me that the defence was able to introduce some pretty tenuous stuff to depict a propensity to murder on Robin's part -- the school essays, the bookmark in a book in the caravan -- but something similar, and arguably more compelling, was ruled out as prejudicial with respect to David. I understand why -- Robin was not the defendant -- but it is a paradox.
I understand people's discomfort with the propensity rules, but another way of looking at the matter is that the Crown has unlimited resources with which to pursue someone. In most cases the defendant's resources are minimal. And in most cases that go to trial the defendant loses.
So anything that gives the defendant the chance to say "it wasn't me" is surely a good thing.
Remember also that the judge always has the power to disallow evidence if it has no relevance.
-
I probably would be uncomfortable inviting him into my home
This reminds me of being told that a friend's father had said "well, I don't hate maoris but I wouldn't invite one into my home"
-
I'm pretty damn certain that if I got home and found my family murdered my call to 111 would be completely incoherent. I would probably be unable to make that call a year later without making a complete mess of it. Why do we think that someone will make sense when describing a horrific scene.
-
The prosocution and newspapers have made absolute certain that we see DB as a geeky man. Does being a geek make someone a criminal? The one 'fact' I got out of the Watson trial was that he was a sleezy creep. I've never met the guy.
How on earth can we judge people on media created personalities.
-
ps - I've been computer free for two days.
-
I understand people's discomfort with the propensity rules, but another way of looking at the matter is that the Crown has unlimited resources with which to pursue someone. In most cases the defendant's resources are minimal. And in most cases that go to trial the defendant loses.
Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure I read someone from the prosecution team complaining that while they had to disclose everything to the defence, the defence could take months assemble its expert witnesses and only unveil them when they got to court ...
-
This reminds me of being told that a friend's father had said "well, I don't hate maoris but I wouldn't invite one into my home"
Sorry but I find that comparison quite offensive. My discomfort is focussed on a single individual whom a jury has found not guilty. I'm saying in spite of that I'm not certain he is innocent, yet acknowledging that some jury members clearly do believe him innocent.
It is a personal discomfort with one individual.
It has nothing to do with racism, and to imply that my feeling is akin to racism is a little much.
-
NB: I've followed up Scott's warning, sought some media-lawyer advice and removed the link to the Herald story about the suppressed evidence, along with quotes from the story and part of Scott's response. Thanks Scott.
I've left in discussion about why such evidence is deemed prejudicial, because it's useful and interesting. If I've left in something that shouldn't be there, feel free to let me know.
It appears that the Herald has now removed its own story, having become aware that the Court of Appeal placed a permanent suppression order on the evidence.
I can't say I think much of the Court of Appeal's decision. Presumably, it means that anyone writing a book about the case will be forbidden to even mention the evidence in question -- for ever .
-
It appears that the Herald has now removed its own story, having become aware that the Court of Appeal placed a permanent suppression order on the evidence.
Epic Herald Fail.
So tempting to go and dig the hardcopy of the Saturday edition out of the recycle bin. But I mustn't! Suppressed! No! Bad!
-
A thought has just occurred.
Now, I'm assuming that the front page story on Saturday was the one that was the subject of a suppression order (that's what I've been told).
So that hard copy of the paper will be more or less freely available to anyone who cares to drop into somewhere that they store things like newspapers. Such as, for example, Auckland City Library.
So whose responsibility is it (if anyone's) to get rid of all those offending copies which are still freely available? APN's?
Do the libraries get in trouble if they provide these copies to people?
Will Russell get in trouble if people read this post and hunt down a hardcopy? (feel free to delete if necessary).
-
I'll go one further: does Russell need to come to my house and personally delete the cache on my computer?
-
And does he need to bring a nice single malt with him?
-
And does he need to bring a nice single malt with him?
Talisker. $85 a bottle at Pt Chev Super Liquor. That's as much as $30 cheaper than some other places.
I feel able to share this with y'all having determined that it's not a mistake, just parallel importing. I will have to check their list to see what other gems might be there.
-
Talisker. $85 a bottle at Pt Chev Super Liquor. That's as much as $30 cheaper than some other places.
I'll take that in unmarked drams. Leave the suitcase in the usual place.
-
Russell, that one seemed out of whack with the others when I checked in person. Great tipsharing though, ta.
-
For once I regret not living in Auckland...but as long as the Mill has Laphroaig at $50 (very occaisionally) I'll endure-
-
Twas such a good deal at'Mill I bought two about a year ago and proudly carted them home from Welli. Still have a drop left.
-
I'll go one further: does Russell need to come to my house and personally delete the cache on my computer?
Now, it was a semi-serious question, but it may have come out as incoherent gibberish after a 12-hr day trying to work out how many patent claims can dance on the head of a pin whilst listening to pounding drum and bass (me, not the claims). So my head is a bit mangled.
Privately held hardcopies are one thing, but publicly available ones are another. I'm assuming it is now the responsibility of e.g. the library to make sure they don't breach the suppression order - that is, the terms of the supression order apply to them in relation to the story printed in the Herald, so they must remove that particular story from their hardcopy before letting MoPs have a copy.
-
Privately held hardcopies are one thing...
Damn straight they are one thing - they're perfectly legal. The offence of breach of suppression/breach of an order prohibiting publication occurs in the publishing of the material - in the media, or on the Internet. Having a copy doesn't amount to a breach; lending your copy to someone else isn't a breach, telling your mates or sending an email to your Mum isn't a breach, etc.
-
How about the Google cache?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.