1. The politicisation of compensation for wrongful imprisonment is outrageous. I heard David Seymour on RNZ this morning. For the first time ever, he said something that makes sense.

   This must be handed over to a neutral, non-partisan compensation-body to determine.

   Bain deserves much better than this shabby treatment.

   • No he doesn’t, he was not innocent on the balance of probabilities – read Callinan’s report. Look dispassionately at the evidence. Just because he stonewalled for years and had an All Black in his corner making up fanciful scenarios doesn’t make him innocent.
     His brother’s blood was found in the crotch of his shorts – despite him saying he hadn’t seen the bodies, which was interesting since he was able to say that they were all dead.

     You want to talk about politicisation. From where I sit, politicisation worked in Bain’s favour. Bain/Karam/Reed said they were going to challenge the Callinan report and despite getting no compensation, walked away with $925k. Why? Adams/Nats didn’t want this hanging round in election year. Sheesh – they are people out there who agree that he did it but that he should get compo anyway. What is that? We sanction multiple killings by some people. The ex gratia payment was a sop, a folding to the standover tactics of team Bain, and a play to the segment of the electorate who seem to think “that nice boy” couldn’t have done it. Makes me want to puke. I can agree that an entirely dispassionate body could be in order – in which case by the terms for compensation he wouldn’t have got a thing. It would have been nice to see the Justice Minister say that she wasn’t going to be bullied and that they were going to do the right thing – no compo and no Claytons compo.

     • The problem, E-clectic, is you’re working from the premise that Bain is guilty. The jury in the re-trial disagreed after months of evidence and testimony. Are you telling us that you know better despite NEVER having sat in on the trial?

       Is that what you base your guilty views on? Personal belief?

       Oh well, I guess it’s cheaper than having a justice system.

       • You want him to get compensation, so you believe that he’s innocent or that he did do it but should get compensation regardless.
         If it’s the second of those two, that’s reprehensible.
         If it’s the first, then we’re dealing wIth your personal belief. You know better etc etc.
         What matters is evidence, so far you’ve presented none.
         I’ve suggested Callinan’s report, he provides a summary of all the evidence.
         Read it, then we can have an informed discussion.

2. I blame Judith Collins for Bain not getting his compensation she never wanted him to get it in the first place and when she has her mind made up that is it, she is that type of person and she will dig her heals in. I think she was very unprofessional and personal. I think Adams just carried on down the same path by getting in another judge and wasting our tax payers money when they should have just awarded Bain the 2 million that we wasted on two judges just so Judith could prove her point and get her own way. This is disgusting politics but it appears this is what many NZers want. There is a lot of squealing coming from some of those who foolishly voted for a government that really doesn’t care about all its people and I say this because last time they were in they did the same but people haven’t learnt the lessons from the pasts. We have a very nasty and selfish govt running our country so when you vote try and think of what is best for our country and all of us not just yourself.

   • We should be generous to mass murderers?

     • No, e-clectic. Only to people who’ve been AQUITTED of mass-murder. Being found not guilty means just that.

     • how do you know E-Clectic do you know something we don’t know as nobody knows and will never know because once again our Police have been incompetent by destroying all the evidence. Why do we not want to admit we did something wrong again and again and we will keep doing it under the pnats who have a very nasty side that’s is dividing and destroying our country.

       • Michelle, seriously, can you substantiate any of what you’ve written?
         Look I’m no Nat lover – but in matters of mass murder we need to look at the facts dispassionately.

         On another tack, have you ever spared a moment’s thought for Michael Bain, Robin’s brother, who has to live with the inference that his brother killed his wife and kids? Have you ever considered how he and the rest of the Bain family have had to put up with this hideous slur? If your concern is to protect the innocent then I suggest you focus on Robin.
         Let’s be clear, if you think David is innocent then Robin is guilty. I’d like to see your evidence. And, I mean physical evidence, not hearsay crap about alleged incest.

         • Unlike you e-clectic I speak from experience of having to deal with the justice system and I know first hand what it is like to have a member of ones family killed by another person. I have experienced this twice so I think I can speak with some authority on this matter unlike you your views come from a belief that our justice system can do no wrong. We don’t know who killed the Bain family and unfortunately because the evidence was destroyed we will never know. Who destroyed the evidence and why? and how come David got an acquittal, what does all this say about our justice system?

           • you your views come from a belief that our justice system can do no wrong.
             Don’t put words in my mouth – i have never asserted that. However, in terms of Bain’s claim for compensation I do believe that the system has got it right.
             Sheesh – the evidence was not destroyed.
             Read the Callinan report, all the pertinent evidence is written there.
             How did David get an acquittal? That’s a bloody good question. Some of the jurors did not act within the jury guidelines – fact. That trial was very shoddy. David didn’t take the stand, that helped a lot – his inconsistencies would have been laid bare.
             What does it say? I’ll tell you what it says.
             Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall and then find an All Black as an advocate and you can start to twist the justice system. The system is supposed to be a level playing field – Karam changed that by plying his PR and influence skills all round the media – which is why people like you think that nice boy couldn’t have done it and it was his nasty dirty old man father – despite the evidence showing the reverse.

             That’s what gets me animated about this case. The public perception of injustice in this case is so far from the mark and the reality, it’s weird. You really want a cold-blooded mass murderer to get millions in compensation because he seems like a nice boy and those nasty policemen can’t be trusted.

             I’ll say it one more time – look at the evidence.

             • I’ll say it one more time – look at the evidence.

               The jury at the re-trial did look at the evidence.

     • E-clectic, just pray you’re never charged with a horrendous crime you never committed. We might start looking at you as guilty despite being acquitted.

       • Read Callinan’s report, it’s all very clear.

       • @Priss What I would want is an unemotional examination of the facts (a point strongly expressed in the Waatea News item above). This is what happened eventually and Callinan’s report outlines it clearly.

       • So does that mean all the men who get off rape charges because their lawyer crucifies the victim and claims she consented, are innocent as well and deserve compensation for any time spent in remand waiting?

3. This was an excellent edition of Waatea News – top marks for putting together a great panel representing a spread of views and thus allowing us to see with clarity the issues and attitudes.

   One of the key issues is the eligibility for parole only if the person accepts ownership and accountability for the crime. And this is very pertinent to the Bain situation, who I believe is exacerbating this issue.

   What are the key learnings from the Bain case? (Imitated by Watson, Barlow, Lundy et al) Steadfastly maintain your innocence over years and years, despite the physical evidence being stacked against you. You might get lucky and find a powerful advocate who picks up your case and goes in strongly to bat for you. Nothing to lose now – just hold onto the reins and see where the ride takes you. What did Bain get? He got an acquittal and an ex gratia payment of $925k.

   If you were sitting in a cell in Pare, wouldn’t you be thinking, where’s the benefit of owning up? You’re going to look like a sap, better to guts it out, and shit who knows you might get lucky (helps if you’re white, of course).

   This ex gratia payment sends absolutely the wrong message. It says if you can brazen it out you might get lucky, and that’s simply not going to help us encourage prisoners into rehabilitation and reduce our parlous recidivism rates.

   Back to the show – the closing segments contrasting the facts-based approach versus prejudice and emotion were stark. In the case of Bain, work with the facts – they’re very clear.

   • Police planted evidence AND DESTROYING EVIDENCE ?
     Police lies ?
     Can we trust the results of Callinans report ? Very questionable.

     E-clectic – are you a retired police officer or related to Callinan or the son of some crooked criminal judge ?
     You got it all wrong.

     Building a case against David ; ” getting their man ” ; and making him
     guilty before proven so. POLICE COVER UPS ! !

     What happened to innocent until proven guilty – all those years ago ?

     Clearly David was innocent and the police and this horrific judicial
     system are the ones who not only fell short but acted unethically AND CRIMINALLY.

     Now the greed and insanity of not giving David a fair compensation is beyond disgusting.
     Police and govt. are covering up and protecting their own. Simple.
     Joe Karam deserves praise and appreciation for his kindness and support of David.

     • Load of sentimental codswallop.
       David Bain is a manipulative, narcissistic, psychopath who meticulously planned the murders of his family and the framing of his father. Joe Karam ran a beautiful PR campaign to normalise David and present him as the victim. Joe Karam is an inventive fantasist who has tried to shut down any criticism of him and his work.
       Physical evidence implicating Robin – none, apart from maybe a disputed sock print evidence – despite Robin having no blood on his socks. LOL. No fingerprints, no blood, no scratches, no bruises.
       David – fingerprints on gun, scratches and bruises on body consistent with the fight with Stephen, Stephen’s blood on David’s shorts.

       As I keep saying, drop all this police paranoia for a moment. They do get it right from time to time. Look at the physical evidence dispassionately and the answer as horrible as it might be is there.

       • David Bain is a manipulative, narcissistic, psychopath who meticulously planned the murders of his family and the framing of his father.

         Hmmm, that’s quite a string of labels to throw at someone, E-Clectic. Is there a medical assessment to back that up?

         It could be said that the father pre-planned it all as well. He certainly had motive, means, and opportunity.

         As for the bruises on David Bain, his late music teacher (Kathleen Dawson) explained to me how that happened. She showed me the lichen-encrusted concrete steps, leading down to her house, where he slipped during one of his visits. Remember that this was in mid-1994, during one of Dunedin’s notorious wet, cold winters. I used those steps myself when I visited Kathleen in the late 1990s – they were diabolical to use. According to Kathleen, David slip and landed hard. Hence, bruising.

         Again, I can’t link to anything to support this – it was a personal encounter.

     • Can we trust the results of Callinans report ? Very questionable.
       Which paragraphs of the report do you think are shonky? (They’re all numbered.)

       • So why do you accept the Callinan Report but not the Binnie Report? Two reports by two individuals, with two separate outcomes.

         Perhaps the starting pointing should be the re-trial which looked at evidence and testimony for three months, before arriving at a decision.

         • If you took the time to read both reports the difference would be obvious.
           Binnie’s experience was in corporate law and litigation, he had no background as a judge or barrister in criminal law. His appointment by Simon Power was inept, his CV didn’t match the job.
           Callinan had a much broader background including criminal law experience.
           Binnie’s “methodology” was bizarre, he kept taking pieces of evidence away until he got to his key item, which FFS was a disputed piece of forensic modelling, the bloody sock print. His whole findings were based on a single piece of evidence. I could concede that if it was a clear undisputed piece of evidence but it wasn’t.
           Also, Binnie didn’t start his analysis clean. He had asked for and read Karam’s books.
           Callinan has drawn his conclusion from a summation of the evidence.
           In terms of the second trial, what Callinan did was filter out the red herrings, furphies, suppositions and Reed’s lionisation of Bain – the masterful mindfuck that pushed the hard evidence to one side and played to the jury’s sympathies and stripped the matter back to its core elements.

4. Look anyone thinking David Bain is truly innocent needs to take a good hard look at the actual facts of the case as opposed to being caught up in emotional hysteria.

   Justice Thomas Thorpe, our most acclaimed legal mind, conducted a review into all controversial cases where the Royal Perogative of Mercy was applied for.

   Out of the 50 cases he examined, he found at least 20 were probably innocent or should have been found not guilty.

   But here’s the kicker. He also examined the Bain case in detail and stated that he was not innocent and that the conviction was appropriate.

   Now you can’t call him an agent of the state or biased, when he’s just said that there were 20 potentially innocent men sitting in prison.

   • Justice Thomas Thorpe, our most acclaimed legal mind, conducted a review into all controversial cases where the Royal Perogative of Mercy was applied for.

     Out of the 50 cases he examined, he found at least 20 were probably innocent or should have been found not guilty.

     But here’s the kicker. He also examined the Bain case in detail and stated that he was not innocent and that the conviction was appropriate.

     So you’re telling us that the entire jury in the re-trial was wrong, and one man was right?

     Well, we might as well do away with jury trials then, shouldn’t we, Jollo?

     By the way, Justice Binnie came to a differing conclusion.

     So; two men. Two differing outcomes. You’ve selected the one that suits your pre-determined viewpoint.

5. It was Robin or David. The third-party idea doesn’t stack.
   So, for David to be innocent then Robin must be guilty.
   Firstly, Robin owes David a debt of gratitude that David called a family meeting and took the trouble to fetch Laniet and bring her to sleep at home that night.
   Anyway, after a settled night’s sleep (quality and quantity of urine in his bladder) Robin brought the newspaper in for David to read when he would be waiting for the cops after he got his surprise. He went from the caravan to the house and went to David’s room and found the trigger lock, loaded up magazines and despite not wanting to implicate David, decided he would put on David’s white opera gloves. Having despatched Laniet, he then dealt to his wife Margaret, it was then onto Stephen in the adjoining room. Bugger, Stephen had woken so Robin shot at him but not before he’d raised a hand, the bullet passing through and creasing his skull. Blood started going everywhere, the gun had jammed and a furious struggle ensued leaving blood spattered all over the room even high on the walls. The doughty teenager however was no match for the cadaverous Robin and succumbed strangled by his own t-shirt. Robin ditched the gloves under the bed to clear the jam then shot Stephen through the top of the head to finish him off. Downstairs he went and shot Arawa. Has a quick look at himself in a mirror but is quite unsurprised by the absence of scratches and bruises and any traces of blood. Better leave a note to explain things, why write in clear unequivocal handwriting that would clearly exonerate David, who deserves to stay when he can leave it on the computer. He’s right handed but shoots himself through the left temple – with the silencer still on. Despite arranging the odd holding of the gun leaves no fingerprints. And all on a middle aged man’s full bladder.
   In the second trial, Bains defence could see the absence of blood on Robin as a problem so it needed an explanation, the so-called “meet his maker” fantasy. It goes like this. Robin, having done these dastardly deeds realises that when he tops himself he’ll meet his maker. Can’t do that in bloody duds so quick shower, drop the clothes in the wash pile, nip back outside to the caravan to pop on some trackies and an old sweater, could top himself in the caravan but no the lounge is better – and still doesn’t take a possible (leaves that to team Bain).
   So, definitely Robin, eh?

Comments are closed.