Off the Beaten Track, for the Bettingly Inclined

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2009-05-31 06:32

Any Kiwi SOLOists been following the Bain retrial? I reckon he'll get off. Too many doubts raised. Even if he did it, it's clear he shouldn't have been convicted the first time. "Beyond reasonable doubt" and all that.


( categories: )

Justice for Robin Bain

Richard Goode's picture

--------------------
Subject: Bryan Bruce Documentary: A question of justice

This documentary is being screened on TV One at 11.25pm this Sunday 18 October. It is 1 hr 20 long. If you can't be up to watch it, make sure you record it.

“A Question of Justice”: A feature length docudrama (93 mins) on the Bain family murders where David Bain was convicted for the murder of his family in 1995, by award winning documentary filmmaker and author Bryan Bruce. Nominated for best factual Director in 2005 and TV One’s most highly rated NZ On Air Funded Factual programme Byran Bruce examines thoroughly all facets of the case both from the Prosecution’s and Defence’s perspectives. In addition the various appeals lead by Joe Karam against David Bain’s conviction as well as the Police Complaint Authorities investigation into Karam’s claims of police tampering with some of the evidence. At the conclusion Byran Bruce asks the question whether the sixteen year sentence given to David Bain was enough?
--------------------

Yeah right

Richard Goode's picture

I'm the only one who deserved to stay

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

I see on the Staff page that you're the webmaster.

Are you going to fix the Drupal bug that causes the first of my links below to break, when the comment linked to goes on to the second or subsequent pages? Or not?

(Jeff, this link works - for the time being.)

Jeff

Richard Goode's picture

Here's your chance, Dr. Goode, to present the strongest possible case for ethical intuitionism.

You're right, Jeff. It's a good(e) opportunity.

I'd also like to respond to issues you raised here and here.

Watch this space.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"The jury returned the wrong verdict."
1. How do you know that? Did you, first hand investigated the case and found evidence that this man is murderer? If you did, why didn't you submit this evidence during the trial?
2. Miscarriage of justice could happen. Do you know any other way to establish the truth except investigation in the court of law?

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

This man has been found not guilty after long and complicated retrial. So he is NOT a murderer.

The jury returned the wrong verdict.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Re: David Bain

"At 4:45pm on the afternoon of 5 June 2009, the jury gave their verdict: they found David Bain not guilty on all five charges.[38]"
This man has been found not guilty after long and complicated retrial. So he is NOT a murderer.

A Goode Opportunity

Jeff Perren's picture

Here's your chance, Dr. Goode, to present the strongest possible case for ethical intuitionism. It's never more persuasive than in cases where all agree that a particular act - in this case, murder - is wrong. You have at least two ears ready to hear the best arguments you can present for that point of view.

The microphone is yours.

God only knows

Richard Goode's picture

Are you a Christian, Goode?

That depends on what you mean by 'Christian'.

Goode

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Assuming you're correct about Bain, you've yet to explain why by your non-standards what he did was a bad thing. "It just is" simply won't do. Anyway, aren't we supposed to forgive, according to your latter-day every-other-day Christianity? Are you a Christian, Goode? (Today's Saturday. You may need to check whether Saturday is Christian Day or Sceptic Day.)

Getting away with murder

Richard Goode's picture

By negating right to live they negate their own rights. And even if they don't end up with lethal injection, there is always somebody around for them with the bigger club, gun or gang.

Haven't you heard of David Bain?

Dick picks another no-brainer

Jameson's picture

Goode, are you ever going to address the real questions?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Murder is of value to murderers. Murder is of disvalue to the murderer's victims. "
Wrong. Murder is of disvalue to murderers. By negating right to live they negate their own rights. And even if they don't end up with lethal injection, there is always somebody around for them with the bigger club, gun or gang. You forget to check your premises and put your foot into contradictions all the time.

NO COMPENSATION FOR DAVID BAIN

Richard Goode's picture

Thank you for signing the "NO COMPENSATION FOR DAVID BAIN" petition at counterspin.co.nz website.
Your signature is valuable and makes a real difference. Please encourage others to sign the petition as well. To do that, just forward the text below to everyone who might be interested:

------- FORWARD THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS -------
Hi,

I want to draw your attention to this petition that I recently signed:

"NO COMPENSATION FOR DAVID BAIN"
http://www.counterspin.co.nz/?...

This just got a whole lot

Mark Hubbard's picture

This just got a whole lot more interesting this morning (11June). Leighton Smith has just read a breaking news item on NewsTalkZB at about 11.33am, that the Supreme Court has just lifted the order that part of David Bain's 111 phone call which had apparently been injuncted (or something similar), and was not allowed to be played in the court case, now be released.

That segment was David Bain saying, on that original 111 call, that he had, quote '...shot the prick'.

To me, that would not necessarily mean guilt on the family killings, but it may point to David shooting the father? Which then raises a whole bunch of other permutations. There's been a lot of press over last two days of liability of people discussing Bain's guilt or innocence, since that case, so take this down of you want Linz.

What I don't understand is how such a crucial piece of evidence could possibly be withheld from any of the court cases? How can a decision be made, or a case waged, without regard to all the relevant facts?

[Update: apparently the interpretation of what was said is open to dispute: it had earlier been interpreted as him saying 'I shot the prick'. ]

Site's very creaky, so I hope this uploads.

Here's the ZB release: http://www.newstalk.co.nz/news...

Quote: "11/06/2009 11:44:01

The Supreme Court has lifted suppression on a portion of David Bain's 111 phone call in 1994 in which he apparently confesses to shooting someone.

His defence team lost a last ditch bid to keep the tape secret this morning. On the tape, Mr Bain is allegedly heard to say "I shot the prick".

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled the recording not be played to the Christchurch jury that found him NOT guilty of murdering five family members last week. It decided the words were not completely legible and the defence argued they were breathless mutterings."

I wonder how they're going to deal with this bit on the movie?

No, dumb-ass ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It is the standard of the good. Life simply is. Life is here. *We* are alive. We have no control over that. "Good" doesn't come into that part of it. Life is the standard of what enables us to *remain* alive, which we must choose to do, and the "good" consists of those choices that are life-conducive. If we choose death, like your headbanging friends, we should be consistent and commit suicide, not linger and make appalling noises as a career.

So, Goode, back to my question: you have a priori knowledge of what is right, right?

Is life good?

Richard Goode's picture

She goes on to posit... life as the standard of value

Is life good?

Logic and Ethics

Jeff Perren's picture

"Murder is of value to murderers. Murder is of disvalue to the murderer's victims. So, according to your theory, murder is both good and bad. A contradiction."

Penicillin is of value to those with certain bacterial infections; penicillin is of disvalue to those allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. So, according to germ theory, penicillin is both good and bad. A contradiction.

What a dumb-ass theory.

Sheesh.

Oh dear!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

One tiny thing you're overlooking. The fact that murder is of value to murderers does not make it good in the Objectivist ethics. "Of value to whom and for what?" doesn't mean any old "whom" and "what" are good. That would be a non-sequitur that a baby could recognise. Rand is here answering the question, how does the need for morality arise in the first place, not, what is good and bad? She goes on to posit, in dealing with the latter question, life as the standard of value, which kinda rules out murder. Only a dumb-ass, or worse, a philosophy graduate, wouldn't get that.

And, just so we're clear: you do claim to have a priori mystic knowledge of what is right, right?

Yeah, that's your position

Richard Goode's picture

You subscribe to Rand's objective theory of values, fundamental to which is the question: "Of value to whom and for what?"

Murder is of value to murderers. Murder is of disvalue to the murderer's victims. So, according to your theory, murder is both good and bad. A contradiction.

What a dumb-ass theory.

Then ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Murder is objectively wrong

Then validate the statement.

Unlike you, I don't think that murder is right for murderers.

Yeah, that's my position all right.

It goes without saying that I'm a lot smarter than you.

Clearly.

More mischievous misrepresentation

Richard Goode's picture

And he has no objective grounds, by his own admission, to condemn murder.

Murder is objectively wrong, that is my ground for condemning it. Unlike you, I don't think that murder is right for murderers. It's not agent-relative, you see.

He claims to have a priori, mystic grounds

And the alternative is what? That we have a posteriori, scientific grounds? Imagine the headline: "Study finds that murder is wrong".

Without the redeeming virtue I'd previously ascribed to him of smartness.

It goes without saying that I'm a lot smarter than you.

Damn straight

Richard Goode's picture

You obviously feel strongly about the verdict.

Damn straight.

Do you think the beyond reasonable doubt thing was ill used in this case? Do you think they should have scraped reasonable doubt and just gone for 'liklihood' ?

No, of course not! The jury came to the wrong conclusion, that's all.

Think I'll go listen to some Slayer.

RG

Kasper's picture

You obviously feel strongly about the verdict. Do you think the beyond reasonable doubt thing was ill used in this case? Do you think they should have scraped reasonable doubt and just gone for 'liklihood' ?

Scum

Richard Goode's picture

Lying, slandering, murdering scum don't come much worse than David Bain.

On this occasion, our justice system has failed us. Bain should be back behind bars, where he belongs.

I'm angry about yesterday's verdict. Not happy.

The best that can come of this fiasco is that Slayer write a song about it.

Certainly...

Robert's picture

You are guilty until proven innocent.

But if you prove that there are only two people who could have committed the crime and the prosecution prove that the other person didn't do it, then by process of elimination you have proven the other person guilty. Which was my point. As I admitted to Reed, I was wrong about the defense needing to prove Robyn guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - I misspoke there in my haste.

OK...

Robert's picture

I concede to your argument about plausibility. I misspoke in my haste yesterday.

But for me, the physical evidence - taken as a whole - (that wasn't screwed up by the cops) must point in one direction or the other.

I beg to differ with Lindsay when he says that the prosecution was unable to exclude the possibility of a mysterious third party. Nor, you will note did the defense's theory of the crime invoke one. The physical evidence that I've read about doesn't allow that possibility AFAIK (and I'm happy to be proven wrong). Hence you have the classic Agatha Christie situation whereby someone in that room did the crime. Then it becomes a process of elimination. I agree with PC (who started me off along this train of thought) here.

I also don't give any credence to motive in this crime. Whom ever was responsible was off their rocker - assuming they had one in the first place. And in that situation, I don't think it's useful to attempt to give rational explanations to insane acts. Especially in instances where your evidence is gleaned from interviews of friends and relatives as opposed to direct cross-examination of the principle actors (not possible as most were dead).

Obviously the prosecution/police royally screwed up both their evidence collection and their argument. And in that instance David deserves to be freed. The government does need to be held to a high standard. I still subscribe to the view that 'tis better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man be jailed. But in this instance, I believe that we have let a guilty man go free. So be it.

All I hope is that the police and prosecution draw a lesson from this. That is, they need to tighten up their evidence collection and storage procedures - especially in cases where they are swamped with evidence, as I suspect they were in this case.

Hahaha, Greg!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Dr. Goode doesn't feel alive till he's had a good pounding from Robin/David/Slayer. And he has no objective grounds, by his own admission, to condemn murder. He claims to have a priori, mystic grounds, but refuses to identify them—repairing, rather, to the words of others ... and cryptic smart-assery.

Without the redeeming virtue I'd previously ascribed to him of smartness. Dumb-assery. Not just another pomowanker, but a dumb one.

Which travesty Dr No Goode?

gregster's picture

Oh yeah, I suppose you prefer the murderer cred that Bain had. Have your metaller mates got to re-write or scrap their new singles?

Word of the Day

Richard Goode's picture

My opinion is ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that there's no conclusive evidence that David did it or that Robin did it, and a court couldn't convict either of them beyond reasonable doubt. I find it odd that David would do it given his burgeoning operatic career, new girlfriend, etc., and don't find it odd that Robin, in his mental state, would do it. But that's not evidence. And there are pesky bits of stuff that *is* evidence, like the washing of the clothes that point to David. And for me personally, the least convincing part of David's case was the 111 call. That sounded like someone acting to me. But that's just me. And again, evidence it ain't.

Linz, 'reasonable doubt'

Mark Hubbard's picture

Linz, 'reasonable doubt' aside, does the Farrar list I linked below change your thinking?

(And I'm aware I don't know your thinking: you thought he would get off on reasonable doubt, but I don't think you've given an opinion on your opinion as to who was actually guilty.)

From stuff.co.nz

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"To find David not guilty, the jury must have believed the Crown had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Panckhurst had told them earlier a logical and honest uncertainty was enough to establish a reasonable doubt."

Not guilty. And yet, on the

Mark Hubbard's picture

Not guilty.

And yet, on the Farrar list (see my post two below), I think he was guilty.

Verdict is out, waiting for

Mark Hubbard's picture

Verdict is out, waiting for it to be read so the news can announce it ....

I hold, per below, that

Mark Hubbard's picture

I hold, per below, that 'beyond reasonable doubt' will get David off.

However, NotPC's post of today: ( http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/06... ) is very interesting. And the David Farrar list of what you have to believe for Robin to have done it ( http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009... ) has set my cross hair back pretty firmly to David again as the guilty party.

Gregster - That's the

reed's picture

Gregster -
That's the evidence I learned about yesterday. A possible scenario is that suicide wasn't Robin's original plan.

Whose clothes were in the machine?
Robin's or David's?

Robert -

reed's picture

Robert -
In these circumstances, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Robin did not do it, then David is the killer.
I disagree. It only needs to be possible plausible for Robin to have done it and for there to be reasonable doubt about David's guilt.

Robert

Kasper's picture

As the judge clarified yesterday. The onus of proof rests only on the prosecution. David's innocence is a given premise and does not need any proof what so ever. The verdict, guilty, is what has to be proved.

In all cases of the law you are innocent until proven guilty. I think the only organization that does not have to wholly abide by this is the IRD whereby if they have so much an ounce of dirt on you, you are guilty till proven innocent.

Conclusive...

Robert's picture

doesn't enter into circumstantial case by definition.

The circumstances of the crime are the evidence. That is, The time and place of the crime was narrowed down to a very discrete period and place. This is not disputed. This limits the number of possible murderers. This is also not disputed. That is a fact in evidence that many here seem to be overlooking.

Both sides agree that there are only two people who could have done this deed. David or Robin.

In these circumstances, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Robin did not do it, then David is the killer. To prove his innocence, David had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robin did the crime. Because no one is arguing that a third person or space aliens could be to blame and the event certainly happened. ONE of these two did the crime.

The Police cocked up some. But that doesn't invalidate or contaminate the evidence that they did not cock up. If you ascribe to the theory of justice that says that if the police make even a single error in their procedure or interpretation of evidence then the entire case gets thrown out, then you deserve the current bloody mess the criminal justice system is in.

Set aside the evidence that is dubious and look at the preponderance of correctly processed evidence. And remember that this puzzle has a binary solution.

Reed

gregster's picture

I'm not sure now after some looking around today.

Craig M said...

For Robin to commit the murders and then kill himself - Why would he wear gloves? Why would he try to hide the evidence by putting bloody clothes in the washing machine? There was no need for Robin to hide the identity of the murderer. Whoever committed the murders tried very hard to hide that they did it. That completely contradicts the supposed suicide note. The jury in the 1990's got it right - I hope they do so again.

Even though I have been

reed's picture

Even though I have been following this trial - some of the evidence I wasn't aware of until yesterday.

A question for those convinced of David Bain's guilt.
What evidence convinces you of his guilt?

No, we won't

Richard Goode's picture

And now we'll have to pay him millions in compensation.

No, we won't. Rex Haig Mk II.

Not guilty

gregster's picture

And now we'll have to pay him millions in compensation. Arthur Allen Thomas MkII. That's my bet.

According to media today.

Kasper's picture

David had a girl friend and appeared more stable and 'normal' than his dad who had signs of depression...

My punt is that David is innocent. I havn't heard anything from the prosecution that conclusively points to David for doing the crime.

Shall we have a solo gamble?

I commit $10.00 NZD to solo if David gets nominated guilty of murder and gets charged.

Reason his only absolute

Richard Goode's picture

no one has ever suggested, let alone proved, a coherent motive in David's case.

No-one has ever suggested, let alone proved, a coherent motive for Robin to frame his eldest son. Care to give it a go, Linz?

David, the only one in the family, seemingly, with something to live for.

No-one has ever suggested, let alone proved, why David was "the only one who deserved to stay". Until now. According to Linz, David was the only one in the family, seemingly, with something to live for. Care to elaborate?

Just a clarification on our Thespian

Richard Chan's picture

BTW, until the defence began calling witnesses I thought there were doubts- or at least an alternate possibility- except that I can't understand why a person who has committed such atrocities would do a forensic clean before offing himself (Robyn) unless perhaps it was Stephen Bain, and David had to defend himself when he discovered / interrupted SB then hit him on the head and shot him during the struggle- hence his bloody (latent/ gun oil?) prints on the rifle.... And then had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that obliterated his memory of what had happened .... Yeah Right!

He was playing "Survivor!"

As for Joe Karam... perhaps he should be applying for Tony Veitch's old job if he's got nothing better to do!

The Performance of his life... or is it an Encore???

Richard Chan's picture

Evil
Forget the evidence- thats only scene setting for the one man performance of Oedipus Rex, an ancient greek tragedy performed by a talented opera singer in a modern New Zealand setting-

Act 1 scene 1 The Dunedin Operatic Society...

The Blind Teresias has a terrible sense of foreboding...deja vue, something horrible is going to happen...the black hands. As he reads the script he becomes aware- It is his duty as the Chorus to study the plot and inform the audience- What is the plot? The father, Laius,(Robyn) is killed by his son, Oedipus (David) who has supplanted his father as head of the household (Thebes). Oedipus sleeps with his mother, Jocasta (Margaret) in a social situation where incest is the norm. Oedipus has two daughters Antigone (Laniet) and Ismene (Arawa) one of whom at least has been sleeping with her father (Robyn). The two daughters are discussing the disaster that has befallen them (sexual abuse?). Oedipus also has two sons Polynices (Stephen) and Eteocles (David) who have killed one another in a battle for control over Thebes. During the finale Oedipus discovers Jocasta dead and overcome by the horror of his actions and their consequences, blinds himself with a pin.

Act 2 scene 1 (The Bain Household prior to the meeting)

Laniet has been working as a prostitute (an old greek profession) and has contracted an STD... Which she may have passed on to her father, and even possibly to other family members. She informs David, who calls for a family meeting. David (Oedipus) is a strong and decisive man. Like Heath Ledger in his performance as Joker, he is triggered and overcome with the parallels in his family, sets out a tableaux that will both mimic his on stage performance, and provide what he perceives as a solution to his own personal situation.

Act 3 scene 2 (The Night of the Murders)

That night, being aware of the family habits, he rises early and begins his paper round arriving back whilst the family is asleep. There he systematically eliminates all members of his family with the exception of his father who he knows will shortly come to the house for his morning ritual. There, at gun point he accosts Robyn and forces him to type the note on the computer, then forcing him to kneel, executes him and places the weapon strategically.

Curtain call:... The computer (male chorus) cryptically leaves its message "Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay"

Epilogue: David dials 111 and awaits the arrival of his audience...

Note, like the original Stravinsky Opera This was only performed once for the public....

Jawdropping! Puzzled Mr Prosecutor: Kieran Rafferty... You may have cost us taxpayers $$$$$$$

Why did you not ask any of David's fellow cast members to explain the plot of the Opera he was performing in and why did you not ask them whether in retrospect the play could have triggered the behaviour of David.

Is it because opera is such a melodramatic art form that only the literati / cognoscenti can understand it...unless it is Gilbert and Sullivan? Perhaps we Kiwis play too much Rugby and have no time for such intellectual pursuits!

I was keen...

Ross Elliot's picture

...to see an OJ moment when Bain tried to fit his feet into a bloodstained pair of socks.

Oh, innocent due to a very reasonable doubt. And kudos to Joe Karam.

Beyond reasonable doubt...

Richard Goode's picture

... that David Bain did it.

Beyond reasonable doubt...

reed's picture

... that Robin Bain did it.

IMO there wouldn't have been a trial if the police hadn't tried to fit the evidence to their pre conceived idea.

I expect it will take the jury less than an hour to decide "not guilty".

Isn't the father ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... more likely to want no one to know in those circumstances?

The sister, in any event, was having sex with everyone in sight as well as her father.

So how is it beyond reasonable doubt that David did it? David, the only one in the family, seemingly, with something to live for.

Use your imagination

Richard Goode's picture

But why??

Perhaps he thought that his father was having sex with his sister, and didn't want anyone to know.

But why??

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Huh?

They're all dead

Richard Goode's picture

no one has ever suggested, let alone proved, a coherent motive in David's case.

He wanted them all dead. What's incoherent about that?

I have always believed...

Olivia's picture

that Robin Bain was the murderer, not David.
Now that it is pretty clear Robin could've easily used that rifle to take his own life, I'm convinced David should be acquitted.

Coincidentally enough, I have just watched 12 Angry Men again with Peter Fonda. Juries can be frighteningly shallow and glib, but what an excellent film about objectivity... and persuasion.

Ha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As for David's liking of opera, what if his favourite is Wagner?

Then he's guilty.

But his fave, I think, is Gilbert and Sullivan. Innocent.

And 'that' jersey never spoke to an entirely sane mind.

This is Dunedin, remember.

Yes. Certainly the more of

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes. Certainly the more of the defense case I hear, it's leading me away from guilty to innocence, and no matter what, it's nowhere near beyond reasonable doubt, so he should be let off on the defense's case. (But then, if you've ever been on a jury of sheeple just wanting to get home to cook the tea and tuck the kids in, it's scary, and a verdict counter to the facts would not surprise me).

As for David's liking of opera, what if his favourite is Wagner?

And 'that' jersey never spoke to an entirely sane mind.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

David's relationship with his sister wasn't half as weird as his father's!

And it doesn't prove anything. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is not even approximated. Besides, David likes opera. He's innocent.

Oh, and no one has ever suggested, let alone proved, a coherent motive in David's case. The father, on the other hand ...

Divided house here. Pauline

Mark Hubbard's picture

Divided house here. Pauline thinks he's innocent, I'm borderline to guilty, but agree, most definitely not beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution forensics man that demonstrated it was almost impossible for the father to have shot himself had me convinced of David's guilt. But then the defense's forensics man showed it would have been relatively easy for the father to have killed himself, so it tipped me back to the son's innocence, as did the evidence concerning the socks.

But then David's relationship with his sister was bloody WEIRD, although the family was, to say the least, a collection of complete misfits, or the parents were, father and mother.

One of those cases where only David Bain is in a position to know, and he'll take it to his grave. The police were negligent completely in destroying the blood samples, as advances in DNA analysis may well have solved it once and for all, but that is never to be now.

Would I be happy flatting with David and gun in the house? I'd be sleeping with one eye open I think.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.