I attended a presentation by arguably one of NZ's awesomest lawyers this afternoon, Helen Cull QC (above- although not a particularly flattering photo, it shows what she does). It was marketed as a lecture on the importance of evidence, but was especially fascinating as it was presented in the context of the Bain trial. I thought that I had been watching it very carefully as it unravelled, but this presentation made me realize that unless you are in the Courtroom, it is just impossible to formulate an accurate view about anything. Here are just a few of the things I learned today about the Bain trail (admittedly they were from Helen's point of view, and as a consequence exclusively support Bain but anyway...):1. While all we saw on the news was police officers and neighbours being examined, the defense team actually presented over 50 witnesses (friends, lecturers etc) to tell everyone how great a guy David was.
2. David's North Island relatives (Like Michael Bain the uncle with the article in the Listener about how Robin was a great Dad) were hanging out in the Court indicating what they thought of each piece of evidence with facial expressions etc so that the jury could get a heads up.
3. David's first trial was governed by common law evidence rules, but for some reason his new trial was guided by the Evidence Act 2006. Is that an example of retroactive use of legislation? Sounds sus
What a load of bullshit. Psychopaths can look & act as pretty as you please -they can still kill, & there were 50 others who could say what a wierdo, & a loser he was compared to his siblings.
ReplyDeleteOf course the extended family are showing their emotions- the only one that didn't was the automaton David Bain who was told not to move or make a face in case he blew it.
The 'sus' legislation this time meant that hearsay was allowed which effectively put Robin on trial instead of David & shattered most thinking people's belief in our current jury system.
Good point about putting Robin on trial Kate.But to a certain extent they might have actually needed to use hearsay after the cops burned/lost most of the evidence. But do you still reckon that someone should spend 13 years in prison, and then come out to be re-trialed under a whole new set of rules?
ReplyDeleteI do think we need to keep innocent until proven guilty in our minds when it comes to these things, the problem being that hearsay evidence really doesn't prove anything. I think that this can be said in relation to the stuff about Robin molesting Laniet as well as the stuff about David wanting to rape someone on his paper round. Perhaps weirdness was hereditary?
Most of the evidence remained intact & Bain defense have tried to get it all including the gun for 'safekeeping.'
ReplyDeleteThe new rules worked totally in David's favour allowing hearsay evidence in that swayed the jury (as has recently happened in the appalling Gwayze case.)However the hearsay evidence against David was considered too damaging to him.
Please read the facts of the evidence at www.counterspin.co.nz or log in to www.davidbain.freeforums.org for a treasure trove of information.
Thanks for that Kate. I had a squiz at counterspin, and they do appear to have some valid points. It is great that they identified police incompetency as a key reason that Bain's retrial went in his favour. However you have to agree that the bitterness about key prosecution witnesses being suppressed is a little over the top. I think the first one would have been important for the jury to hear, but do you seriously think that Bain's disclosure of his plans to "rape"(his friend never actually used the word in his testimony by the way, it was a cop who added it for theatrical value) a jogger is relevant to this trial? Yes, it might help us understand how odd David is, but we can't run around trying people based on the fact that they're weird and had strange sexual fantasies in the past. Perhaps it would have been passble had he actually raped her, but that's a different story.
ReplyDeleteKirstin,you may have misread, or misunderstood. Police incompetency was Karam's key assertion , not the reality at all.All the evidence points to David.
ReplyDeleteGood that you had a quick read. You should now read 'The Mask of Sanity' by James McNeish( for a good understanding of possible motive), as well as surf the freeforum site & the 'Justice for Robin Bain' site on facebook...eg. read eg.post 37 on the topic about Rosemary McLeodon facebook.. Plus it is essential that you google Rosemary Mcleod's excellent article' Karam's magnificent obsession.' ( Will take more than just a quick squiz.)Her company was sued by Karam for this because she had made the minute error or stating that Karam had never approached the extended family, whereas in fact he had approached a part of the Cullen extended family.
you should definitely read Martin Van Beynan's excellent Press article on the case ( he sat through EVERY day of the trial) entitled 'Plenty of doubt in the Bain verdict.'
The point I was making was that in one instance hearsay was allowed, in the other not.No doubt that David was very weird. Another thing that didn't come out is that years earlier David apparently had broken into a young female close neighbour's house & was caught having masterbated on her dress. Police were called but it was settled out of court with Robin & Margaret having to pay for a new dress.
no, for the the withheld evidence that David had been threatening the family with a gun, & that they were frightened, & that Arawa & her friend were not allowed to walk past David's window was much more damning. Again withheld for being too damning for David.