Random Play: You wouldn’t read about it.
32 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Well, there will be two of us. I don't have any opinion on David Bane but I still wonder who killed the Kahui twins.
Great travels, Graham--look forward to reading more.
-
Argentina, I hope you went for a tango or at least were a spectator in one for a while.
no opinion about David Bane. The unwelcome guest who cannot put a time frame around the length of the depression,
Need a little help?
Correct response to D Bain is ' Couldnt all this evidence just be looked at out of the public eye. Then the Crown wont look so idiotic when he(DB) is found not guilty. But no it seems they must be seen to uphold a reputation for always being right, when no one else ever is. Where do these people get the idea that they are infallible from. And it's not from god cause he never existed.The Depression, it is going to stick around just to defy the efforts of the National(coalition) govt to send it packing.
-
I read once of a journalist who spent many weeks out of circulation in a remote place, Tibet I think. She said that the first thing that she wanted to do on her return was to devour all the papers and catch up! She soon realised that really nothing, except for the names of people and places, had changed. The stories were universal and repetitive. Important?
-
Interested in the (Freudian?) Bane/Bain thingy.
The whole case has become a bane to the police & judiciary. And I tend to agree with the whole public angst about how the police can never admit to having got it wrong the 1st time around. David Bain has served something like 13 years, had his conviction quashed(?) and now they are re-trying the case? What a collosal waste of time & money & our over-stretched courts.
What will be gained either way, regardless of the result of this trial? If it is just 'police prestige/pride' being maintained they need their heads examined.
-
I really related to the sameness of news no matter where.
I have just returned from Thailand and although I was there for travel related stuff, could not refrain from reading the newspapers each morning.
Here are a couple of things I noted:
*just like milk prices in NZ, the rice farmers in Thailand have had their prices plummet - to under half the price they received in 08.
* bullying is a problem in schools
* a columnist is concerned re the growing of tulips ( cold weather flower) and the costs and problems it causes - saying peoplel should grow the local native 'thai tulip'Seems we are so predictable.
-
What will be gained either way, regardless of the result of this trial?
I'd like to think that along with the concerns you note, that there is a point of principle in there.
That is, if the police believe that David committed the murders, they should try him for it, even if it's going to be hard to get a conviction. The expectation of the police is that when a crime is committed, they do their best to find the criminal and bring them before the courts. I'd be very concerned if the police didn't do that.
The whole thing has gotten so tangled over the past 15 years, that I think sometimes society has lost that basic point.
Whether anything will be gained? I don't know if that's likely anymore. But sometimes you don't do things for benefit, you do things because they need to be done.
-
Yeah, Kyle, I get that aspect, but wasn't that what was done in the original trial?
He was tried, convicted and did some serious time all based on some seemingly rather shonky 'evidence'. (Not privy to the details of the 1st trial, but there was plenty of suspicion that DB was, at least partially, 'fitted up' to get the conviction. Which seems to happen a bit in high-profile cases in NZ - The Crewe Murders, the Sounds Murders...). -
The expectation of the police is that when a crime is committed, they do their best to find the criminal and bring them before the courts.
Could be just me I thought getting to the truth was of primary importance. Not getting someone/anyone before the courts.
-
Yeah, Kyle, I get that aspect, but wasn't that what was done in the original trial?
Well obviously not, as it was quashed. So we now are back to the same state legally as just after the crime was committed - a suspect, not yet tried.
I just think we need to remind ourselves of the principles as much as we look at the practicalities.
Could be just me I thought getting to the truth was of primary importance. Not getting someone/anyone before the courts.
I didn't say someone or anyone, I said the criminal. Whether or not David is that person, I have no idea. The police obviously think that he is.
-
There is a serious question hanging over the Bain trial that needs to be examined.
The defence have alleged the police investigation was shonky and that the cops got the wrong guy. If a jury acquits Bain the pressure on the authorities to take seriously the defence's claims will be enormous. It might lead to changes in the way these crimes are investigated in the future.
On the other hand, if the defence can't convince a jury, that will vindicate the efforts of the police and may restore some tarnished reputations.
That said, I 've no view on Bain's guilt or innocence, or whether there is any substance to the allegations. That's the jury's job.
-
Could be just me I thought getting to the truth was of primary importance. Not getting someone/anyone before the courts.
Sometimes it takes a trial to get to anything approach the truth.
It's the job of the police to prosecute when there's evidence of an offence. If there's evidence to the contrary that can be tested in a court, where witnesses can be cross-examined and the strength of the evidence assessed.
It's not the job of the police to decide "he/she did it".
-
I have trouble with this as David Bain was found guilty and incarcerated for a considerable period. Since then, doubts have lingered about the conviction and he's been exonerated & is now being re-tried.
If he is found guilty it seems unlikely that he will spend further time in prison - he's already served 13(?) years and has proved, since his release, that he is no real danger to the public.
If he is found not guilty then there is likely to be a substantial claim for compensation - probably not something the government wants as a cost or as a PR disaster for the police.I just can't see that justice can be served in either case. The 'best' outcome for the police would be a 2nd guilty verdict but the whole case seems too compromised for that. (lost evidence, evidential samples disposed of, the effect of the passage of time on witnesses memory, etc)
Any compensation claim will be dwarfed by the actual cost of the re-trial, so what's the point?
-
Since then, doubts have lingered about the conviction and he's been exonerated & is now being re-tried.
No, his conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered. That's not an exoneration.
-
Since then, doubts have lingered about the conviction and he's been exonerated & is now being re-tried.
No, his conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered. That's not an exoneration.
-
OK, apologies for not having the vocabulary right.
Does the difference in terms make a difference that you could explain in easy layman's terms?(__I'm a bit of an easy lay man__)
And does it affect the whole absurdity of the re-trial?
-
My legal training doesn't extend to criminal procedure (I shun the limelight and prefer shuffling papers in the comfort of my own dark office), but here we go...
The word "exonerated" suggests that someone had been freed from blame or cleared of responsibility. In a criminal justice context the term is often used when someone has been proven not to have committed a crime.
Our court system doesn't really exonerate. You're either guilty or not guilty. A jury can't find you "innocent". A "not guilty" doesn't mean the court accepts you didn't commit a crime. It just means you've not been found beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime.
The Privy Council quashed Bain's conviction, but ordered a retrial. Essentially they've said "we're not sure the conviction is safe, but let's re-examine the whole thing just to be sure."
-
Thanks for that.
So we are re-trying Bain on the say-so of the Privy Council, Bain's side is desperate for him to be found not guilty and the crown's side (essentially the police) are keen for a guilty verdict to save face over him being found guilty before?
That's probably a bit harsh on the police as it wasn't them that found him guilty in the 1st trial, but it was based on what appears to have been some shonky evidence or the gathering thereof.
(Apologies to have been labouring the point...)
-
So we are re-trying Bain on the say-so of the Privy Council
Yes, that's how our judicial system works. Criminal appeals often result in retrials. If a conviction is potentially suspect, but there's still strong evidence of guilt, the best course of action is often to hear the whole thing again.
If the PC had thought there was no evidential basis for the conviction they'd have let Bain walk.
-
Sometimes it takes a trial to get to anything approach the truth.
And in the Bane case the trial was a joke. And why is it the prosecution always goes first and the defence, has whatever time (in a fixed time period) is left after the prosecution to rattle thru their case.
It's the job of the police to prosecute when there's evidence of an offence. If there's evidence to the contrary that can be tested in a court, where witnesses can be cross-examined and the strength of the evidence assessed.
Ok then why does it never seem as if the evidence is being assessed rather asserted as fact.
It's not the job of the police to decide "he/she did it".
Maybe they should have posters around the police stations with catchy little slogans to that effect then.
Welcome home Graham.
-
And why is it the prosecution always goes first and the defence, has whatever time (in a fixed time period) is left after the prosecution to rattle thru their case.
The trial period is not fixed. A period is allocated for the trial, but overruns are frequent. As will inevitably be the case with the Bain retrial.
Maybe they should have posters around the police stations with catchy little slogans to that effect then.
Splendid idea.
-
Is it the French system where the search is for the truth, rather than an adverserial system like ours? I think there is always a debate about that because a poor person with a poor advocate compared with a rich person with unlimited means who has a better chance to get the best outcomes.
-
And why is it the prosecution always goes first
I think that's because it's difficult to defend yourself until you've heard the evidence against you.
-
Ian MacKay, not wrong - I did 4 units of a law degree waaay back in the 1960s and wound up with a profound appreciation for Common Law and 'our' (essentially, English-based case & statute) law system- and worries. All law is subject to Parliamentary over-ride here...and I really liked the idea of a(Continental law-based) examining magistrate
(there's something a wee bit similar in Scots law.)The Bain case truly needs to be re-litigated, reguardless of cost. Myself, I dont think an innocent man has been found guilty BUT- there was *so much* trampling over (in the most literal sense)of evidence-
My worry is, that the truly useful (dna) evidence was untimely discarded: if anything useful comes out of the expenditure on this case (aside from a convincing verdict* for some closure for other Bain family members) a judicial direction for KEEPING dna material for at least 30 years would be a bloody good thing--and maybe, we could look at the Scots verdict of "Not proven"?
-
And why is it the prosecution always goes first
I think that's because it's difficult to defend yourself until you've heard the evidence against you.That was hilarious.
Still seems like a game, a case is constructed and not revealed till court day. Then is adversorial not finding out what happened.Is it the French system where the search is for the truth,
Pity they didnt colonise NZ, if its true.
Myself, I dont think an innocent man has been found guilty
So its the other option then, do you think?
a judicial direction for KEEPING dna material for at least 30 years would be a bloody good thing-
Couldnt they just make it a legal requirement then without having to go to retrial over an old dodgy conviction. Cause it seems every cop and a few others had to go have a look at the house.
-
Is it the French system where the search is for the truth
But the question is: can they handle it?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.