An interesting thought......If discussion was suppressed after Arthur Allen Thomas was convicted, would he have eventually been freed and compensated?
Isnt discussion and opinion what keeps any topic alive? Or perhaps that is the intent, kill the discussion and opinion?
Yes, well, two things are involved: first you promote your message as much as you can to as many people as you can; second you attempt to silence people who speak out against the message; thus leaving the way clear for your message to prevail.
Democracy has many elements, but one of the most important one is ensuring that parties get equal share of the soundwaves and that one party does not get to bulldoze over another party (where have I read that word 'bulldoze' before?).
Were you aware of this
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6368057/Judge-asks-for-Karam-books-to-decide-compo-claim
It is surely wrong and doesn't bide well for a good outcome that Justice Binnie is only going to read the Karam books and not those that critique these or the various docos.
Yes, it does seem odd. However, having turned down the request for immediate compensation, I cannot see the Ministry suddenly turning round and prejudicing the investigation. The books do not constitute evidence or testimony of any kind, which suggests that Binnie's scope involves more than just assessing innocence on the balance of probabilities, and that he may be also investigating the manner in which the case was brought to trial.
Please note that this is a public forum.
I think it more likely the LJ is seeking insight into the mindset of Mr Karam and any neutrality or bias he brought to his campaign.
The Canadians are very experiencedin background investigation as evidenced by the six Royal Commissions into miscarriages of justice a feature in some being the relationship between the lead campaigner and the person the campaign is about. I have read some of the reports and the campaigner is given a very thorough "going over" by the Crown and Commissioner to test the credibility and strength of the grounds for pardon. Supporting media also get a going over to see what is in it for them.
Yeah, I would go with that assessment. As previously stated, if the Ministry felt that Bain was innocent they would have handed out the compensation by now. I think that they have to spend the time putting together a judgment that takes into consideration the primary party in the compensation bid (Karam) and making sure that it is thorough. This may mean assessing the merits of the PCA report again, in relation to David and Goliath to answer the questions: Was the report credible? How bad was the supposed "miscarriage of justice" and was the retrial flawed in any way?
Yes I think we have to give justice Binny time and put our faith in his logic and common sense, lets just hope his logic and common sense are a lot better than Bains supporters and the jury members at the last trial.
In the article it states once again { To get compensation, applicants must prove their innocence, at a minimum, on the balance of probabilities.} Unless new quite dramatic evidence is brought to light David Bain cannot under any circumstance achieve that.
WAS IT DAVID OR ROBIN
Evidence pointing to David VS Evidence pointing to Robin
1. David's fingerprints in blood
on murder weapon.
2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
would not dispute that he was wearing them
on the weekend of the murders.
3. Brothers blood on David's
clothes.
4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
was worn by David over weekend,
had blood stains on right shoulder
no explanation from David.
5. David's gloves were found drenched
with blood kicked under dead brothers
bed.
6. David Changed his Testimony
regarding rooms he visited
after ringing 111.
7. David heard Laniet "his words"
groaning an gurgling.
8. 3 separate witnesses said David
organized family meeting.
9. David had a Shooting Board
Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
10.David told the police twice that the
green jersey was Arawa's
but at trial he said for the first time
that it was Robins and also for the first
time, that Robin was wearing it over
the weekend .
11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
before planned to use the paper run as
an alibi to assault a female jogger.
12.A friend of Arawa's said David not Robin was
intimidating the family with the rifle.
13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
clothes.
14. Blood was found on David's duvet cover
and light switch in his room.
15.David had 3 unexplained separate
bruises on his head.
16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
bruises were made in the early hours
of the Monday morning.
17. David told of a premonition where something
terrible was to happen.
18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
experiments showed that it was 100%
more likely that it was planted.
19. The timing of when David arrived home
easily puts him in the house when
the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
20.A girlfriend of David's and a prison guard said David
had unexplained scratches going from his
shoulder down his chest.
21. Davids palm print in blood was found
on the washing machine.
The one and only piece of evidence with experiments done by forensic people that pointed to Robin as the maker of the bloody sock prints, was criticized by the trial judge, neither experiments done by both sides at trial mimicked the way the prints would have been made. Mr. Hentschel from the ESR was the first man to measure the luminal footprints in the Bain house. His testimony was that he measured the prints with the biggest print 280mm long. Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe "area" to the heel "area", and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the"complete toe and heal" he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance.
BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!!
Yes, like you, Bob, I have faith that Justice Binnie is a man of reason rather than a man of propaganda
.
test can be done on any day when there has been a bit of rain buy simply walking bare foot on wet then dry concrete, measure the prints and take an average and they'll be smaller than the length of the foot
As a piece of evidence it is unfortunate the originals had not been kept even if they would have proved nothing as the prints were not visible without luminol which as shown by the Cat/Dog theory no prints were found, It a red herring really.
I'd like to think though, the LJ would speak to members of the Bain Cullen families to hear their concerns
I wonder if anyone will see fit to point out to Justice Binnie that Karam has a signed agreement with David Bain to collect 50% of any monies generated through books, films and any compo? This shows that he has a vested interest in the case rather than just seeing justice served.
to send aletter to the Minsiter of Justice expressing concerns about the book and its launch as it can be seen as an attempt to try and influence the compo claim outcome. Reminding also the Minsiter of Karam's highly unusal ( Re Rosemary McLeod) agreement with David.Am sure Judge Binnie is above that but we need assurances from the Minsiter ,not withstanding.
It wouldn't hurt for a few of us to send individual letters .We could mention about Karam re-releasing his book David and Goliath just before the retrial.It looks to me that Karam held back on the release of his latest book until the decision was made to seek compensation.The defence team were hoping to get legal aid,and when that was turned down they decided to pay for a judge to review the case.Then Karam released his book.I agree that Binnie would be above all this,but no harm in writing to the Minister of Justice.
Would it hurt to send a copy of the Press to the conference organisers?
Karam wrote a WhoDunnit book. McNeish wrote a WhyDunnit book.The scope for Justice Binnie is to determine Innocence on the balance of probability, not to construct a psycolgical profile that analyses the mind of a killer.
In addition to Karam's books He will read the PCA report as well as the report of Justice Thorp. In 2005 Thorp published a book entitled Miscarriages of Justice. He researched 53 applications for the Royal prerogative of mercy and found that at least 20 applicants may have been wrongly imprisoned. He has also written a report into the David Bain case in which he said he was satisfied with the trial verdict.
No-one is going to stop Justice Binnie from looking at all details frm all angles. Because of this, no-one can accuse the Justice of being one-sided.
Quote from an interview with Justice Binnie:
Asked how he would like to be remembered, he replied that the legitimacy of courts depends on them being honest and direct in addressing litigants’ arguments.
“I think judges owe it to the legal profession to say: ‘We understand exactly what you are saying; we understand why you are saying it; and if we don’t agree with you, here, in a few short paragraphs, is why’,” he observed.
“So I would like to be remembered as somebody who followed my own statement of what I think courts are all about.”
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1517
Yes, thanks, Donald. I have sprinkled links to this throughout the news items. It's not "big" enough for an item in itself.
It seems that Justice Binnie is certainly the right man for the job he is almost a superstar, but he has one more major decision to make for the sanity of the New Zealand justice system, so I will reserve my judgment on him until he makes his decision on compo for Karam and Bain, PS will be shifting to North Korea if he makes a cock up.
Yeah,and I wll be going with you,Bob.
Thanks for the link to the article on Justice Binnie. I think he is well chosen for the job. I notice he is critical of "the role of expert witnesses". Also "he enlarged the defence of fair comment in defamation cases".
Looking at Witness Statements is futile as what is in them never goes to court. the Statements have been available to the defence since day one and they have had the opportunity to view them and cross examine based on them. The denfence also get a copy og the evidence in chief of the witness and can by using the statements raise issues not covered by the Crown in its evidence in chief. There were NO surprises for the defence in either trial from the crown. By contrast the defence does not have to give a witness list nor briefs of evidence unless it is expert or alibi. the only other defence requirement is they disclose ALL expert and forensic witness. the Crown is required to disclose briefs in a timely manner usualy 2-3 sitting days. There is no evidence this was not done. In contrast the defence still has not disclosed some of the expert evidence the Victorian armourer being one. although the police had a copy that did not excuse the disclosure rules. Why the defence failed in this is strange as they knew the police had seen the evidence all they had to do was give them a copy I suppose one could mention that the defence if they referrd to that report allowed the crown to reply. But no defender is going to raise in evidence a report that contradictes their pet scenario.
Witness statements tend to evolve over time and can become different to the original. but this can be a double edged sword as the changes can lead to confusion as to which statment to use or to use bits from all. In the invextigation leading to R v Watson Guy Wallace gave some 20-30 statements all with different material in them. but they also had a common theme which police were trying to get rid of -- the 40 ft ketch, no matter how often they tried Guy was unshakable on the ketch and in that he was supported by Hayden Morrisey and ,to a limited extent Sarah Dyer. any one of the statements made by Wallace could have been disclosed [and should have been] but all the defence got was on the morning he was to be called was his brief.
Both Mike Kalaguher and Keith Hunter even though they had never written before took evidence given in court and traced back to the originating statement so they had the transcript AND the statement and compared the changes before deciding if the was a major or minor discrepancy. If the defence don't have full disclosure they cannot cross examine as they don't ask questions they don't know the answer to.
In R v Watson the defence did not have full and timely disclosure, in R v Bain it is noticeable disclosure had taken place as the cross was more incisive and clear the only time that failed was in the evidence in chief of DB in trial one where he gave different answers to questions and sidelined his own counsel.
The basic rule of a course of evidence is that nothing is evidence except the evidence of a witness under oath in court. However where a witness is saying something in court that differs materially from a prior statement, this is a ground for cross examination. It is also the opportunity to make the witness' credibility an issue ao that everything they have ever said on the subject, even in original statements to investigators can be called into question. What JC seems to have missed is that investigators do not only assass witnesses for factuality (in other words could the witness' statement contain material facts that would aid the investigation) but also for reliability and credibility because if the witness is to be useful they will have to be able to hold fast to their claims in the faceof rigorous cross examination. In the first Bain trial, Cottle was judged to be an unreliable and uncreditable witness. Even Bain's lawyer didn't actually believe him. His behavior up to that time, in failing to present himself in court and his similar subsequent non-appearance tend to underline his unreliability. His evidence has never satisfied, in my opinion, the cardinal rule I have set out above. It was never given under oath. I can never understand and believe it was totally wrong for Pankhurst to read out his statement in Court. Whatever qualities Pankhurst has as a judge, I think that act was his worst hour. Quite frankly it stinks and Robin Bain's brother was absolutely right that Pankhurst's reading of it gave it the a credibility it never deserved and may have confused the jury An exception to the sworn statement in court is where a sworn affidavit is "read" into Court, however this must be at the mutual consent of the parties. The prosecution ought not to have agreed to the Cottle evidence being "read". However, I guess they were concerned that if it wasn't a entire new fiasco to the Privy Council would result. I imagine they had a fair bit of faith that they had done enough in the trial and that the jury would see through the Cottle statement for what it was, but I think that was their tactical error and the moment they definitely lost the trial.
