Powered by LiveJournal.com
At last a just result
This is a major breakthrough. I look forward to hearing that Bain is free. But based on the previous track record of the NZ Police and Justice systems, I'm still not hopeful.
Current Music: Blagovest Ensemble
|Date:||May 10th, 2007 11:40 pm (UTC)|| |
And to think we've done away with the Privy Council now! The Supreme Court of New Zealand would not have ruled this way, too much self-interest in protecting the verdicts it issues.
I'm still not convinced he's innocent. Although the NZ Police certainly cocked up the investigation.
|Date:||May 11th, 2007 05:44 am (UTC)|| |
Overheard on a radio station playing in the backgorund while we were shopping today:
"If you want to be found guilty of a crime you didn't commit wear a cardigan. Daivd Bain, Peter Ellis, Arthur Alan Thomas. They all wore cardigans"
-"If you want to be found guilty of a crime you didn't commit wear a cardigan. Daivd Bain, Peter Ellis, Arthur Alan Thomas. They all wore cardigans"
Heeee! LOL! And they were really bad cardigans too *g*
|Date:||May 12th, 2007 11:19 am (UTC)|| |
I'm sure this will become a very important historical fact for future generations.
Why do you look forward to hearing that he is free? I'm just curious.
Because when an innocent man is sentenced, that's bad.
And when an innocent man who has been sentenced is released, that's good.
If I remember correctly, you don't believe he *is* an innocent man. If so, on this matter we differ. But that doesn't mean we can fall out over it.
-Because when an innocent man is sentenced, that's bad.
Well, that's true. I guess I was influenced by the police, who first thought it was murder-suicide by the father, but then found so much to say it was David. But I guess you have a lot more evidence and stuff behind your belief, so I won't argue - I've never gotten too involved - and no, we won't fall out over it. We're better than that. That is for children. And stupid, one-eyed, selfish cows. None of whom hang around here *g*
|Date:||May 12th, 2007 08:38 am (UTC)|| |
The police have been well documented as having bungled most of the evidence gathering in the case, and this appears to be generally accepted by people on both sides of the argument.
Without going into all the details of the case, which are excellently summarised by the Privy Council - see link on http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page535.asp
- there are two simple things I see pointing at David's innocence.
(1) There is no obvious motive at all for David, while his father has lots.
(2) David is still alive! In practically every other case (and, yes, I acknowledge that rare exceptions exist) of murder of an entire family or most of one, or a killing spree similar, the murderer finishes the job by turning the gun on himself. David did not do this, and it points very firmly *away* from him as perpetrator.
A Christian family who spent time in Melanesia before travelling to New Zealand, whose eldest son is David.
-A Christian family who spent time in Melanesia before travelling to New Zealand, whose eldest son is David
Heh, how coincidental...
I can see how he could be innocent. I guess I used to think he was. I was most likely swayed by being married to someone in enforcement, who heard things. I still think it's time he went free anyway. As I said the other night, if guilty, he's served enough time for anyone with as sad a life as he was being forced to live. If innocent, and if there is still doubt, it's time he was set free. He's not exactly the profile of someone who's going to kill again, if he ever did the first time.