Not Guilty
282 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
This sort of stuff was OK for the trial though...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10571594
-
This sort of stuff was OK for the trial though...
Yes, but that's a different issue. The rules about prior convictions and acts are there to protect the accused from being unfairly prejudiced.
Bain's defence team was entitled to produce evidence to show someone else might have committed the crime.
-
Yes, but that's a different issue. The rules about prior convictions and acts are there to protect the accused from being unfairly prejudiced.
Bain's defence team was entitled to produce evidence to show someone else might have committed the crime.
I can definately see the difference. I just find it a bit stink for Robin Bain (not that he's going to be affected by it) that essentially the defence was trying to get David Bain off by pinning the murder on him when he's not around to defend himself and that they are able to bring in the same type of evidence that the prosecution is not able to use against their client. Not really a level playing field given at the end of the day it was a David? or Robin? scenario.
Playing devils advocate it would be interesting to see what David Bain and supporters would make of a trial where the crown was trying to convict Robin Bain (post humously) of the killings and they found HIM not guilty.
Gunman on the grassy knoll ;)
Right, 6:55, could be time for a beer, then that wine that needs finishing and then some more beer.
Be better when there's some bloody rugby to watch on TV though (OZ v Barbarians doesn't count, well not unless they play real Barbarians. That would be pretty awesome seeing a few Aussies meeting their demise on the end of a battle axe).
-
looks like I'm not the only one with a few drinks on the mind...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2479481/Jury-members-join-Bain-victory-party -
Email Web
Imagine if jury had been selected from the Public Address System. Deliberations would have taken somewhat longer.
-
This thread has given me the most *persistent* George Harrison earworm.
-
Email
looks like I'm not the only one with a few drinks on the mind...
Sorry Yamis, how tardy of me. T'other half was enjoying beer and Wild Turkey, so I thought I better start Monkey Bay Merlot,in keeping with the feel of PAS this week, but it's you that is a bit late. Cheers :)
-
But can one of the lawyers explain tome when evidence stops being evidence as to the character of the accused, and starts being "prejudicial"? I'm not clear on this.
The evidence would have nothing to do with character. Character evidence - against an accused - is only relevant if they give evidence. Bain didn't.
Juries don't sit in judgement on the question of whether someone is of good character, they try to determine whether a particular offence has been proved to have been committed by a particuar defendant. Evidence of bad character is only relevant to the extent that it impacts on this question - usually this will be in the form: the defendant his given evidence and said that he wasn't there, but the defendant is a proven liar etc...
[evidence of bad character can also be introduced if a defendant introduces evidence of good character]
When does it start being "prejudicial"? It's always prejudicial. Most evidence is prejudicial ... as noted above, the primary test for admissablity (of any piece of evidence) is whether the probabative vaue of the evidence outwieghs it's prejudicial effect.
What does the evidence help to prove that is relevant to the question that is before the jury? And is that enough to overcome the prejudice?
[you can think of "prejudice" as having a meaning deriving from its root - pre-judge. The fact that someone has 3 convictions for rape already is highly prejudicial - people will look at that and be more likely to conclude that the individual has committed the rape they've been charged with, without looking at the evidence in the particular case]
In the present case, the evidence may be seen as helping to prove that Bain is guilty, but the prejudice is pretty high, and what would it really prove? In this case, the problems with the alibi can be raised anyway, all the prosecution needs to say is "we say this was a premeditated murder, David would obviously try to set himself up an alibi, so you shouldn't put too much weight on his claim to have been delivering the newspaper". When you can get to the same point, or nearly the same point, without massive prejudice to the accused, that's the route you take.
-
looks like I'm not the only one with a few drinks on the mind...
I tend to agree, but I suspect it's from a professional position. A few years ago there were news reports that following a not guilty verdict members of the jury hugged the defendant. It seemed highly improper to me, but then I can see what some jurors might be feeling [not about either case, but in some circumstances I can see it arising] ... we know more about this case now than almost anyone out there, we're just really sorry it came to this, society owes you an apology for putting you through this, we know it sucks, even though you've been acquitted...
-
Danielle - I'm struggling with the image of you wondering around humming My sweet lord....
-
Email
Ur geez Danielle - "here comes the son"?
(crawls off into the night)
-
You're all punny and I was terribly literal, I'm afraid...
-
Email
Now, how the hell do *I* get rid of that one?
(which I think I last heard in about 1990)
-
Email Web
There are known remedies, but they're worse than the disease (case in point: the Spirit in the Sky cover by Doctor and the Medics).
-
Email
arrrrgh!
2 now - each competing for an ear- -
Easy - my current local fave. Recommending good speakers or you'll need to imagine the bass.
-
Email
Aaaaaaaaa!
Thank you Sacha!
(Incidentally, I know it was a hoodie, but it was bloody close to a dancing swannie-)
(The Mac handled it, bass et al - and - robbery! I'd happily pay for the listening, if only on my machine (I generally only go fromCDs/dvds I've bought.)
So, Real Groovy?
-
check out the comments
-
Email
weird, nasty - and the seller is so polite I almost feel I should help in some way except-
I'm making sorrel soup. It takes quite a bit of attention.
-
Jus gorgus sacha. Thanx.
-
I must say that this Morning's Insight by the outstanding Sue Ingram is well worth taking 30 minutes out of your life to listen on teh interweb if you didn't hear it this morning.
-
Email Twitter
Re jersey culture. Q and A's moving backdrop also seems to pay homage to the famous jersey. (BTW Why do TV studio shows - including Media 7 - have to have such distracting backgrounds - what's wrong with a plain wall?)
-
Email
A few years ago there were news reports that following a not guilty verdict members of the jury hugged the defendant. It seemed highly improper to me
Then you almost certainly don't want to be reading the SST this morning.
Pg A4 - actively soliciting for members of the jury to come forward and 'tell their story'. I weep tears of despair.
-
Apparently David Bain had a 6 rounds at Shooters.. ka da boom.
(Shooters is a Christchurch bar)
-
The comparison with OJ is very interesting.
Bloody Gloves vs Bloody Socks (Defense said their respective hands/feet wouldn't fit)
Phone calls recorded
Both actors of a fashion
Both stood to inherit the estate
Both not guilty
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.