Not Guilty
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
ScottY - yeep.
And, very interesting.
Vested interest, anyone? -
Hilary - there were plenty.
Take the local police trampling over (literally, in one case) and the delay for the coroner's access.
As I read (and because I am not a legally-trained person, I am happy to be corrected) the Privy Council was as much concerned with matters of process as judgement. -
skin walkers by night...
How do tattoos get murkier?
Sunlight!
apparently it makes them blur, spread, fade and merge - even tatty - as I heard on the interview (link below) on Nat Radio last Friday night.Geoff Ostling - out of his skin the Sunlight info is about halfway or after from memory
yrs
Blue Lacey
arsenic and old tatting -
so I regret I cannot
Nah I wanna picture, :)
-
How do tattoos get murkier?
Sunlight!
apparently it makes them blur, spread, fade and merge - even tatty - as I heard on the interview (link below) on Nat Radio last Friday night.So that's why those rough old navy tatts look so fuzzy. I'd thought it was because they were done with a marlinspike & octopus ink.
-
Sunlight!
apparently it makes them blur,An' I thought it was a swamp thung.
-
*Never* trust octopus ink! They use it for ambush & getaways-
-
Oh and back to the Bains got tattoos thing.
Still non judgement, interesting anytime. Islander thought interesting, I'd like to find it, being lazy, thought someone else might link to it. No problem.
-
To hold one person as the only one able to understand puts great pressure on that person and nobody is perfect so it would always be questionable.
Maybe the answer is more than one judge.
Quite, and the jury that was made up of reasonable people, saw flaws in the prosecutions case.
After reading the herald article, I wouldn't be feeling enthusiastic about participating in jury service, particularly a retrial.
-
Does anyone know why the Herald story about the suppressed evidence has disappeared?
Because the suppression order is still in effect, according to Steven Price.
-
Is our earlier discussion here in good faith still ok?
-
After reading the herald article, I wouldn't be feeling enthusiastic
Well written though. I didn't want to read it earlier, so didn't. When I did, it wasn't sensationalistic garbage. Quite surprised actually. Plus if it was, not bad journalism, felt good. JMO
-
still ok?
Yes we are good faith peoples. :)
-
Yes but are we legally obedient ones?
-
I was once involved in a car accident. The 5 of us were all aged around 20. The 5 different reactions in the car, after we were very nearly killed by an unlicensed, uninsured idiot, still stuns me to this day. When I think about each of us and our personalities, the reactions we each had didn't surprise me. The reactions were 1. calm, flag down other traffic; 2. Give the driver a hug; 3. Stay very quiet; 4. Panic and find self unable to get out of the car (nothing wrong with the door - just a complete freeze and then a bit of hysteria); 5. Anger at the idiot who caused it.
The point is that everyone reacts differently in a crisis situation, but we don't normally act out of type and anyone who knew us well would be able to reason through our reactions.
-
Yes but are we legally obedient ones?
That's personal too :)
-
Probpossmaybeabley- but definitely trying-
-
Sorry, the above comment was in relation to the extended Bain family and their opinions of David after the murders.
-
still stuns me to this day.
Although I suspect now (because of your words) you have a better understanding. I had a sorta similar situation with a phone box and a person with unending ?'s in a group situation. I still have unending ?'s. That's life, (whats life?) American magazine.... have you heard that saying?
-
OK, maybe not being clear enough.
After recent revelations, I am questioning whether our earlier conversation in this thread based on material which has now been removed is legally actionable under the suppression arrangements.
I only expect an answer from a lawyer or from Russell.
-
OK, maybe not being clear enough.
I only expect an answer from a lawyer or from Russell.
You are. I guess it went on a tangent. Getting my jacket.... :) later.
-
As I trot out into the dark with some of my delicious kumara/silverbeet/goatfeta pies for the neighbour (not least because she snuck over with her chicken & coconut pumpkin soup earlier)
it behoves me to think about our common humanity:we do this stuff weekly (if not daily).
We talk to family daily (well, I do, with my mother. And sibs.)
And somebody like DB?
-
I think the whole case against David (nominally "Bain", but that applies equally to Robin, so here we are) was ridiculous.
The idea he'd shoot most of the family, then go on his paper run to forge an alibi, then get home in time to hide behind a curtain (he's fucking well 6'3", curtains won't hide shit, not to mention hoping the old man didn't wake early and notice anything was amiss) while his father knelt in prayer right next to him, move the gun barrel to no more than 8" away without making so much as a peep, shoot his old man, wash up pretty damned incompetently, then hang about for a hour or two to make it look weird before clowning around on the phone and being extra weird for the medics.
Like, What The Fuck? That's the police case? Really? And why the hell did they spend half the prosecution's time attacking the credibility of the victims this time around?
Surely he was all weird because they left him sitting in a freezing house in his t-shirt, sans any food after early morning exercise and a bang on the head, for half the day, as policemen poked and prodded at his recently dead family, with his only company a cat stained with the blood of his murdered brother. Was he really quoting lines from one of his operas by then? Really? Gone to his happy place had he?
Surely he went on the paper run because he had a paper run to go on. Surely his dad used a silencer when he shot himself because there was a silencer on the damn thing already (how many suicides use a silencer? More like how many murder suicides stop to take it off. Not to mention, well, statistics 101: what you are looking at is 100% likely to be).
Surely, I don't know, the guy living in the caravan with all the empty shell casings in it might have an idea or two how to unlock the gun? Which one was estranged from the whole family again? Oh, that's right.
What reminded me of the OJ case was the dude saying "I can't figure out how to reach the trigger like this", like a man trying to pull on a pair of gloves with his fingers spread. Comedy theater bullshit.
Was there a bloodstain on the washing machine? Yes. David did the washing every morning. Like he said he did that day. Found his sister, banged his head and gave himself a minor concussion running for help, found the rest of the family, and lost an hour. Called 111 in a confused state, cleared up when asked simple questions.
...
Isn't it all just like with Mark Lundy where the police proved it was absolutely impossible for him to have done it and the jury convicted anyway? Because, you know, he did look a bit weird at the funeral on TV, eh. The Bain boy? He wore that funny jersey, must be guilty.
-
O dear.
Tussock.
Go read more.
(For instance, DB -in my reading of the evidence- shot his family AFTER doing most of his paper run. And - just how did Stephen's blood get on DB's clothes? And, just how did DB get scratch wounds on himself? A frantic 14yrold fighting for his life?)And Mark Lundy is NOT an innocent, convicted.
He's rightfully convicted.Do you subscribe to "Investigate"?
-
Oh dear,
Islander.
Lundy, faster than a speeding bullet, a motiveless killer.
But then, he was fat. So that proves it, eh?Bold Gene Work.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.