Not Guilty

282 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 12 Newer→ Last

  • Yamis,

    This sort of stuff was OK for the trial though...

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10571594

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    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.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    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).

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    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

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Imagine if jury had been selected from the Public Address System. Deliberations would have taken somewhat longer.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4086 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    This thread has given me the most *persistent* George Harrison earworm.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    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 :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    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.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3200 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    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...

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3200 posts Report Reply

  • 81stcolumn,

    Danielle - I'm struggling with the image of you wondering around humming My sweet lord....

    Nawthshaw • Since Nov 2006 • 790 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Ur geez Danielle - "here comes the son"?

    (crawls off into the night)

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    You're all punny and I was terribly literal, I'm afraid...

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Now, how the hell do *I* get rid of that one?

    (which I think I last heard in about 1990)

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    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).

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    arrrrgh!
    2 now - each competing for an ear-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Easy - my current local fave. Recommending good speakers or you'll need to imagine the bass.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19611 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    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?

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • robbery,

    jersey enriched culture

    check out the comments

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    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.

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    Jus gorgus sacha. Thanx.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4590 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    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.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2204 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    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?)

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3181 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    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.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Apparently David Bain had a 6 rounds at Shooters.. ka da boom.

    (Shooters is a Christchurch bar)

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    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

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 12 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.