David Bain is Not Guilty

I am glad, and hope he gets some decent compensation.

What say you?

its interesting the page reading 'What the jury didn't hear" managed to disappear from the stuff website incredibly fast..

Hintzahouse, I am glad someone else noticed that, I had just finished reading it and the page went blank, then the title disappeared from the home page. Assuming as that evidence was not allowed by the courts, they aren't allowed to report it. I was starting to think that I had been imagining things!!

Having said that, I am glad that he has been found not guilty and this is all over. I don't know however how anyone ever thought there could be a real trial after this much time, and so many years of speculation from both sides.

I too am delighted he has finally been found Not Guilty but really angry at the cost to the taxpayers (millions) to have had another trial. Privy Council should have had the balls to make a decision and leave it at that.

I have always believed he is innocent but even if he wasn't, he had already spent 13 years in prison. Apart from finally getting cleared (which I support) what a waste of so many people's time and money, particularly Joe Karam and David's many supporters.

Hintzashouse;253653 wrote: its interesting the page reading 'What the jury didn't hear" managed to disappear from the stuff website incredibly fast..

The 'disallowed evidence' was reported by Larry Williams on his NewstalkZB show between 5.00 - 6.00pm (at 8 minutes to 6.00).

Removed by Kate

Edited by Kate ...I don't think he is a danger to the rest of society like William Bell, Paul Smith or that Bailey kid. I agree that after all this time, is an accurate trial possible? So much evidence has been corrupted or destroyed. A real pity the science wasn't there back in the day as I'm sure modern forensics could have ensured a more certain outcome. Only one person will ever know the truth now.

David Bain will not get any compensation. To get this he would need to prove that he didn't do it. The jury only decided that the crown wasn't able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer.

However, with the huge national and international interest in the retrial there probably will be a book which should bring in some royalties. Also a film is being talked about so both David Bain and his main supporter shouldn't be pennyless for much longer. Also magazines do pay for interviews and that may be another (instant) money spinner for them.

I, too, am glad that it is over. I haven't really got an opinion on whether he did it or not as I didn't follow the case in each and every detail. And even if I did - anything short on spending 50something days at the court to hear all the evidence yields less information than what the jury has been given. So I guess it is fair enough to leave it to the jury to make a decision.

Edited by Kate ...

Sorry...if you want to speculate on who did what that's great. But talkback radio is generally owned by large companies who can afford to fight defamation suits. This website isn't I can't afford to let some of this stuff stay on this site....

About the story that disappeared off the Stuff website, from the little I've heard about it, it sounds highly defamatory and should never have been published/broadcast. The law says a publisher/broadcast must prove that what they written/said is true - now, if this information wasn't in the trial for the prosecution, then I would presume it was highly suspect in its veracity (to the editor or whoever withdrew it).

Defamation is one of the few times in law that a defendant must prove something is true (as opposed to just casting reasonable doubt). The only other time I've heard of it is in regards to compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted and later pardoned/found not guilty, such as the David Dougherty case and now (potentially) David Bain. DB will have to prove he is innocent on the law of probabilities - that's an incredibly high legal standard and virtually impossible to do unless (like David Dougherty) you have something totally concrete (DNA in his case) to prove you are innocent. For that reason, I doubt David Bain will get compensation.

While this whole saga did cost a lot of money, I'm glad there was a new trial, in the interests of justice and truth. Four people were horribly murdered, as they lay in their beds sleeping. If the first trial was a farce - and that's what we have to assume - then a second trial was only fit and proper so that justice is done (and seen to be done) for the people who died, not just those of us who carry on.

It's an absolute tragedy about the years David Bain spent in jail and that he had to go through a trial again but justice has to be more important than one person. Otherwise, there's no justice at all.

Sorry Kate didn't think of it that way

Kate, I would recommend deleting the link too - showing someone how to find a defamtory statement could be just as bad as actually doing the defaming.

Not sure if that's been tested in a court of law yet but it is a potential risk to consider.

Pumpkingirl;253698 wrote: About the story that disappeared off the Stuff website, from the little I've heard about it, it sounds highly defamatory and should never have been published/broadcast. The law says a publisher/broadcast must prove that what they written/said is true - now, if this information wasn't in the trial for the prosecution, then I would presume it didn't check out and therefore is highly suspect in its veracity.

Not necessarily...it could have been hearsay evidence (you told Kate who told me), it could have been considered too prejudicial to the defendant (i.e., past criminal charges that were not of a similar nature to current charges, or a reference to a previous, less-than-savoury, employment), or any other number of reasons why that evidence wasn't allowed before the jury, without it being considered suspect in veracity...remember, that's what the jury is there for, to decide just what veracity any evidence has.

Y'all know that the trial lasted some 50+ days, including time for the jury to deliberate, but what is probably not as well known is the number of pre-trial conferences, pre-deposition conferences, status hearings, list hearings, and interlocutory applications that may have taken place.

A minimal criminal charge usually goes thru' a list hearing, a status hearing, pre-dep conference, depositions, pre-trial conference and then trial. And that's not including any bail hearings, bail variation hearings, or other not-as-usual applications (such as a s.347 hearing). I know of a case that's had an application brought up thru' to the High Court, and that was before depositions took place, let alone trial.

Diane

NZ Appaloosas;253701 wrote: ...any other number of reasons why that evidence wasn't allowed before the jury, without it being considered suspect in veracity...remember, that's what the jury is there for, to decide just what veracity any evidence has.

I wrote that badly. I meant its veracity didn't check out for the publisher and/or broadcaster, and that's why it disappeared from the website.

If you have to use the truth as your defence (as journalists do) and you can prove something to be true, you can publish it. That this story was published briefly, then quickly withdrawn would suggest a senior editor saw it and knew it was suspect on this count.

Having now got more information, I think it would be a case for defamation and I can't see how you could prove it was true.

NZ Appaloosas;253701 wrote: Y'all know that the trial lasted some 50+ days, including time for the jury to deliberate, but what is probably not as well known is the number of pre-trial conferences, pre-deposition conferences, status hearings, list hearings, and interlocutory applications that may have taken place.

Almost all of Bain's hearings (even callovers) have been reported, so I was wondering why you were mentioning this?

Well I am glad it is over Too and I think justice has been done and now David can be a free man and get on with his life in peace:)
Cheers