Author Topic: David Bain  (Read 10893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #90 on: January 30, 2017, 07:20:PM »
Invoking the element of surprise has a fatal flaw, it makes it extremely difficult to line up for a suicide compatible trajectory.
Back to the drawing board old chap.
This was a real suicide alright, you really should examine trajectories, these solve Bamber, they solve Bain.
Robin Bain had a morning routine and stuck to it. David was waiting behind the alcove curtain and shot from there. Why does Robin bring in the morning paper, why does he change his clothing entirely after the murders and why wear opera gloves if you're going to kill yourself anyway?

You haven't read half of the previous few posts..

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2021, 07:51:PM »
Has anyone seen this drama by any chance?  https://youtu.be/GvofzTf9ybQ
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 06:38:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #92 on: February 11, 2021, 06:47:AM »
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/jeremy-bamber-and-david-bain-parallels-and-similarities

I can't access the other episodes as the site is telling me I have to be resident in New Zealand. I would watch Episode 1 on #91 before it's taken down for copyright reasons.

David won't be watching..https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/ghoulish-why-david-bain-wont-watch-black-hands-tv-series
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 07:46:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #93 on: February 12, 2021, 10:32:PM »
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 10:46:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #94 on: February 13, 2021, 01:32:PM »
Get these before they're taken down.

https://youtu.be/zqElPGzc8uI

https://youtu.be/KYs9RK0G5vg

https://youtu.be/X0c2bHrSjhk


https://youtu.be/Cj-cARr3Ezg

Thanks for posting these.  I watched the Black Hands podcasts when they came out as I always had a distant interest in the case, and I hadn't realised until recently that there had also been a New Zealand TV series.  It looks well-made.

I've never really been able to make my mind up about the case.  I think it's a bit like the Bamber affair: probably he did it, but the evidence doesn't quite make the bar of proof, as there's that bit of reasonable doubt.

What's interesting is that the UK Privy Council were willing to quash the conviction on grounds that seem somewhat weaker than those advanced by Jeremy Bamber's supporters.  This suggests to me that an external court that works beyond domestic social and political pressures can often take a more neutral view of things, due to its detachment.  Another possible example of this principle in operation is the European Court of Human Rights, which has sometimes handed down rulings that are domestically unpopular but nevertheless consistent with law - including the case brought by Vintner and other prisoners, among them Jeremy, to challenge whole life orders. 

One would like to think an ordinary English appeal court or administrative court could work perfectly well in this way, as it is detached from the immediacy of events, but appeal judges are situated in the society from which the cases arises, and it would be naive to believe that they can be entirely impartial.  The 2002 appeal judgment in the Bamber case is a demonstration of this, in my view.

Maybe the Bamber case would also benefit from the more impartial purview of an overseas court?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 01:33:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #95 on: February 13, 2021, 03:27:PM »
Thanks for posting these.  I watched the Black Hands podcasts when they came out as I always had a distant interest in the case, and I hadn't realised until recently that there had also been a New Zealand TV series.  It looks well-made.

I've never really been able to make my mind up about the case.  I think it's a bit like the Bamber affair: probably he did it, but the evidence doesn't quite make the bar of proof, as there's that bit of reasonable doubt.

What's interesting is that the UK Privy Council were willing to quash the conviction on grounds that seem somewhat weaker than those advanced by Jeremy Bamber's supporters.  This suggests to me that an external court that works beyond domestic social and political pressures can often take a more neutral view of things, due to its detachment.  Another possible example of this principle in operation is the European Court of Human Rights, which has sometimes handed down rulings that are domestically unpopular but nevertheless consistent with law - including the case brought by Vintner and other prisoners, among them Jeremy, to challenge whole life orders. 

One would like to think an ordinary English appeal court or administrative court could work perfectly well in this way, as it is detached from the immediacy of events, but appeal judges are situated in the society from which the cases arises, and it would be naive to believe that they can be entirely impartial.  The 2002 appeal judgment in the Bamber case is a demonstration of this, in my view.

Maybe the Bamber case would also benefit from the more impartial purview of an overseas court?
If this television docudrama hasn't convinced you of David Bain's guilt then nothing will. As for the ECHR 
it was not envisaged at its inauguration that it would be dealing with convicted murderers' right of release.  As a rule I'd prefer to keep the judicial system of long-established Western democracies within the boundaries of the nation state.

 The R v Jeremy Bamber 2002 appeal judgement was exhaustive and came after what was regarded by some as the less than thorough 1989 Lord Lane judgement.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 03:27:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #96 on: February 13, 2021, 04:37:PM »
If this television docudrama hasn't convinced you of David Bain's guilt then nothing will. As for the ECHR 
it was not envisaged at its inauguration that it would be dealing with convicted murderers' right of release.  As a rule I'd prefer to keep the judicial system of long-established Western democracies within the boundaries of the nation state.

 The R v Jeremy Bamber 2002 appeal judgement was exhaustive and came after what was regarded by some as the less than thorough 1989 Lord Lane judgement.

I don't watch docudramas for the purpose of deciding on somebody's guilt, Steve.  I look at the actual evidence.  That's kind of the point.  It's very telling about your mindset that you should say that, though.

The 2002 appeal judgment was certainly exhaustive in its scope, but I'm not sure it was exhaustive in the depth of understanding brought to the case and the evidence.  Ultimately it could well be that Jeremy does not have, and never has had, one clinching argument that demonstrates conclusively the legal unsafety of the convictions; equally, it could be that there is not one single point that demonstrates his guilt and some small but important room for doubt. 

I think it is a case that is stuck in that grey area and always will be and probably the question of whether Jeremy should be released rests on how much latitude an appeal court is prepared to give to the legal safety question, given the seriousness of the offences and the likely political fallout for the criminal justice system were it to be decided that the convictions were unsafe all along.  It won't look good.

My view is that the convictions are not safe and should have been quashed in 2002. (I assume any attempted re-trial at that point would have been undermined by the Essex Police decision a few years earlier to destroy key evidence, so he would in due time have been released).

I think the Bain case suffers from a similar problem.  It inhabits a grey area, and I must repeat my observation of how interesting it is that the UK Privy Council saw fit to quash Bain's convictions on grounds somewhat weaker than those that could avail Jeremy Bamber.

I disagree with you that judicial procedures should be confined to a nation-state, though there is a nuance to this.  I don't believe what we might call an 'exterior court' should be supreme over domestic courts, and in point of fact the ECHR technically isn't.  Besides, we entered into the Convention willingly under treaty and it was an Act of Parliament that domesticated Convention rights.  It wasn't imposed on us.  Although I am on the Right of the political spectrum, and I abhor European federalism of the sort advocated by supporters of the EU, at the same time I recognise that the domestic judiciary in England may benefit from the tempering influence of an exterior court that can examine and review cases free of domestic social and political pressures.  I assume New Zealand retained its affiliation to the UK Privy Council until recently for similar reasons.

I somewhat agree with you about the ECHR's original intent.  The Convention was established as a way of ensuring that certain European countries without strong traditions of due process and rule of law adhered to basic principles of decency, and Britain signed purely in order to add its weight and backing to the initiative, not because it was thought that Britain itself had been found wanting in these areas.  Even so, we signed what we signed and the rules apply to us as much as anybody else, and in Continental criminal justice systems, the prevailing thinking has moved away from life sentences.  The choice, if we don't like it, is that we either seek a 'national adjustment' of how the Convention applies to us on the basis that we have different legal traditions to other Convention states, or we withdraw from the Convention.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 04:40:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #97 on: February 13, 2021, 05:55:PM »
I don't watch docudramas for the purpose of deciding on somebody's guilt, Steve.  I look at the actual evidence.  That's kind of the point.  It's very telling about your mindset that you should say that, though.

The 2002 appeal judgment was certainly exhaustive in its scope, but I'm not sure it was exhaustive in the depth of understanding brought to the case and the evidence.  Ultimately it could well be that Jeremy does not have, and never has had, one clinching argument that demonstrates conclusively the legal unsafety of the convictions; equally, it could be that there is not one single point that demonstrates his guilt and some small but important room for doubt. 

I think it is a case that is stuck in that grey area and always will be and probably the question of whether Jeremy should be released rests on how much latitude an appeal court is prepared to give to the legal safety question, given the seriousness of the offences and the likely political fallout for the criminal justice system were it to be decided that the convictions were unsafe all along.  It won't look good.

My view is that the convictions are not safe and should have been quashed in 2002. (I assume any attempted re-trial at that point would have been undermined by the Essex Police decision a few years earlier to destroy key evidence, so he would in due time have been released).

I think the Bain case suffers from a similar problem.  It inhabits a grey area, and I must repeat my observation of how interesting it is that the UK Privy Council saw fit to quash Bain's convictions on grounds somewhat weaker than those that could avail Jeremy Bamber.

I disagree with you that judicial procedures should be confined to a nation-state, though there is a nuance to this.  I don't believe what we might call an 'exterior court' should be supreme over domestic courts, and in point of fact the ECHR technically isn't.  Besides, we entered into the Convention willingly under treaty and it was an Act of Parliament that domesticated Convention rights.  It wasn't imposed on us.  Although I am on the Right of the political spectrum, and I abhor European federalism of the sort advocated by supporters of the EU, at the same time I recognise that the domestic judiciary in England may benefit from the tempering influence of an exterior court that can examine and review cases free of domestic social and political pressures.  I assume New Zealand retained its affiliation to the UK Privy Council until recently for similar reasons.

I somewhat agree with you about the ECHR's original intent.  The Convention was established as a way of ensuring that certain European countries without strong traditions of due process and rule of law adhered to basic principles of decency, and Britain signed purely in order to add its weight and backing to the initiative, not because it was thought that Britain itself had been found wanting in these areas.  Even so, we signed what we signed and the rules apply to us as much as anybody else, and in Continental criminal justice systems, the prevailing thinking has moved away from life sentences.  The choice, if we don't like it, is that we either seek a 'national adjustment' of how the Convention applies to us on the basis that we have different legal traditions to other Convention states, or we withdraw from the Convention.
Since you asperse my judgement (and not for the first time), I didn't make my mind up purely on Martin van Beynen's docudrama. I suggest that you read the posts on this thread made before you joined, which might elucidate.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-bain-reporter-martin-van-beynen-justifies-why-he-thinks-bain-is-guilty/JRRWEPZ6RAU7A4X2MBFBP3BJWA/

It's the very depth of understanding which is the concept somehow lacking within yourself which leads you to the conclusions you do, including the ludicrous remark that on a bad day you're "96% certain that Jeremy Bamber is guilty though he is not a predator."

Could I also clarify one further point for members as you have repeated it twice now and it may inadvertently mislead:although the Privy Council quashed David Bain's conviction he was not released on the spot, as was the case with the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, for example. David Bain was given a retrial in Christchurch, a bit like a crime which was committed in Manchester being tried in south London. Enough said.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #98 on: February 13, 2021, 06:11:PM »
Since you asperse my judgement (and not for the first time), I didn't make my mind up purely on Martin van Beynen's docudrama. I suggest that you read the posts on this thread made before you joined, which might elucidate.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-bain-reporter-martin-van-beynen-justifies-why-he-thinks-bain-is-guilty/JRRWEPZ6RAU7A4X2MBFBP3BJWA/

I have read through the thread.  I don't find it very enlightening, from either point-of-view.  I will be polite and say that we have fundamentally different approaches to things.  I rely as much as possible on evidence and my approach is rigorous and unbiased.  You prefer to consider the psychological aspects of cases.  Much of what you take seriously I would just dismiss as gossip and largely irrelevant.  I don't take docudramas, documentaries and gossipy books very seriously, though that that is not to say they aren't of some use.

It's the very depth of understanding which is the concept somehow lacking within yourself which leads you to the conclusions you do, including the ludicrous remark that on a bad day you're "96% certain that Jeremy Bamber is guilty though he is not a predator."

I did not say that you lack an in-depth understanding of the Bamber case, so I'm not sure why you consider it necessary to cast aspersions on my own judgement.  You are convincing no-one here. 

Could I also clarify one further point for members as you have repeated it twice now and it may inadvertently mislead:although the Privy Council quashed David Bain's conviction he was not released on the spot, as was the case with the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, for example. David Bain was given a retrial in Christchurch, a bit like a crime which was committed in Manchester being tried in south London. Enough said.

I have not stated any such thing, and as usual, you are wrong anyway.  In fact, David Bain was bailed shortly after the Privy Council quashed his conviction, and he remained on bail until his re-trial.  This is something you appear not to be aware of.

Why do you think it is that whenever you try to correct me, you always turn out to be wrong and I end up correcting you instead?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 06:12:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #99 on: February 13, 2021, 06:41:PM »
I have read through the thread.  I don't find it very enlightening, from either point-of-view.  I will be polite and say that we have fundamentally different approaches to things.  I rely as much as possible on evidence and my approach is rigorous and unbiased.  You prefer to consider the psychological aspects of cases.  Much of what you take seriously I would just dismiss as gossip and largely irrelevant.  I don't take docudramas, documentaries and gossipy books very seriously, though that that is not to say they aren't of some use.

I did not say that you lack an in-depth understanding of the Bamber case, so I'm not sure why you consider it necessary to cast aspersions on my own judgement.  You are convincing no-one here. 

I have not stated any such thing, and as usual, you are wrong anyway.  In fact, David Bain was bailed shortly after the Privy Council quashed his conviction, and he remained on bail until his re-trial.  This is something you appear not to be aware of.

Why do you think it is that whenever you try to correct me, you always turn out to be wrong and I end up correcting you instead?
But you'e misleading members again aren't you? The Privy Council in London said he should remain in custody until his retrial. It was only the High Court in Christchurch which bailed him to stay with Joe Karam, who with his starlike status gave the accused the legitimacy he needed to get off.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #100 on: February 14, 2021, 12:39:PM »
But you'e misleading members again aren't you? The Privy Council in London said he should remain in custody until his retrial. It was only the High Court in Christchurch which bailed him to stay with Joe Karam, who with his starlike status gave the accused the legitimacy he needed to get off.

I am not misleading anybody.  You are.  Why do you do this when you know anybody can just look back at the posts?

First, I never stated that he had been released.  You're the one misleading people by claiming that I did when I didn't.  I said his conviction had been quashed.  Whether he was released or not never occurred to me, as it's simply not relevant to the point being made.  I assume people here have sufficient knowledge to realise that when a murder conviction is quashed, it does not necessarily follow that the prisoner will be released, as the Crown may wish to pursue a re-trial.   

Second, in fact he was released, as you've just admitted.  It's obvious you didn't know this.  It's just that your ego doesn't allow you to admit it.

Not for the first time, you are starting an argument over absolutely nothing because you've got yourself worked up about a case that you have nothing to do with. 

Can I suggest you take a rest from the forum for a while and calm down?

« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 01:03:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #101 on: February 14, 2021, 03:02:PM »
I don't need a hiatus or a name change. I'll let members decide on whether your "depth of understanding" phrase in #96 is fitting, given some of your previous comments on this site.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #102 on: February 14, 2021, 03:58:PM »
I don't need a hiatus or a name change. I'll let members decide on whether your "depth of understanding" phrase in #96 is fitting, given some of your previous comments on this site.

"I'll let members decide...", seems to be a favourite phrase of yours.  Thankfully, this Forum is not a democracy, so you will not be able to rouse a mob against me for the fake crime of 'misleading members', something I have not done.

Regarding David Bain, I’m not going to say that I think him definitely guilty, as based on what I have read about the case, it does seem that there is a small grey area of reasonable doubt that his lawyers cleverly exploited.  But I will say this, and I’ll let others read between the lines: I am slightly surprised that the UK Privy Council would quash the convictions on what mostly seem like fairly weak grounds; and, I think it would have been better for all concerned, including David Bain himself, if Joe Karam had left this alone and let David serve out his sentence.  It’s likely he would have been released in a few years anyway.

Again, I emphasise that I cannot say for sure that he is guilty, but from a distant vantagepoint the case looks very much like an emotionally-troubled young man had finally lost it and run amok.  We must, of course, think of Stephen, Arawa and Laniet, who had full lives ahead of them.  It is an appalling crime. 

This case does nothing to disabuse an impression I have always had of New Zealanders in general: that they tend to be slightly ‘out there’ and wacky, though normally this is in a charming way. 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: David Bain
« Reply #103 on: February 14, 2021, 04:37:PM »
"I'll let members decide...", seems to be a favourite phrase of yours. Thankfully, this Forum is not a democracy, so you will not be able to rouse a mob against me for the fake crime of 'misleading members', something I have not done.

Regarding David Bain, I’m not going to say that I think him definitely guilty, as based on what I have read about the case, it does seem that there is a small grey area of reasonable doubt that his lawyers cleverly exploited.  But I will say this, and I’ll let others read between the lines: I am slightly surprised that the UK Privy Council would quash the convictions on what mostly seem like fairly weak grounds; and, I think it would have been better for all concerned, including David Bain himself, if Joe Karam had left this alone and let David serve out his sentence.  It’s likely he would have been released in a few years anyway.

Again, I emphasise that I cannot say for sure that he is guilty, but from a distant vantagepoint the case looks very much like an emotionally-troubled young man had finally lost it and run amok.  We must, of course, think of Stephen, Arawa and Laniet, who had full lives ahead of them.  It is an appalling crime. 

This case does nothing to disabuse an impression I have always had of New Zealanders in general: that they tend to be slightly ‘out there’ and wacky, though normally this is in a charming way.
I'm not going to persist, save to say this forum is a repository of free speech, and in that sense it is a democracy. How ironic your accusation of me rabble-rousing is when it was you who spent hours dredging up old posts from myself and other members when you first arrived (or came back under your new alias) and categorigally failed.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: David Bain
« Reply #104 on: February 14, 2021, 04:54:PM »
I'm not going to persist, save to say this forum is a repository of free speech, and in that sense it is a democracy. How ironic your accusation of me rabble-rousing is when it was you who spent hours dredging up old posts from myself and other members when you first arrived (or came back under your new alias) and categorigally failed.

I'm not sure what it is you would be 'persisting' with, since - not for the first time - I'm still not clear what point you are trying to make.

I don't believe there really is a point to you.  You just come on here to pick fights with certain people who you believe represent a threat to the narratives you wish to push here.  I dragged up old posts in order to demonstrate that this is something you have been doing for years and years, since you first joined the forum.  I believe I categorically succeeded, providing quotes from previous members who expressed exactly the same criticisms of you that I express now.  Thus, I proved a pattern.

As for aliases, I joined this Forum on the date you can find in my profile. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 06:43:PM by QCChevalier »