It's a classic battle of wills; two men who have an unshakeable belief that whatever they say is 100% correct. It's been polite so far, but things are just starting to get to the tetchy stage.
Laws says on his Facbook page:
Who killed the Bain Family ... David or Robin??
Michael says David and Joe Karam says Robin,
And why is this relevant? Because the Bain defence team are after millions of taxpayer money in compensation.
Michael says David and Joe Karam says Robin,
And why is this relevant? Because the Bain defence team are after millions of taxpayer money in compensation.
We tend to agree. The Bain case is the classic New Zealand whodunnit. That Bain is seeking compensation for imprisonment for a crime which many, ourselves included still believe he committed is disquieting to say the least. Today's debate will change nothing, but with the pro-Bain hysteria that Joe Karam and his supporters whipped up, it is noteworthy that it is taking place at all.
4 comments:
Regardless of the view of the general public, isn't it offensive to the idea of democracy and the rule of law that we should allow our personal opinions to lead us to condemn somebody else using a process open to them under the law?
After all, if a contract you signed was breached by the opposite party, would they be justified in condeming you going to Court to recover the money because they believed they were correct?
This anti-democratic and unjust attitude is infecting New Zealand more and more. Our countryment do not seem to realise that a fair and just process, open to all, is often more important than the outcome. In this case, Bain was acquitted and he should be allowed to make his application for compensation. Whether he is successful or not is, in this debate, irrelevant.
Don Mathias, one of NZ's great intellectual lawyers, has this to say about the ongoing debate:
"There will always be differences of opinion over who was the murderer. People who were not at the trial and who did not hear all the witnesses and see all the evidence cannot possibly have worthwhile opinions on that issue. Even people who sat through the whole case disagree on its outcome. If people can't agree on whether there was a reasonable doubt, how can they agree on whether on the balance of probabilities the acquitted David Bain should receive compensation?"
I agree with him fully, which is why I have never said whether I think Bain is guilty or not.
Anyway, Laws is an idiot, so why would anybody think he has the truth in this matter?
Your points are well made, as ever FE Smith - especially the final one!
FES, as ever your thoughts are concise and to the point, especially about Mr Laws.
Don lectured me 30 odd years ago in criminal law. a very clever man with a dry almost arid sense of humor
Alex - a question for you.
Is acquitted the same as not proved?
Like Inv2 I think David is guilty.
Post a Comment