See also Disposable Heroes.
Category Archives: Qu’est-ce que c’est?
David Bain should receive compensation
Former All Black Joe Karam’s ongoing battle for compensation has taken a fresh turn.
New Bain inquiry will cost $400k
A new inquiry into David Bain’s bid for compensation will cost a further $400,000, Justice Minister Amy Adams says.
Ms Adams today announced that the Government had decided to hold a fresh inquiry into Mr Bain’s application.
She said Cabinet did not have the information it needed to reasonably reach a decision.
David Bain spent 13 years in prison after being found guilty of murdering his mother, father and three siblings in 1994 but was found not guilty at a retrial in 2009.
In a report released in late 2012, former Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie concluded that Mr Bain was innocent and suggested he should receive compensation.
However, the then-Justice Minister Judith Collins then sought a peer review of that report, carried out by Robert Fisher QC, which criticised the findings as legally flawed.
The Justice Minister Amy Adams talking to reporters about fresh inquiry into Bain compensation at Parliament.
Ms Adams said, despite the further delay and cost, a new inquiry was the best approach to progress Mr Bain’s claim on a proper and robust basis.
Here at Eternal Vigilance we’re about evenly divided on who we think committed the Bain murders. I’ve got both feet firmly planted in the camp that thinks that David Bain did it and that Robin Bain is innocent.
So you may be surprised to learn that I think that David Bain should receive compensation for having spent 13 years in jail after the jury at the retrial in 2009 overturned the guilty verdict delivered by the jury at the original trial in 1995. After all, the government is under no legal obligation to pay David Bain a cent, and he certainly deserves nothing.
Here are points 3 and 4 from the Executive Summary of the Memorandum for Cabinet.
3. There is no legal obligation to make payments for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. It is a matter solely for Cabinet’s discretion.
4. As Mr Bain’s application falls outside the Cabinet guidelines governing compensation claims for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, he must prove two things. First, that he is innocent on the balance of probabilities and secondly, that there are extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be considered.
Never mind David Bain! Why aren’t we all up in arms about point 3. If *you* were innocent, wrongly convicted and then spent a lengthy term in jail for a crime you never committed … wouldn’t you rightfully deserve and rightfully expect monetary compensation? I think you would.
What’s worse is that, whereas the jury at the retrial couldn’t find Bain guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he now has to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities which is a much higher standard, which is worse because it gives a semblance of justice being served. But do we have two separate justice systems in this country, or one? If a jury finds that someone was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years, why shouldn’t they automatically be eligible for compensation? Why should they have to jump through further hoops when the justice system has already reached a verdict of wrongful imprisonment? For such is what a not guilty verdict at a retrial amounts to.
It is a cornerstone of our justice system that a defendant is innocent until found guilty. The verdict of the original trial was annulled and Bain was found not guilty at the retrial, meaning he is legally innocent. If he’s legally innocent he should legally receive due compensation. It’s as simple as that.
I predict that Bain won’t receive compensation, since he’ll be unable to prove that he’s innocent on the balance of probabilities. There was no physical evidence implicating anyone other than David, and the overwhelming balance of probabilities is in favour of his guilt.
But those who want justice for Robin Bain (and that includes me) must ask themselves what’s more important. Natural justice for David Bain or the integrity of our justice system? We urgently need a law change so that compensation is automatic after a retrial delivers a not guilty verdict. As a plus we’ll never have to tolerate the charade of the next David Bain smirking at us from the pages of the MSM over and over again ad nauseam.
Screaming for Vengeance (Part 1)
[Being as how today is the 20th anniversary of the Bain murders … here’s an unfinished post I started writing last year. Now published as Part 1. Part 2 will be on the evolutionary psychology of blood feuds.]
I’m irked. In particular, I’m irked by people on Facebook screaming for vengeance. Screaming for vengeance against David Bain, Ariel Castro, Kim Dotcom … to name a few. I don’t get irked easily. But my irk threshold is exceeded when the screams for vengeance drown out the calls for justice. This post is about vengeance and justice.
David Bain mostly got what he deserved. But then there was a travesty and no more justice was served. I figure Bain’s got a clear run between now and Judgement Day. (I also figure that now is a good time to post a pic of Bain cavorting with some silly bint on a beach in Rarotonga. What is it with women and murderous psychopaths?) Folks over at the Facebook group I belong to had better get used to this. Folks mostly have. And Justice For Robin Bain is something still worth fighting for.
Ariel Castro got sentenced to … plus 1000 years. Well, that was never going to happen, was it? Castro’s body rots as we speak. I figure it’s playing catch-up with his soul. (In the U.S., wishful thinking is thinking that a 1000 year sentence is a 1000 year sentence. In NZ, it’s thinking that life means life. Let’s not forget that one of the most important reasons for putting people in prison, if not the most important, is to keep the rest of us safe from psychos.)
Check out this Facebook comment.
Dotcom is a thieving liar who will soon be deported to USA for his piracy, and hopefully thrown in jail for 100 years. The only people that support him are people that think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK
100 years in jail for running a file sharing service? Takes screaming for vengeance to a new level. And then the rest of it. Personally, I don’t believe in IP. But my co-blogger Tim and Mark over at Life Behind the IRon Drape do. They’re staunch Dotcom supporters and I’m quite sure that they don’t “think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK.” Facebook. Where pap is always on tap.
I’ve never been the vengeful type. I came to libertarianism from the left, so I have liberal sentiments. For example, I’m more Howard League for Penal Reform than I am Sensible Sentencing Trust. Jesus made it abundantly clear that Christians are supposed to visit and look after those in prison. As opposed to simply locking them up and throwing away the key. (I have a Christian friend whose choice of penpals is inmates on death row. How awesome is that?!) And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us
Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. (NIV)
God has always been the vengeful type. And he’s really big on justice. God is a just God. But, whereas God delegates the task of doing justice to us (well, to Reed mainly)
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (ESV)
he reserves for Himself the right to avenge. The key verse is found in the Old Testament and quoted twice in the New Testament. God says,
It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them (NIV)
So that’s the Biblical perspective on vengeance and justice. Justice is a Christian virtue. (And one of four cardinal virtues in Roman Catholicism.) Whereas revenge is an unchristian vice. Vengeance is justice without mercy. And you really don’t want to be on the receiving end of that, do you? So
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (KJV)
Revenge has temporal as well as eternal consequences. This is noted in the Book of Proverbs.
The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel [unmerciful or vengeful] troubleth his own flesh. (KJV)
But the Bible doesn’t really do, er, justice to the full, horrible extent of revenge’s temporal toll on those consumed by its lusts. Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big round of applause to … (drum roll …) evolutionary psychology!
[Hat tip: Whale Oil]
But not with a hammer.
With a Winchester 490 .22 semi-automatic fitted with a silencer.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
The adage has been widely attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte. It is also known as Hanlon’s razor.
When it comes to the Bain murders, there are many who are in blatant violation of this adage, including some for whom I have inordinate fondness, admiration and respect. For example
This Travisty of Justice … the conviction of Daivid Bain… is what happens when you convict some one on circumstantial evidence and a bogus police fabricated account of events.
the Police [had] been trying to make the evidence point to David.
I now think the most plausible explanation is that the Police staged this photo.
Apparently, the evidence that convicted David Bain in 1995 was “fabricated”. David Bain was the victim of a “witch hunt”. To which I say (loudly, clearly and in capital letters) BULLSHIT!
I have it on good authority (i.e., hearsay) that the police were merely incompetent. After David Bain’s badly acted 111 call, a friend of a friend of a friend was one of the first police officers on the scene. He reported that the scene was so blatantly obviously a “son kills family” scene and lame attempt at a cover-up that they thought it would be the easiest open and shut case in history … seems they were just too damn blasé about the forensics. 🙁
Here’s Rodders to give them some harsh words. Twelve reasons to worry about the Bain case.
What’s the plausible explanation? (Part 3)
(1) The rifle magazine landed on its thin edge of its own accord after Robin Bain shot himself.
(2) The rifle magazine landed on its thin edge of its own accord after David Bain shot Robin.
(3) The rifle magazine was placed there by David to make it appear as if Robin had shot himself.
(4) The rifle magazine was placed there by Robin after he shot himself.
(5) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police in an attempt to frame David for the suicide death of his father.
(6) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police in an attempt to exonerate David of the murder of his father.
(7) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police just for the lulz.
What’s the plausible explanation? (Part 2)
35 improbable things before breakfast
“Robin Bain did it.”
“I can’t believe that!” said Alice.
“Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe such improbable things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as 35 improbable things before breakfast.”
The list below was originally compiled by David Farrar during David Bain’s retrial in 2009.
- It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies.
- Again a lucky guess when David Bain told police officer they are all dead.
- The 25 minute gap between David Bain finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and remove blood.
- The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee none of which he could explain were just a coincidence.
- The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses.
- The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living.
- David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time.
- David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience.
- Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle OR someone else borrowed his clothes.
- Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder.
- The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there.
- Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood.
- David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies.
- The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit.
- Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide.
- That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. (A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.)
- Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message.
- Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder.
- Robin Bain placed fibres from David’s jersey under Stephen’s finger nails.
- Robin Bain shot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible.
- That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself.
- That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.
- That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch.
- That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.
- That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David.
- That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.
- That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.
- That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live.
- That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death.
- That Laniet’s allegations of incest with Robin were true, as were her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.
- That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.
- That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders David Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.
- That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.
- That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenage son who put up a furious fight.
- That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself.
Please read David Farrar’s post on the David Bain case for more (and the list of 3 somewhat unlikely things to believe before breakfast if you think David did it).
Rice on a chessboard
Here’s an old fable, as told in Making Great Decisions in Business and Life by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper.
In a time of hunger, the Emperor of China wanted to repay a peasant who had saved the life of his child. The peasant could have any reward he chose, but the Emperor laughed when he heard the silly payment the foolish peasant selected: rice on a chessboard. The peasant wanted one grain of rice on the first square, doubling to two on the second, doubling to four on the third, and so on. After the Emperor agreed, his servants brought one bag of rice into his court and began tediously counting rice. Soon, he called for more and more bags of rice. Shortly, he realized that all the rice in China would not be enough. In fact, the Emperor now owed the peasant more than 300 times the total amount of rice in the world!
Those who think this lesson is merely about David Bain rice will miss the bigger message …