Think about that a little, if the police in this case knew something which was material to the truth they would only reveal that if it suited the case against David, but if it didn't they would hold tight on the evidence. Something like Weir did with the added evidence of Mrs Laney and Sanderson the vision and glasses specialist. They would even break the rule to investigate all suspects, not do, as DS Doyle did, ignore investigations of incest against Robin Bain and therefore a motive - because they (police)' had a murder to solve.'
So it's perplexing that the one who has had so many rules broken in order to wrongfully place him in prison is subject to rules none the less. In an ordered society we need laws and rules, in most cases they are for our safety and most people prefer to be law-abiding and respect the law because foremost it is for the common good, then the good of each of us individually. That sounds sort of nice to me until I reflect that David obeyed the rules, helped out police and much as he could and was repaid by having a case fabricated against him. Questions he couldn't answer, because he didn't know the answer, where left hanging over him as though guilt, propositions were put to him of which there could be no explanation but which left a spectre of guilt. His most innocent comments were turned against him, his distress was weighed against him as guilt. The rules didn't help David. Even when the case went to the Court of Appeal, on the what was the second or third occasion, the rules were broken there as well because the Appellant Judges decided to act as a Jury, despite having misunderstood the evidence to such an extent that they spoke about the exit point of the suicide bullet when in fact it never left Robin's brain as is observed by the single wound without exit.
Reflecting on the whole situation one could gain the impression that David was the only one obeying the rules, whether by faith or morality he told the truth. When all else had left David, he held onto the truth that he hadn't killed his family and as later the correct evidence would show - he hadn't even been in the house at the time of their deaths. If one can imagine a nightmare, few alive today would know better how an enduring nightmare never leaves the perspective, reminders of it are all around - each content that they can never be escaped. So why have I written about rules today, what possibly drives this blog? The rules for determining the eligibility and quantum of compensation - attached below.
Today when people such as Bill Hodge explain for the public's 'benefit' what David will need to do to receive compensation but unable to resist entering a new scenario into the equation - that Robin was asleep in the chair when he was shot despite there being no evidence of that or any at all that he was shot by anyone but himself, we have the rules as set out on the Ministry site. Some of my friends sent the details to me, they were very happy and now I understand why having read the rules. We know from the rules that had Justice Binnie decided to advise the Minister that compensation didn't apply the Minister simply writes to the applicant declining the compensation. If, on the other hand, the recommendation is Yes to compensation because the applicant is deemed to be 'innocent on the balance of probabilities' and so therefore the advice is Yes the Minister takes the recommendation to Cabinet. The Minister has already been reported that she will be consulting Cabinet, so under the rules - compensation has been recommended by the person tasked with the job.
I wonder how David feels now, as I wonder how he has felt for the past 18 years since his nightmare began. Could he be happy or indeed feel only crushed because life has crushed him so much since that morning in Dunedin when nightmares came to his wakened hours. I wonder how his supporters might feel, those that have never moved from him an inch.
Though I also wonder at the hate-siters whose names today will not grace this page. Those that threatened and lied, who even attacked young children, their parents or anyone that didn't agree with them. I hope their hate hardens in their veins, and for those that played a part in the false imprisonment of David Bain feeling no shame for doing so, today shame gathers at their feet and will forever more be the footprints they leave.
Somehow it seems fitting that there should be someone to thank but I wonder what for? It's hard to decide, for being decent, believing in the truth and searching it out? Because those that have, haven't done so for thanks but rather for something more tangible than the rules - for fairness, for you and I to understand that the truth is to be loved and that there is no rule for that.
Click to enlarge
History, I'm afraid to say, will unfortunately prove me right and show John Key as the dirtiest mongrel of a politician this country has ever known. David Bain won't receive compensation for time spent in prison as a result of being framed by police, that decision was made some time ago by Key and his associates and in particular the individual he appointed Minister of Justice. Judith Collins is lying in the same bed as Martin Van Beynen. Its so blatantly clear now why Key appointed Collins. I have lost count of the times I've heard a politician claim government cannot be seen to be interfering in the day to day running of police.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have in this country now is police interfering in the day to day running of government.
Collins will excuse every deliberate mistake made by police in framing David Bain to avoid paying compensation.
There is a blatant conflict of interests with Collins being the individual who will make the final decision because you cannot lie down with pigs and not smell like them.
I am angry that this dirty national government is stooping to this low.
Altruism.
ReplyDeleteJoe, the 'friends' and others did what they did because it was something that needed to be done, because society had failed one of their own. They probably didn't know what they had taken on at the start or what it would demand from them, but they carried on because of some essential goodness.
The lawyers did what they did because it was their jobs, yes, but most have gone way beyond the requirements of their jobs and have done what they did (putting in long unpaid hours) because it was the right thing to do.
The others
The hate-siters, however, are another matter. There are apparent motives for some of the key players: all selfish. Kent Parker? He very clearly has some personal issue with Joe Karam and it has never seemed to have been about anything other than Kent and Joe, for him. Self-aggrandisement and fame/notoriety is a very detectable motive for him. Vic Purkiss? a game, being part of a 'club' where the sport was spiteful humour and kicking a man that was down; not clever and easily led by his associations with police and apparently, a juror. Mel? well, that is transparently obvious: attention-seeking and a lack of self-awareness and inability to disentangle her own issues. The spiteful gossips (annette, glenda, the Christchurch mob, christine and rita being the leading lights) seem to be motivated by whatever motivates the cackling hyenas of society that leap in and snap and snarl at prey that is brought down by the mob. Loneliness, wanting to be someone, a fundamental spite and mean-spiritedness. Suggests an insecurity: a need to bring others down in order to feel good about themselves. Or just plain old nastiness. The old men: motivated by identifying with Robin; by connections to police, witnesses, or church and social groups; by too little to do with their time and too little self-awareness. And, in some cases it seems, by horror and conservatism: the refusal to accept that one of them, Robin, could do such a thing; that the society which they have upheld and believed in could get things so drastically wrong; that police who are meant to be beyond reproach could be so plain stupid.
Rules
Rules would not be needed if society was fair and honourable. The rules you talk of (about compensation) are to protect from the second type of person: the spiteful, stupid, selfish and corrupt. Rules are not always followed, as we have seen. But where they are not followed, the deviation from them needs to be justified, for the sake of a healthy society. But rules are not an end in themselves, they are a mechanism for maintaining decency and honour. Some need them, for some they are superceded by their own internal rules by which they operate.
But if this whole saga has shown us anything, it's that we need more rules: because people are not being governed by fairness and decency. The rules of cyberspace and social media are being sorted out, and Kent's hubris is in process of receiving its own special nemesis.
The disgraceful media performance over this case and others - the unbelievable biased reporting particularly by van beynen but others too, where extremely important evidence has been hidden from the public allowing the mob to launch into the sort of frenzy that they have done - needs to be regulated. It is simply not fair, or decent, or just; and does as much harm as the failures in the justice system itself. Clearly, the media are not capable of properly regulating themselves. So lets have some more rules.
Excellent reading, observer. I agree with all you say, but you seem to have omitted one group that continues to amaze me, the family. I understand the concept of 'one of their own' doing such a thing, but David is one of theirs. So why their nastiness, surely it's not just about the money (although that is a strong motivator). I wonder whether their stance is about guilt - the guilt of not paying attention to a family that was struggling, the guilt of ignoring Robin's instability. Strange thing is, now that David's innocence is going to be without question, they are going to be lumbered with more guilt. I do wish I could find it within myself to feel some sort of sympathy for them, but I can't.
DeleteThe family? Probably because they were convinced by the cops that David did it. Their behaviour towards him can only be explained by that belief, surely?
DeleteSo not only do they have the challenge of overturning long-held beliefs that they have obviously come to regard as 'truths' rather than mere beliefs, but also they have to confront their own behaviour. The extended family are apparently christian, yet they are faced with having contravened some basic tenets of Christianity, and that must make it even harder. They have badly let down one of their own, and in doing so have betrayed their own brother/sister who would have trusted and expected that in the event of something happening to them, their own siblings and wider family would care for their son. Instead they have spoken out against David, spoken ill of him, contributed to the public denigration and misconception of him. That's a lot to front up to and live with.
Michael Bain made a big issue of 'family honour'. Well, I guess now is his chance to show whether that 'honour' has any real substance, or is just a self-serving word.
They owe David an apology, a public one that is demonstrably sincere. They owe him restitution of his inheritance, not just the money, but the things that by right belong to him that they have taken for themselves and disposed of.
And they have a right to be angry, very angry, with the system that has caused such a tragic breach within a family that had already suffered such a tragedy.
It will be interesting to watch whether they have the decency, honour and courage to make reparation. I hope they have.
I wouldn't be surprised if Michael saw David's guilt as the opportunity to distance himself with the inference that the 'family honour' was not upheld because of Robin's choice of marriage partner, and although if Margaret were not directly blameworthy then it was her genes that 'infected' the 'bloodline.' Consider arguments where a one spouse blames family problems as having come from the other spouse's 'side.' There is a complex disassociation displayed from Michael Bain, something that seems to go hand in hand with his willingness to first of all be so readily be convinced of David's guilt, but most tellingly by not being unwilling to absorb all the subsequent material which show his innocence. Nobody can be so absolutely confident in a 'fact' where there are undoubted contradictions of that 'fact' which undermine or disprove it, unless having some difficulties of mind.
DeleteI'd like to think that he would be angry or upset but I have doubts that he has the capacity to be moved by the truth of this matter which is why he so readily absorbed the allegation of David's guilt before the inquiry was completed. He is in a position now that to apologise would show his critical mistakes or perhaps even malice, I doubt he is ready for that. I could be wrong, but I remain sceptical that he is willing to find the truth within himself.
All good points made above.
ReplyDeleteAs for the extended family. I do hope David does the right thing and thanks them publicly for the return of his rightful inheritance and their heartfelt apologies for the way they have treated him over the last 18 or so years.
Another unfortunate aspect is that David's grandmother and his cousin, Michael?, did support him and we shouldn't get that fact lost in the translation. More reason to be critical of Michael, the uncle, speaking out in the way he has because at the very least he had a financial stake in the ruining of David's name and never in fact spoke for the entire family - having likely appointed himself spokesman.
Delete