David Bain: Nothing so obvious - innocent.

Anybody that read the news last week of the announcement by Judith Collins that the recommendation of Justice Binnie on the question of the innocence or guilt of David Bain would have not been surprised by the 'leaked' news today that Justice Binnie has reportedly decided that David was innocent on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, that he had recommended compensation be paid.

For others that was an obvious conclusion years ago. Joe Karam even predicted that if a retrial was held David would be found not guilty and he indeed was. That re-trial was held despite that it was the decision of Crown Law in NZ whether or not to proceed to a new trail, this followed the Privy Council finding that there had been an 'actual Miscarriage of Justice [MOJ],' quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial subject to Crown Law here either letting the conviction remain quashed or indeed retrying David.

It's debatable whether there should have been any retrial. In fact the evidence, and the speed of the Jury in deciding that David was not guilty reflect poorly on the decision. What may have been a major consideration of the Crown was that there had been 'an actual MOJ.' Even if it were, any retrial was certainly not going to remedy that it, the MOJ, had already happened and could never be corrected. On reflection the dismemberment of the case against David at the second trial showed requiring him to be tried again was arguably a continuation of the 'actual' MOJ.

Where did that MOJ start? With the Dunedin Police and no where else. It was they that proceeded with haste toward an arrest when no haste was needed. It was they that found things 'evidence'  'missed' earlier in comprehensive grid searches. They that put words in David's mouth and twisted the meanings. They who sought to influence David's family against him. They were the party that hid and destroyed evidence. As I say no re-trial was going to put that right, and no conviction would be gained again using such exploitations of the law and fairness a 2nd time. They framed David because they had no proof. They didn't frame him because they had proof or ample proof of his guilt - they had to make their proof and no conviction was going to arise from the ashes of a case that had been fabricated.

That Crown Law was willing to pick among the debris of a MOJ is a disgrace, that they even contemplated such a decision let alone act on in was no less disgraceful that the activities of Dunedin Police fabricating the case against David in 1994. So the hens are home to roost and while some may look at the Police as all responsible consider the role of Crown Law, if not at the outset but at the point they were prepared to continue the venture of an 'actual' MOJ.

I wrote above 'Nothing so obvious - innocent' in respect of the obvious failure of the police and prosecution right at the outset to not comprehend that a 'lens' doesn't not suddenly appear where there was none previously, an officer tasked with the job of being in charge of a scene that others are searching does not return at night and find what others didn't find. Laniet Bain was not going about Dunedin years before her murder saying that she was in a 'relationship' with her father in order to give David an alibi in the future. David Bain didn't need to be seen delivering his papers, because no one else could have delivered them. Robin's bruised and bloody hands were not consistent with him having been murdered, nor was his beanie being raised to expose his forehead. There is so much obvious material that showed David should never have been charged, so much obvious evidence that showed his innocence. So much bewildering logic forwarded by the Crown that was always inconsistent with not only the facts but also logic.