Who was it again......?

Just trying to remember the reporter who sat through 'just about' every minute of the Bain trial, noting an 'alleged' injustice but kept his mouth shut. He was the self-professed 'expert' on the Bain trial, the man who reported to the nation daily but 'forgot' to report significant and important evidence of proof of David's evidence.

He was the same dude that got a warning (lucky boy wasn't charged - maybe someone in his family interceded on his behalf, or perhaps he was just a favourite of the police, having spent years omitting facts about the Bain case and perpetuating myths) to stay away from Bain Jurors after the trial because a member of the Jury, complained that he was has harassing them.

He was an award winning journalist because of a piece he wrote regarding the Bain trial where he made accusations against the Jury - yes that's right, he never brought it to the Court's attention - obviously because most of it was probably dreamed up, and at least clearly not substantial enough to notify the Court Registrar or Judge. He also had bouts of amnesia and never told the NZ public that his idol, Robin Bain, accused fiddler, died with blood smears on his hands, and with his blood sucked inside the rifle barrel of the weapon he had dispatched himself with. He also forgot to report that David had no injuries the morning of the killings but the father had not only injuries, but blood on his palms that arrived there before his death. I guess the person was hoping for some significant adulation from those that had leaked him information, that he in turn 'leaked' onto the hate-sites in order that it 'might accidentatly' be 'leaked' onto Trade Me, perhaps to promote a continuing Miscarriage of Justice.

Such a bugger that I can't remember the reporter's name at the moment because I was reminded of him by news this week which revealed that a Juror 'announced' something that had also happened during the retrial which has been upsetting her for 3 years. Similarly, she also didn't report her 'concerns' in the required fashion by informing the Court - she 'waited' for three years and went to the TV about it. The poor thing it must have been driving her crazy - like an itch. I didn't see the show but have read about it, she apparently revealed that some jurors visited the site of the old Bain home-stead, in fact the public already knew that, also knew that some Jurors took some written material pertaining to the case, or one very similar, into the Jury room. Information already in the public domain and of no apparent concern to the authorities. But this Juror who may have identified themselves decided she needed to point out that she never found David innocent. Obviously she might well have slept through a lot of the trial because the Jury of course had been asked only if they found David Guilty or Not Guilty by the normal test, beyond reasonable doubt. Apparently she confirmed  that there had not been enough evidence to satisfy her that David was guilty - so it remains a bit of mystery as to what she was talking about and why.

Then of course I began to consider that she, like that reporter who was warned to stay away from the Jury or be prosecuted, had both followed the same line - reported something in public which actually, if true, should have been immediately reported to the Court. That reporter of course already 'had form' for Jury stalking, along with his mates from the hate-site, (some of which is recorded on this site from a couple of years ago) - where there had been reports of 'having got' Jurors. What the 'got' actually means could be part of an inquiry at some point, but it does appear to indicate some sort of relationship between at least one Juror and an 'enterprise'  said up to spread hate and undermine the Justice system.

Baffled Bill Hodge had something to say about it as well, much like his confusion over aspects of the evidence in the Bain case which he hasn't understood or simply imagined. Bill for some reason has never chosen to connect the events of Jury stalking and public revelations of the  same, or the biased publicity of the Bain case nor the connection to the hate-sites. Maybe thinking about it gives him a head ache. Right on cue fat Tony Osook reports the pending TV show on the Trade Me website and after it's airing a 'newbie' starts a thread who along with another - promptly gets banned - showing plainly that Trade Me no longer want to have anything to do with on line harassment and defamation. Extraordinarily, yawn, Don Bain, and Ralph Taylor happen along and confirm their (actual words) belief that it okay to be in 'lynch mobs' and that David needs to get use to being harassed. News for them coming up of course.

Noted in all this is Justice Binnie's report, those that once lauded his input now denigrate him despite yet not having read the report. Real sick folks people, fiddler worshippers, stalkers and law breakers. I've heard an unconfirmed report that there is some disquiet at the Ministry over where blame might be laid in Binnie's report, the public are aware that Justice Binnie made the decision to speak to two controversial figures in the prosecution of the Bain case  - ex detectives Doyle and Weir. So that avenue might be the source of any criticism that could be mentioned in the report, or indeed it might of that of the Crown's oversights in many aspects of the 'actual Miscarriage of Justice.'

So there we are folks what is the real news on the Bain case? That David is yet to see the report even though he is the petitioner - I think so, that takes some beating. But on the face of it so does the criticism of a report yet to be made public. As for the concerned Juror well I hope she feels better having got things off her chest. On the specifics of a Jury who has been much maligned it seems that every 'attack' upon it, is viewed by the hate-siters as some kind of victory, yet here we see a Juror confirming that there wasn't evidence to convict David - as if the public didn't already know that. But additionally there seems to be no appreciation of the fact that the apparent 'mistakes' of procedure that might have been made by the Jury are not shown to have been to the benefit of David - if any of it is true it can't be said that it was to his advantage and does nothing to diminish what this Juror has apparently said - no evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict David, and if the reports are accurate - the man tasked with the test of innocence has found in David's favour.