The Bain case - sudden silence.

Whether political pragmatism will ever step into the Bain case is a difficult question to answer. But if the time were right it is now. In the sudden silence since Joe Karam released a set of pristine prints with clear ridges that didn't show Robin Bain's thumb with cuts or scratches that might have explained, or given an alternative, to the monitored tests on the actual murder weapon undertaken by a number of experts. Tests which left marks of gunshot residue identical to those shown in a photo of Robin's thumb as he still lay dead on the floor in the lounge at Every. Photos which have given many people cause for further reflection on the Bain case.

One example is the silence of the police who had almost indulgently claimed that the marks were those of a 'handyman' who had been working on his house and cut and scratched his hands. Deputy Commissioner Burgess has kept very quiet since the photos of Karam were released because they make the lie of Burgess's comments. Even the most deliberate scheming cannot make marks appear, only to disappear and reappear again. It's farce really that Burgess is caught up in. Rather than delay comment, anticipating that Karam and his team would have the goods to withstand any scrutiny, Burgess entered the fray bereft of research and facts and was dished up proof that his explanation was a lemon a little over a week later.

Though more valid proof to see how the 'mountain of evidence' against David Bain is rendered to myth is from the hate-siters themselves and their assistants such as Sean Plunkett and others such as Martin Van Beynan - they all appear stumped and embarrassed. Theories about guitar strings, creases, cuts and scratches that were excitedly chorused have collapsed as it has dawned on the not so bright hate-siters, in basic English, that marks don't disappear and re-appear again. Even forgetting the police's own photos of the fingerprints they took which show no marks, and which Karam provided to the New Zealand pubic last week, a cautious, and non-hysterical approach would have rested it's decision on the autopsy report. Anyone going past the fact that the 'scratches, marks' were not noted by Dr Dempster the police pathologist was walking into gaga land. This after the fact that the prosecution in a 'excellently' executed own goal had brought 2 'exra' pathologists into give evidence contradicting Dempster's evidence as to a contact wound to Robin's head in what was one of the most fatal moves of the entire prosecution.

The silence goes even deeper, right into the hate-sites to those that decided that they were 'right thinking New Zealanders' and which perhaps accidentally gave them a mind set that it was okay to lie about the evidence, or repeat things they hadn't verified or which they didn't qualify to match facts which might cast doubt upon them. All this because they could 'see' what Privy Councillors couldn't see, what a Jury couldn't see. That this 'entitled' them to stalk other New Zealanders, threaten those that didn't agree with them, try to have people imprisoned, children taken away, destroy their businesses, lose their jobs of course is unexplainable except for the possibly of the view that it was mass 'psychosis' as was witnessed in the Peter Ellis case, and in, possibly the best known example, the Salem Witch Hunts 100s of years ago. People that wanted to watch lynching by 'torch' light and gloat at the harm they caused the 'deserving.'

Of course the Government took little notice of them, refusing to accept their petition, politely batting away their letters offering 'help' and other bizarre requests, 'warnings and advice.' Now with a Government Minister's decisions being taken to court by David Bain for analysis as to whether it breached the Bill of Rights, and other critical public safe guards, there is indeed a time to reflect and consider a pragmatic solution. Assuming that Burgess had been asked to 'speak out' by the Government prematurely on the issue of gsr being on Robin's hands, that assumption, even if correct, has not breached the Government silence held since David's Judicial Review was lodged. Something which leaves room for the Government now to move, allowing first of all a compromise to avoid the Judicial Review and what could possibly see the Minister tied up in years and getting a sound beating judicially. But of more interest to the public generally, a honouring of the Binnie report, and therefore of our Judicial system and the respect afforded the Jury 'system.' There is absolutely nothing to be lost in a 'early' decision or compromise because their is a groundswell of opinion about the GSR, and less widely, a more critical understanding of why David Bain was always innocent. Even in the minds of any of the recalcitrants, willing to exercise logic, the case against Robin is water-tight. Meanwhile, others in power might now be able to exercise respect for the various decisions that started with the Privy Council saying that David Bain had suffered 'an actual miscarriage of Justice.' They could also reflect on the International 'look' our system suffered when Binnie was attacked. Also how his reasoning 'close in and stepped back' has shown to be more absolute in substance than the 2 lines that 'disappeared' along with nearly 2 decades of David Bain's life. Disappeared lines sending the witches back to the 17th Century and bringing our Minister of Justice forward from the times when a fickle and vengeful King ruled the Judiciary and decided on 'fairness and natural justice by fanciful whim.