Black Hands Podcast (Bain Family)

Forums › Off topic › Black Hands Podcast (Bain Family)

Sam91

445 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Subscriber

Topic # 220180 29-Jul-2017 12:58

Just thought I'd post this here incase you hadn't heard of it yet. If you enjoyed Serial, Making a Murderer etc. then you should enjoy this.

More info about the podcast here.

You can listen to the podcast here:
• browser
• iTunes
• Stitcher

qwertee

198 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 25

Reply # 1833377 29-Jul-2017 14:00

I listened to the 1st podcast, It is interesting but I dont think I have the time to listen to all as they

are presented in a 10 part series.

Sam91

445 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Subscriber

Reply # 1833392 29-Jul-2017 14:24

qwertee:

I listened to the 1st podcast, It is interesting but I dont think I have the time to listen to all as they

are presented in a 10 part series.

Morning commute?

Sred

45 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Reply # 1833418 29-Jul-2017 15:56

Listened to all 10 parts and found it very good and well presented. I wasn't in NZ when the murders happened but was for the subsequent appeals and second court case. It gave a lot of background to the family and evidence for defence and prosecution. I think I need to read Joe Karams book to get his take on the murders as this is definitely a guilty sided.

reader426

1 post

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 1833426 29-Jul-2017 16:26

Thank you for presenting a conclusion that has been so painfully obvious all along.

Many critics have copped a heavy backlash from the Bain Defence Team.

And everyone seems to have forgotten that if the defence team gain an aquittal even when they know the accused to be guilty

they are still deemed to have done their legal duty.

tdgeek

8776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1328

Trusted

Reply # 1833500 29-Jul-2017 19:02

One person supports this post

reader426:

Thank you for presenting a conclusion that has been so painfully obvious all along.

Many critics have copped a heavy backlash from the Bain Defence Team.

And everyone seems to have forgotten that if the defence team gain an aquittal even when they know the accused to be guilty

they are still deemed to have done their legal duty.

Obviously thats not the case.

So, ensure you preface that with IMHO.

dejadeadnz

1008 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Subscriber

Reply # 1833597 29-Jul-2017 23:55

5 people support this post

Martin Van Beyen has been one of those annoying "journalists" who have been trying to relitigate this case in favour of the prosecution almost from the acquittal. It's pathetic. Speaking as someone who honestly doesn't know whether David Bain did not or not (and frankly don't care -- harsh as this sounds the family is dead and nothing will bring them back), the reality is that time after time neutral appellate courts have thrown out evidence that the police have tried to present and/or rejected the prosecution's arguments. And 12 members of the jury made a call.

This sort of "investigation" might be interesting if the main author had some specialised training in law or forensics. He has neither. Going forward (again bearing in mind that nothing will bring the deceased back and David Bain shows no evidence of being a threat to anybody), society would be far better off if we spent more time focusing on the problematic police and prosecution conduct and ensure that no such things occur again. But oh no, let's have another beat up.

Goosey

1254 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 69

Subscriber

Reply # 1833658 30-Jul-2017 11:53

dejadeadnz:

Martin Van Beyen has been one of those annoying "journalists" who have been trying to relitigate this case in favour of the prosecution almost from the acquittal. It's pathetic. Speaking as someone who honestly doesn't know whether David Bain did not or not (and frankly don't care -- harsh as this sounds the family is dead and nothing will bring them back), the reality is that time after time neutral appellate courts have thrown out evidence that the police have tried to present and/or rejected the prosecution's arguments. And 12 members of the jury made a call.

This sort of "investigation" might be interesting if the main author had some specialised training in law or forensics. He has neither. Going forward (again bearing in mind that nothing will bring the deceased back and David Bain shows no evidence of being a threat to anybody), society would be far better off if we spent more time focusing on the problematic police and prosecution conduct and ensure that no such things occur again. But oh no, let's have another beat up.

Big Plus One..BUT I think it mentioned in the text of the stuff section that the author was infact legal trained???

Anyhow, one sided story and all these journos perhaps need to investigate how our legal system managed to not convincingly bring this debacle to a simple yes he did it or no...not a maybe

dejadeadnz

1008 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Subscriber

Reply # 1833716 30-Jul-2017 13:49

One person supports this post

Goosey:

Big Plus One..BUT I think it mentioned in the text of the stuff section that the author was infact legal trained???

Anyhow, one sided story and all these journos perhaps need to investigate how our legal system managed to not convincingly bring this debacle to a simple yes he did it or no...not a maybe

I do stand corrected there. Van Beynen has a law degree from the 1980s. There's, however, no evidence that he's ever practiced law and has any great deal of appreciation of the complexities involved. But there is evidence that his appreciation for the laws of the land is questionable, given that a simple Google search will reveal that he and his paper were warned over harassing jurors in the Bain case in 2010. Fundamentally, my concern over this series of podcast (aka garbage) is that it seeks to relitigate a case where most of the general/essential facts are known -- of course it is suspicious that David had the blood of some of the deceased on him; of course, people might wonder how Robin managed to kill the family.

But the fact is that every single credible member of the judiciary* since the problematic prosecution/police conduct was conclusively found has backed David. This includes the Privy Council in its stinging advice (the technical term for a judgment out of the PC) that a retrial was necessary, the Supreme Court's decision chucking out significant pieces of evidence that the prosecution wished to rely on at the last retrial against Bain as being unreliable and unfairly prejudicial, and Justice Ian Binnie's independent, conclusive finding that Bain was entitled to compensation. The one guy who has been on the prosecution's side has been Robert Fisher QC, ex High Court judge whose judgement and wisdom is such that he was nicknamed Porno Bob by the legal fraternity after being caught browsing porn on his office computer whilst a judge. Oh and don't forget how he was appointed after Judith Collins didn't like Justice Binnie's conclusion and Fisher proceeded to run his own little "analysis" without observing rules of procedural justice.

Fisher's own conduct proved so problematic that ultimately his report (along with Binnie's) were both shelved and everyone started over. And we now know that the government has settled with David. Why do all these things matter? They matter because people need to show some respect towards due process and independent judicial authorities -- anyone can fire cheapshots and venture an opinion in the absence of having the requisite training and experience in resolving such matters. More importantly, there is no way that Van Beynen would have had access to all of the court files and analysed every single thing that the jurors heard. Thus, there's simply no reason to give any credence to his views.

In fact, his continuing obsession in trying to grab the limelight over a matter on which most of the protagonists have well and truly moved on tells one far more about him than the case. It also reveals a fundamental problem with our society: judicial and criminal justice matters is increasingly seen as some kind of a "free for all" where people who have no expertise and knowledge believe that they are entitled to spew whatever they care to. Yet none of these people would (rightly) ever venture an opinion on earthquake strengthening or cardio-thoracic surgery in the absence of the correct training. Why is that? More importantly, thanks to this moron Van Beynen, normal, decent people will now have to be bothered by more ignorant ravings of the Pro-Prosecution/Robin Bain camp, which consists mostly of right wing law and order idiots and "Police can do no wrong" types along with ex-cops. Nearly as annoying (although you have to give these people credit for generally being much nicer people) are those who just blindly back Bain because he looks like a nice guy. Most normal Kiwis have moved on, accepted the system has spoken, wishes those who are alive the best, and would like the system's deficiencies fixed.

I suggest anyone who's in the last camp to do everyone a favour and discourage further attention from being given to trolls like Van Beynen.

dejadeadnz

1008 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Subscriber

Reply # 1833720 30-Jul-2017 14:07

In case anyone starts throwing out Justice Callinan's report in favour of the prosecution, let me say this: when Cabinet mucked up the process of challenging Justice Binnie's conclusions to the point where they violated Bain's rights with what Fisher did (to the point where they reached a settlement) and then appointed someone else who came back with a favourable conclusion, whether Callinan was right or wrong, his decision was tainted. Hence the inevitable offering of the ex-gratia payment, which I personally called the moment Fisher's conclusions were thrown out. Really, if people would give .5% of the attention given to whether David did it or not to the systemic issues, NZ would be a far better place.

Sam91

445 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 118

Subscriber

Reply # 1833734 30-Jul-2017 14:36

Thanks for that @dejadeadnz. I only posted this thread because I'm passionate about podcasting and I thought it was exciting to see a Kiwi create a crime podcast. I didn't appreciate that it was a problem to give the podcast exposure, but I now completely understand your view.

dejadeadnz

1008 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Subscriber

Reply # 1833739 30-Jul-2017 14:45

Sam91:

Thanks for that @dejadeadnz. I only posted this thread because I'm passionate about podcasting and I thought it was exciting to see a Kiwi create a crime podcast. I didn't appreciate that it was a problem to give the podcast exposure, but I now completely understand your view.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with putting up a link to it or even discussing it. I think what becomes a problem is when people think that Van Beynen's analysis is worth more than it is (i.e. little) or, even worse, use it (and this applies to both "camps") as an exercise in auto-eroticism by confirmation bias. If anyone would actually take a time after hearing Van Beynen's podcast and then respond back with the kind of moderate, systemic issues- focused response, I suspect there might even be a net gain. But as with most of these things, it'll be the extremists that will dominate the airwaves -- people who merely want to talk about this can't be held responsible for it.