Robin Bain Documentary on TV One

Forums › Off topic › Robin Bain Documentary on TV One

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#64047 6-Jul-2010 22:52

Just watched the Robin Bain documentary.

Amazing how a 1 hour show can essentially sum up all of the facts of the case and point to the obvious conclusion.

Without the distractions of a high court and the emotion of the defendant sitting there in front of them I think some of those jurors would be questioning their call.

I just hope the justice minister was watching and will have his "DECLINED" stamp all inked up ready for David Bain's compensation application.

aimsy007

145 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#348596 6-Jul-2010 23:00

Perfectly summed up. Physical evidence speaks for itself and clearly shows there was only one person who could have committed this terrible crime. David Bain serves 13 years for 5 murders which is just over 2 1/2 years for each life.

oldmaknz

536 posts

Ultimate Geek

#348599 6-Jul-2010 23:15

He said "In my opinion, I find it odd" about 9000 times.

Pretty boring tbh.

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#348607 7-Jul-2010 00:00

Still winds me up how some of the jurors went and celebrated with him after he was cleared.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#348617 7-Jul-2010 06:06

corksta: Still winds me up how some of the jurors went and celebrated with him after he was cleared.

I bet they declined the offer of a sleepover.

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#348621 7-Jul-2010 07:45

Its funny how you guys can look at a clearly biased documentary, that tries to sum up their side of things in an hour. Ignored input from any of the defense team. didnt address a lot of the other eveidence and all that.

Im not saying that Bain is innocent, to be honest Im not sure either way. But you cant make a judgement based on one hour of television.

For billions of years since the outset of time, every single one of your ancestors survived, every single person on your Mum and Dads side, successfully looked after and passed onto you life. What are the chances of that like?

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#348624 7-Jul-2010 07:51

Balchy: Its funny how you guys can look at a clearly biased documentary, that tries to sum up their side of things in an hour. Ignored input from any of the defense team. didnt address a lot of the other eveidence and all that.

Im not saying that Bain is innocent, to be honest Im not sure either way. But you cant make a judgement based on one hour of television.

This documentary looked at the case against Robin bain only and the evidence that he committed the crime. Evidence from the defence WAS discussed, motive etc and found lacking.

There were no conclusions drawn as to who might be the offender, that was left for the viewer.

The fact is the events that would have had to have taken place for Robin to be the killer are so bizarre they are farcical. I mean how do you shoot yourself in the head, fall backwards onto a beanbag, drop a rifle magazine from your hand landing it on carpet on it's THIN edge and leave NO fingerprints on either the rifle or magazine. I guess you would have to wipe down the rifle after you died?

I've seen a number of documentaries from this journo before and they always seem to be well researched and balanced.

I supposed you think OJ is innocent as well?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

robjg63

4161 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1425

Subscriber

#348625 7-Jul-2010 07:53

marmel:
Balchy: Its funny how you guys can look at a clearly biased documentary, that tries to sum up their side of things in an hour. Ignored input from any of the defense team. didnt address a lot of the other eveidence and all that.

Im not saying that Bain is innocent, to be honest Im not sure either way. But you cant make a judgement based on one hour of television.

This documentary looked at the case against Robin bain only and the evidence that he committed the crime. Evidence from the defence WAS discussed, motive etc and found lacking.

There were no conclusions drawn as to who might be the offender, that was left for the viewer.

The fact is the events that would have had to have taken place for Robin to be the killer are so bizarre they are farcical.

I've seen a number of documentaries from this journo before and they always seem to be well researched and balanced.

I supposed you think OJ is innocent as well?

+1 - You summed it up well - So did Mr Bruce!

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#348626 7-Jul-2010 07:56

Like I said - I havent made judgement. But to say that a short tv programme can sum up ALL the evidence presented at trial to make an objective statement of guilt or not is in my opinion farsical.

We dont know what other evidence was presented at trial, what evidence was left out of the programme and what was taken out of context.

Again, I reiterate that I do not know if bain was guilty or not, and frankly I dont think I will ever be able to make an objective decision because everything that is presented in the media will have an agenda one way or the other.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#348627 7-Jul-2010 08:06

You are right the media will always focus on the emotional aspects in cases like this but if you take a step back and look at the PROVEN facts, not hearsay evidence against a dead man who cannot defend himself you are left with one conclusion.

Ask yourself WHY David's defence team made such a big deal about Robin having an "affair" with his daughter and other bizzarre behaviours that could not actually be proved? If they had to rely on defending it on the basis of the physical evidence they knew they didn't stand a chance because it all pointed to David, not his father.

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#348629 7-Jul-2010 08:10

marmel: You are right the media will always focus on the emotional aspects in cases like this but if you take a step back and look at the PROVEN facts, not hearsay evidence against a dead man who cannot defend himself you are left with one conclusion.

Ask yourself WHY David's defence team made such a big deal about Robin having an "affair" with his daughter and other bizzarre behaviours that could not actually be proved? If they had to rely on defending it on the basis of the physical evidence they knew they didn't stand a chance because it all pointed to David, not his father.

I see where you are coming from, I guess all I am trying to say is that the Jury saw ALL of the evidence presented and felt that there was enough reasonable doubt there to acquit.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#348630 7-Jul-2010 08:21

Balchy:
marmel: You are right the media will always focus on the emotional aspects in cases like this but if you take a step back and look at the PROVEN facts, not hearsay evidence against a dead man who cannot defend himself you are left with one conclusion.

Ask yourself WHY David's defence team made such a big deal about Robin having an "affair" with his daughter and other bizzarre behaviours that could not actually be proved? If they had to rely on defending it on the basis of the physical evidence they knew they didn't stand a chance because it all pointed to David, not his father.

I see where you are coming from, I guess all I am trying to say is that the Jury saw ALL of the evidence presented and felt that there was enough reasonable doubt there to acquit.

You are right there, the jury saw all of the evidence for a number of weeks.

Sometimes I think it would be better if we had a system more like the French where a judge gets more involved in the trial and deciding on guilt or innocence.

In New Zealand if you just have to prove there could be some doubt then by throwing at much s**t at the jury as possible some of it will stick.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#348664 7-Jul-2010 10:28

I personally don't believe he was ever going to have been found guilty (I believe he did it tho). After his convictions were quashed he was treated like a hero in the media, I remember that little rat John Campbell having pretty much a permanent erection while speaking to David, and the ear to ear grin he had celebrating his release beggared belief.

It was just too high a profile case for a jury to go and convict him a second time, and with some of them partying with David afterwards it kind of suggests those jurors in particular had already made their mind up before the trial even started.

As said above, if the defence can throw enough crap around and make it sound convincing then some people will believe it, and then bazinga there goes the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement for proving the charge.