COMMENTARY: "Bain investigation flawed from the start," by Rachel Smalley, published by Newstalk ZB on February 18, 2016.
GIST: "A report in the New Zealand Herald this morning (February 18, 2016)) claims that a
senior judge has found that Bain does 'not' meet the threshold of
'innocent beyond reasonable doubt' and -- based on past guidelines --
that would suggest Bain is not eligible for compensation. Does he deserve compensation? He was convicted of the murder of five
members of his family in 1995, and then spent 13 years in jail before
the Privy Council declared that he had suffered a substantial
miscarriage of justice. I was Europe correspondent for TV3 at
the time of the Privy Council hearing, and sat in Downing Street in
front of the five law lords for more than a week. I watched them unravel this case - a case that at the time, Dunedin
police were never equipped to deal with. There were so many blunders, so
much was missed, had it been properly forensically investigated, I’m
convinced this case would have been an open and closed book. But
it wasn't. When police arrived they were confronted by a house of
horrors. Five people shot dead. Two young girls, shot in their beds. A
son, Stephen, who’d fought the gunman -- whoever that gunman was --
before he too was shot. A mother. She too was dead in her bed. And
a father, Robin, dead in the lounge – possibly kneeling, possibly
praying when he was shot – or, according to David Bain’s defence team,
it was Robin who was the murderer. He'd held a shot gun at an
extraordinary angle in order to kill himself, but had spared his eldest
son. You'll remember too -- on the family computer there was a
message -- “sorry”, it said. “you were the only one who deserved to
stay”. And then incredibly, just ten days after the mass shooting, the
Fire Service – with David Bain’s blessing - burnt down the house. I
remember watching the law lords - a raised eyebrow here and there, a
sideways glance, pages and pages of note-taking. They asked question
after question in their well-educated, Etonian accents. It was
clear to me then, as it is now, that based on the flawed police
investigation -- and based on the remarkable dissection of that case by
Bain’s chief supporter Joe Karam – the lords would rule a miscarriage of
justice. In a second trial, in 2009, Bain was found 'not
guilty' -- and now the government's poised to decide if Bain will be
compensated. What Ian Callinan had to ascertain in this report
-- he's the retired judge from Australia -- is whether he is satisfied
that Bain has proven his innocence on the balance of probabilities. And if that is the case, Callinan then has to say whether he believes Bain is 'innocent beyond reasonable doubt'. ........The NZ Herald says this morning that Justice Callinan has said no -- Bain is "not innocent beyond reasonable doubt". 13 years in jail. He's been found not guilty. And now his compensation claim is on very shaky ground, indeed."The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/kpmg-early-edition/opinion/rachel-smalley-bain-investigation-flawed-from-the-start/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.
The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible
years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr.
Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of
Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"
section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It
can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
