| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 138782 | 2015-01-23 00:31:00 | Should David Bain receive compensation? | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1392613 | 2015-01-23 00:31:00 | Yes No Don't care |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1392614 | 2015-01-23 00:54:00 | Only if there is a high probability he was innocent so thats a no for me. If it quacks like a duck..... ;) |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1392615 | 2015-01-23 01:47:00 | I still think he did it.. | paulw (1826) | ||
| 1392616 | 2015-01-23 01:51:00 | If he did it ,NO If Didn't, YES |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1392617 | 2015-01-23 02:06:00 | The guy was quite properly locked up after being found guilty in two trials so no compensation should be paid for that. A rather suspect looking third trial found him not guilty and set him free. He should now be satisfied with that and get on with his life. | CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1392618 | 2015-01-23 02:53:00 | Ahem, he was never found "not guilty". | Zippity (58) | ||
| 1392619 | 2015-01-23 03:42:00 | Ahem, he was never found "not guilty". The retrial was held in Christchurch in 2009. It ended with Bain's acquittal on all five charges in June 2009 after five hours and 50 minutes of deliberations. Each verdict of not guilty for the five murders was greeted with cheers and applause by those in court. Source (en.wikipedia.org) Before saying anything , have a look at the Video on the left, they clearly say NOT guilty 5 x www.stuff.co.nz Video link where it says Bain Verdict : not guilty. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1392620 | 2015-01-23 04:11:00 | If he did it or not.... It's not a matter of opinion, it's a decision of law. Found not guilty, so yes he should. Doesn't matter if he was originally found guilty.....that's the case in lots of situations, in NZ I might point out Arthur Thomas..... And personal opinions based solely on what has been released in the media or books does not mean the general public has all the facts as such. You can't just decide people are guilty of things because they have a prior record of something, look dodgy, are horrible people, or whatever emotional response. It has to be a proven thing... |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1392621 | 2015-01-23 04:19:00 | If he did it or not.... It's not a matter of opinion, it's a decision of law. Found not guilty, so yes he should. Doesn't matter if he was originally found guilty.....that's the case in lots of situations, in NZ I might point out Arthur Thomas..... And personal opinions based solely on what has been released in the media or books does not mean the general public has all the facts as such. You can't just decide people are guilty of things because they have a prior record of something, look dodgy, are horrible people, or whatever emotional response. It has to be a proven thing... I'm sure Arthur was found innocent and not not guilty, and then pardoned. There is a difference. I'm just hoping David's recent offspring never gets a paper round |
plod (107) | ||
| 1392622 | 2015-01-23 04:56:00 | He like so did it. Trying to compare it to Arthur Thomas"s case is a travesty, he was stitched up. I have met Arthur Thomas stayed at his farm a couple of times overnight for aircraft pissup flyins on his airstrip. The press made him up out to be a simple man and I guess it was because he was like a stunned mullet as a lot of people would be. I found him to be humorous always cracking jokes, extroverted and an intelligent man. I spoke to his flight instructor who said he was an above average pilot and the theory exams are quite hard. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||