Hypocrisy
Stuff reports:
Bain’s lawyer Michael Reed is calling on Key to issue his client an immediate pardon after new information came to light, and to deal with his compensation claim ahead of other legal matters.
That’s outrageous hypocrisy.
The claim is stalled, because Mr Reed has filed a judicial review. He actually asked the Government to stop consideration, at threat of injunction if they did not.
If Mr Reed wants the claim dealt with quickly, then he should drop the judicial review. Don’t blame others for your own actions.
As for the ridiculous demand that the Government should issue an immediate pardon because of a TV show, well let’s just replace the Supreme Court with Judge Judy!
The evidence around the marks on Robin Bain’s finger thumb is helpful to David Bain’s case. But it is far from conclusive, and it is just one of 20 or so pieces of strong evidence.
Martin van Beynen, a journalist who sat through every day of the second trial, has written a must read column on this latest evidence, and especially on how the story was given exclusively to Bain friendly media.
I’ve love to see this concluded quickly. Here’s how it can be:
- Bain drops his judicial review
- Cabinet appoints a three person panel to review his guilt or innocence on balance of probabilities
- If they find he is innocent on balance of probabilities, then Cabinet grants compensation
Also worth reading this story, which quotes the Police:
Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police yesterday did a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death.
The marks cited as crucial new evidence were likely to be cuts to the thumb as there were no prints in the same place as the dark marks in the photograph.
”Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image,” Burgess said.
”Had these been powder marks or smudges as claimed, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint image.”
Police would take another look at the show’s theory, and re-examine the photograph.
”However, I am mindful that this theory has been put forward through a programme whose makers chose not to seek comment from police prior to broadcast, and who also refused to provide details about their story when approached by police on Tuesday.
”Had they done so then we would have pointed out that fingerprints had been presented in evidence and have always been available through the court to help them decide if their story stacked up.”
I’m not saying the Police are necessarily correct in saying the marks re cuts. But what is wrong is that 3rd degree didn’t seek any opinions that didn’t fit with their story. Their show was advocacy, was objective journalism.