If you can find many other blogsites and newspaper forums that are not asking that question, you'll be doing well.
It annoys me that people think they know better than the 12 men and women who sat for three months and listened to all the evidence. On most issues I'd normally say "so fine, let people think what they want." But in this situation a man's reputation is being affected. And don't forget he's served 13 years in jail already, and probably won't get compensation. What exactly is Bain getting away with?
Of course, on all the critical issues, where better to take the pulse of the nation than the Herald's Your Views?
Jan of Wellington Central said:
Time to get rid of the jury system, how could there not be one of those jurors who had the commonsense to look through the smoke and mirrors. I don't believe they even looked at each piece of evidence, simply took the easy way out. How could they believe the crazy suicide note, the acted 111 call. Didn't they even consider fingerprints, marks on David, blood of Stephen on David. David Bain is NZ's OJ Simpson. This case has never been about justice, simply about winning. One man's obsession
Yeah, let's not be having any of this namby pamby jury system nonsense. Why should we listen to what the public think about a case? Oh, wait...
Suspicious of Auckland, said:
The selection system for jurers should include a basic intelligence test.
But not a spelling test, eh? "Jurers"?
Richard Smith of Christchurch knows who killed the Bains:
Those who are saying there is no evidence to suggest David Bain is guilty, clearly live in their own little fantasy land and don't read the news on the website that they are subscribed to. His fingerprints on the gun. Blood from the victims on his clothes. Injuries consistent with a fight. His gun. His gloves. His key. There is not a shred of physical evidence pointing towards Robin Bain. Robin Bain's were not on the gun that he used to kill himself. Yes. I think the jury got it wrong. Read the evidence before you scream injustice and incompetence by the police. /sigh
Indeed I sighed too after I read your post, Dick.
UncleSi of Glengarry:
David is as guilty as sin. ALL of the forensic evidence points solely at him. The people who think he is innocent are confusing conjecture and circumstantial evidence with the real hard evidence. Today is a great shame for the New Zealand legal process as David and his group of 'True Believer' followers will proclaim David to be innocent which is simply not true. I would urge people to look dispassionately at the EVIDENCE of the case, the result is clearly that David murdered his family.
All of the forensic evidence? What about all those expensive experts the defence called? Liars, all of em! After watching the box set of CSI Miami Uncle Si is ready to go crimebusting.
And so on and so on. And if you want to go into toxic shock try looking at some of the right wing blogs (usual suspects).
But me, I accept the verdict. Not because I'm convinced of Bain's innocence, but because the system tried him and failed to convict. And not through a lack of resources. To me there was never any question about the verdict: the case screamed "Reasonable Doubt" from the start.
So let's leave Mr Bain alone and focus on the real villains in our midst.