So… it appears that, according to some fool of a Judge from what isn’t even a real country, instead of David Bain killing his family, it is more likely that Robin Bain woke up, got out his son David’s gun from its cabinet, slaughtered his entire family, changed clothes, put the bloody clothes in the washing machine and turned it on, typed on the computer that his son (whom he didn’t get on with) was the only one who deserved to live, then, without bothering to take off the silencer, held the gun at an almost ridiculous angle to shoot himself, then, with blood streaming from the wound in his head, wiped the gun clean of prints before expiring… all without showing any signs of struggle with said family, or bothering to pee.
I must admit to being naive about this process. I simply assumed that, being a Judge, he would look at the bare facts of the case and, being sane, come to the obvious conclusion that, while there may have been leverage for a jury to favour reasonable doubt, there was no way in hell that Robin, or an outside party, was more likely to have killed his family than David. Clearly I did not factor in that weird brand of Canadian liberalism that seems to perversely delight in being the polar opposite of whatever entrenched constitutional conventions occur south of the border, whether that is obstinately insane or otherwise.
Binnie seems to delight in this sort of activism. He is quoted here as saying:
In the United States, some judges on the Supreme Court have a theory that the Constitution should have the meaning that it had in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, and that it is illegitimate for judges to depart from that. It also so happens that in 1791, public floggings and hangings, and so on, were a very popular pastime.
In Canada, we have never had that view. We don’t have a Jefferson or an Alexander Hamilton or a Benjamin Franklin, for us to read their views on what the Constitution does or doesn’t mean. At the Quebec conference, Sir John A. Macdonald’s most memorable reflection was: “Too much whisky is just enough.” That was the guidance we got as to our Constitution.
Yeah, somebody had too much whisky. But when you hold this attitude as a judge, it means pretty much anything goes. It means that "balance of probabilities" can easily turn into "benefit of a doubt". And that is what appears to have happened in this case. Binnie has decided there is enough smoke to qualify as a fire, and refused to look like a prick by doing the right thing.
I should have known the fix was in when the Justice asked for a copy of Karam’s book. Really? You’re going to use some book instead of relying on the trial transcripts?! There was certainly no attempt to interview those on the other side – Bryan Bruce, Martin Van Beynen, Kent Parker, or especially David Bain’s wider family, who knew the character of both men accused and have, for two decades now, taken the view that David did it.
This report is bullshit. As activist judges are wont to do, Justice Binnie has taken the path of least resistance and, like Pilate, washed his hands. Well I, and many others, will not let this farce stand. David Bain must not get a cent of compensation for his crimes. We will continue to seek justice for Robin Bain and his family.