A tribute to Robin Bain

February 20th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

This is a Bryan Bruce production I approve of! The media release gives the background:

Bryan Bruce, the writer and director of the documentary THE CASE AGAINST ROBIN BAIN which screened as an INVESTIGATOR SPECIAL on TVNZ has posted a Youtube video tribute to the man whose reputation was attacked by his son’s defence team during ’s second trial.

“I made it from photos and super 8 footage given to me by his brother Michael, and from interviews I had with friends and colleagues who knew Robin at the time of making my documentary,” Bruce explained.

“What emerges from the archival footage and the interviews is  the image of a kind and caring man – a very different picture of Robin to  the one painted of him at his son’s second trial.”

Bruce, a multi award-winning documentary maker whose most recent work INSIDE CHILD POVERTY screened on TV3 to critical acclaim, has a reputation for in-depth journalism. In his INVESTIGATOR SPECIAL he found no case could be made against Robin Bain that would justify the accusation that he murdered his family.

“You just have to follow the blood trail” Bruce said. “Whoever fought with wounded 14 year-old Stephen Bain in his bedroom that cold Dunedin morning in 1994 and strangled him to death, would have got that young man’s blood all over him. Robin did not have one drop of Stephen’s blood on his clothing when he was found lying next to a blood smeared rifle that did not have his fingerprints on it.”

“When Robin ‘s brother Michael first handed me a pile of mouldy VHS tapes back in 2010,  I seriously doubted we would be able to recover any of the images from them. But we did. And what clearly emerges is not only the story of a man who loved his wife and family, but images of his children who are obviously well cared for, loved and happy.”

“He was a man who with a dry sense of  humour, a dedicated teacher and a person who often put the needs of others before his own ” said Bruce

“As Joe Karam has seen fit to continue to further denigrate Robin in his recently released book TRIAL BY AMBUSH   I felt  it was important  the public ought have the benefit of what I learned about Robin Bain  in the course of my investigation – that he was a kind , gentle and much respected man” said Bruce.

 Bruce hopes that lawmakers will consider making changes to the defamation laws to give immediate  family members the ability to sue for defamation on behalf of their dead relatives.

“It is apparently OK in our country to speak ill of the dead. Currently you cannot sue someone who says vile things about your Mum or Dad, brother or sister after the have passed away. I think that’s wrong” said Bruce.

 “What happened at the Bain home in Every Street, on the 20th of June 1994 was terrible, but the on-going tragedy is that Robin , without a fair trial, continues to have  his reputation dragged through the mud of public speculation. I think most Kiwi’s in their heart know that’s not right” said Bruce.

The video below is the tribute to Robin Bain.

And there is also a tribute to Laniet Bain.

I’m glad Mr Bruce took the time to make these videos. The dead can not be resurrected, but their reputations can be. His work has done Robin and Laniet well.

By coincidence Martin van Beyen in The Press has just published his thoughts on Joe Karam’s new book. He attended all 58 days of the retrial, and has previously said he is “more than satisfied” that David Bain, not Robin Bain, was the killer.

Tags:

246 Responses to “A tribute to Robin Bain”

  1. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Some should let Karem in on the concept of knowing when to shut the hell up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Excellent work by Bryan Bruce. Everyone should see these tributes. Karam should be ashamed of himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    I’m sure Robin Bain may well have been ‘a kind and caring man’. There have been reports of David being liked as well. With most people it’s easy enough to find positives – and negatives. OAnd oviously not all was well within the family, it wasn’t a typical suburban family.

    I’m not able to take a strong stance on either side of this case. I don’t know what actually happened.

    IF Robin Bain was simply a victim of murder then I agree that it’s awful ‘speaking ill of the dead’.

    But IF David Bain is innocent then speaking ill of the living is at least as bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Hi Pete. There is a site with the answers to all your questions. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/ . Check the evidence section to carefully weigh up who might be responsible for the Bain family massacre. It is really obvious. Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JustRight (31 comments) says:

    It is great to see people fighting back against the Karem spin machine. Hopefully the geezer looking into the compo claim will see through all of his antics…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    hiphip – no, it really isn’t obvious. Court decisions have gone either way. From what I have seen of evidence presented and promoted some things point more to one possibility, and other things could be seen to suggest otherwise.

    A more complex responsibility can’t be ruled out either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Given the availability of the photo’s and video, I wonder why ‘tributes’ to the other member of the family – including David – haven’t been made…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    The most disgraceful thing (IMO) is that Karam has cynically thrown together yet another book / arranged several media appearances – all at a time when an independent Judge is collating info prior to evaluating whether any taxpayer monies should be handed out as compensation…..

    Coincidental timing? Yeah right.

    Thankfully, the compensation framework requires claimants to prove their innocence. This will surely be impossible – given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I suppose we should all be grateful that it is a Judge evaluating this claim rather than a jury and that courtroom theatrics will not be part of his assessment process. But that hasn’t stopped the Karam brigade from trying to paint Robin Bain as the guilty party – anything to try and deflect guilt away from David.

    The launch of this latest book is a cynical, opportune (for Karam) exercise designed to try and sully the reputation of a man who cannot respond / cannot defend himself.

    Because he was murdered.

    Thankfully, Bryan Bruce has seen fit to counter the lies and distortions – it is the very least Robin Bain deserves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    But IF David Bain is innocent then speaking ill of the living is at least as bad.

    That’s not the point. Joe has used the recourse to the courts available to the living, to sue members of the Justice for Robin Bain group. Why shouldn’t Robin’s surviving relatives have the ability to sue Joe for defaming Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nigel (516 comments) says:

    I think Murray nailed it, I’m over the Bain trial, if he’s innocent he’s free, if he’s guilty he paid one helluva price, maybe not completely fair, but not far short IMHO. Let’s just get over it & move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Justice Binnie apparently posted the following letter to the editor in the Sunday Star Times:

    “The documents provided to me by the Justice Ministry included the joint report of the Police Complaints Authority and the Police Commission. That document was explicitly written in response to Karam’s book, David and Goliath. It seemed to me obvious that to understand properly the response by the authorities, I ought to have the original book containing the allegations being responded to.”

    “It is important to emphasise that Bain is not represented in the enquiry by a lawyer. His official spokesman is Karam. His books are, as background, the clearest indication presently available to me of the position likely to be put forward on Bain’s behalf. …The process to be followed is that Bain, through Karam, will make submissions outlining the arguments and information on which his claim relies. The arguments will then be addressed by the Crown. Both sides will be put and considered. Accordingly, the “volumes written by anti-Bain campaigners” will be relevant to my inquiry only if the Crown adopts them in its submissions.”

    This means that Karam does not have a lawyer processing the bid for him but is doing it himself. It also means that Justice Binnie gets to receive the claim as represented by Karam. The book, therefore appears to be a reflection of the compensation claim itself, outlining the kinds of arguments that he will put forward. Martin van Beynen’s review of the book: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing certainly establishes that the language Karam uses this time, is more attuned to the legalese expected in such a claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    It isn’t widely known, but Joe Karam earned over $330k in legal aid fees for the two years that he worked as a researcher on David Bain’s defence team. He also gets a percentage from the sales of all books and interviews. Not to mention that his son Matthew Karam also profited handsomely from working on the defence team.

    Citation – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2486812/Karam-gets-330-000-in-legal-aid

    I think it is safe to say that Joe Karam won’t stop talking about David Bain any time soon.

    [DPF: I would caution people against questioning Mr Karam's motives. I believe he sincerely believes David Bain is innocent, and to his credit he managed to get the conviction overturned, as the jury obviously had reasonable doubt.

    While Mr Karam has made some money from this process, I understand he has spent a lot of money also. I do not think one should assume money is his motivation, as opposed to genuine belief.

    I genuinely believe David did do it, but that doesn't mean those who thing otherwise have improper motivations]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Bryan Bruce also spoke with Larry Williams: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/bryan-bruce-interview-with-larry-williams

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    “ut IF David Bain is innocent then speaking ill of the living is at least as bad.”

    No it is not, the living have the option to defend themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    @rouppe oh, but this is a video tribute for david http://youtu.be/W2YKzl3YRpo , isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    I hope that Justice Binnie will have access to the evidence excluded by the Judge on the ground that it may prejudice the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. KH (695 comments) says:

    There was local knowledge about David Bain in Dunedin. This was a failing very odd man. Can’t get that into evidence. But he was as guilty as sin. And got away with it. Please shut up Mr Karam, you have done enough damage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. MarkF (102 comments) says:

    Please again!

    Apply Occam’s Razor (It is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.). The answer is obvious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    During David Bain’s retrail it was revealed that Robin Bain did in fact have blood on him, specifically on his hands, but the Police elected not to DNA test it. On the basis of that evidence heard in court, Bryan Bruce’s crusade crumbles into speculation and innuendo.
    Mr Bruce, a journalist and author makes his living from conspiracy theories therefore his relationship with the Bain trail is no deeper than a financial interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mjwilknz (605 comments) says:

    Hear hear, Nigel @10.33! The judiciary has (almost) run its course. Time for a lot of people to get over it and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    @KevinH. You appear very confused. It was David who had his murdered brothers blood on him. Mr Bruce has not been paid for the video tributes he made, unlike a certain book author.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    See the following link for emotionless scrutiny of ‘Trial by Ambush’ (a below)

    Following which I have copied from the public section of ‘Beattie’s Blog’ a response by Don Mathais, the author of the book review, to van beynan’s piece. I don’t entirely agree with Don Mathias but do about where the debate should now be centred. (b below)

    a/ http://donmathias.wordpress.com/

    b/ It’s a response to MVB’s article which has been posted there – as below

    “As I have been mentioned in this discussion, could I perhaps make a
    comment? I am sorry to be in conflict with Martin van Beynen, of whom I have
    fond memories from law school and working at CRACCUM at Auckland University.
    Still, vigorous debate is one of life’s pleasures, and need not lead to
    acrimony. I am always open to persuasion that I am wrong, and if someone can
    rebut Karam’s latest book they should do so.

    “Much of the prosecution evidence in the case could be interpreted either
    way, favouring the defence if you want to doubt it, and the prosecution if
    you want to accept it. Evidence that is reasonably open to interpretation
    either way has no probative value for either side. I say “evidence” because
    we have to sort out the boundaries of the debate. Do we include things that
    people now say that they could or should have said at the trial, or do we
    just focus on what was the evidence at the retrial?

    “I think it is fairer to focus only on the evidence at the retrial. This is
    because that information was subject to scrutiny by each side and by the
    judge and the jury. Anyone can come along later and claim to have additional
    information, but how do we decide how much faith to place on it? People can
    say they were misunderstood at the trial, but that was the time for them to
    make themselves clear, and if they did not, how do we assess the reliability
    of what they now say?

    “One thing Martin finds significant is Robin’s alleged change of clothing
    after what the defence say were his acts of killing. To make that sort of
    point one would need to know how often people who commit suicide do so in
    their best (or at least their respectable) clothes. That requires
    statistical analysis of whatever information is available in reputable
    studies. It is not sufficient simply to think it unlikely, if there is
    information that could be unearthed about that likelihood.

    “I have no idea what the statistical information would reveal. But I
    remember Philip Roth, one of the great American authors, describing in “The
    Human Stain” at p 245 (I have it here) how a person who tried to commit
    suicide recalled shaving her legs, putting on her best skirt and blouse, and
    saying of the attempt “To me it was ecstatic, getting myself ready. There
    are times in life worth celebrating. Triumphant times. The occasions for
    which dressing up was intended.” Obviously this is fiction, but no one could
    doubt that Roth is a great student of human nature. To him, weaving a
    credible narrative, dressing for suicide was not unlikely.

    “But my point is not that we should simply take the word of a novelist. It
    is that when you make a claim that something is unlikely, you are making a
    claim about probability, and statistics may or may not support you.

    “Close scrutiny should be given to the scene of the hypothesised suicide:
    does the defence proposal for the trajectory of the shot line up with the
    expected path of blood spatter on Robin’s trousers, shoes and on the
    curtain? I thought the splashes of blood on the trousers, going down below
    the knee and going up above the knee, were consistent with Robin having his
    right foot on the chair so that his knee was near but slightly behind his
    head when he pulled the trigger.

    “Anyway, it is that sort of scrutiny that the case requires, not vague
    assertions about non-standardised clock readings or washing machine times.

    My impression after reading Karam’s book is that the onus now rests on those
    who say Robin’s death was not a suicide to prove it.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Who is Don Mathias, and what kind of a lawyer bases their “legal opinion” on a book written by a complete and utter layman? While there are likely to be some individuals who are lawyers who agree with the book, they would certainly write about it in a circumspect manner, for the sake of their reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    @hiphip
    You are the confused one.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560919.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    KevinH says: “Mr Bruce, a journalist and author makes his living from conspiracy theories therefore his relationship with the Bain trail is no deeper than a financial interest.”

    Actually, you should have inserted ‘Joe Karam’ instead of ‘Mr Bruce’. Its Karam who has the financial interest – in the form of a percentage of proceeds.

    The David Bain supporters have adopted the usual tactics: if you repeat bullshit over and over, some gullible people will eventually think that somehow its fact when the opposite is really the case.

    Thankfully, the compensation framework requires claimants (David / Karam et al) to prove their innocence. And no amount of innuendo about Robin Bain’s character can change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Award winning journalist, Martin van Beynen, sat through the entire retrial and had this to say:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict
    and
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing
    which are essential reading for anyone interested in the truth about this long running saga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “My impression after reading Karam’s book is that the onus now rests on those who say Robin’s death was not a suicide to prove it.”

    Oh, bollocks. There is absolutely nothing to prove – Robin Bain isn’t on trial. He was one of those murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Ha ha. A flurry of links of ‘people that sat through the trial.’

    And a question of how can reading a book become a ‘legal opinion.’ Well, it didn’t. It was a measured appraisal by a legal academic of a book which has as it’s contents evidence and material sufficient enough for Don Mathias to make his conclusion.

    As for the prejudicial David had Stephen’s blood on him. That’s true, a small spot on his shorts, an an aged spot on the back of his T Shirt, totally consistent with the fact he wasn’t in a fight with Stephen. Otherwise his shirt, shorts, and socks would have had considerable blood to match that found in Stephen’s room.

    As Don says above that debate has moved to another point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    @ KevinH. Ever heard of a red herring? The defence case had plenty of those which confuse some people – as we saw in the OJ Simpson criminal trial – but nothing of real substance. Some lawyers, and spin doctors, tactics can defeat the course of natural justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    In the spirit of van Beynan’s excellent pieces for The Press, Rosemary McLeod wrote a brilliant piece on the Bain trial (for North & South I think) when these events were current. She simply listed the evidential facts against/for Father and Son. It was clear David Bain was the killer, and of all I’ve ever read (incl. Karam’s smoke and mirrors theories…’a policeman sneezed therefore DB is innocent kind of rubbish’) I have remained convinced of David’s total guilt throughout.

    The cool thing is, that in time,, advancing technology of one form or another, will be able to prove this case comprehensively in retrospect. I await the day. DB remains one of NZ’s worst mass-murderers and continues to let Karam run his fantasy myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Kent Parker,

    Dr Don Mathias is one of NZ’s top criminal lawyers, both academically and practically. He contributes to the ‘bible’ of NZ criminal law, Adams, and is one of the smartest lawyers you could meet.

    Try looking him up before you rip in to him.

    Everybody else,

    I have said it many times in this forum, but I will say it again: it is imperative that the defendant have the right to blame any other person, alive or dead, for the crime they are accused of if we are to have a fair trial. Removing the right of David Bain to blame Robin Bain if evidence can be submitted to back up that assertion, whether factually true or not, would have resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice.

    I don’t care whether David Bain did it, or whether Robin Bain is the guilty person, but don’t suggest removing vital parts of every NZers right to defend themselves just because you don’t like the outcome of a trial.

    Oh, hold on, that happened after the Weatherstone trial, and after the Waihopai trial too! So why the hell not remove the right of the defendant to defend him/herself as well?

    Hiphip,

    defence lawyers don’t do spin nor provide red herrings. That would be misleading the Court and we can get struck off for it. Whatever we say in Court requires some sort of evidence to support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “it is imperative that the defendant have the right to blame any other person, alive or dead, for the crime they are accused of if we are to have a fair trial…”

    And if the defendant chooses to go down that path, he should expect to be derided if there is a lack of evidence to support his position.

    Don Mathias says: “My impression after reading Karam’s book is that the onus now rests on those who say Robin’s death was not a suicide to prove it.” That is a naive comment and not one that I would expect from “one of NZ’s top criminal lawyers”. As Martin van Beynen says, Karam’s decision to ask the Victorian police armourer for an opinion on the case isn’t mentioned in his book. That’s possibly because the opinion was that Robin Bain was unlikely to have committed suicide. Don Mathias doesn’t seem to have read widely on the case, or maybe he’s playing devil’s advocate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “No objective reader of Joe Karam’s “Trial by Ambush” can possibly come to any conclusion other than that Robin Bain committed the murders of his family”

    heh. Is Mathias a kook, a troll, or whatever the word is? Typical of the profession, he appears to have an inflated view of his own intelligence. In a previous blog Mathias made a total hash of explaining the prosecutors fallacy, basic stats being beyond the capabilities of most lawyers. While it might not be that unusual for those who commit suicide to change clothing, the relevant stat should be of those who murder their family, how many then change into their best respectable clothes before they commit suicide. I would tend to think it might be a lot less, but I’ve not consulted the stats for that either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kaykaybee (152 comments) says:

    I hope that the good gentleman reviewing the evidence for compensation reads the excellent article Rosemary McLeod wrote for the Listener about Mr Karam – entitled One Angry Man

    http://www.listener.co.nz/uncategorized/one-angry-man/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Dean,

    You are correct. It might also be worth investigating how many cases of mass murders of a family are committed by the father, who stops during his killing spree, switches on a computer to write a rather odd message, before shooting himself at an unusual angle, with a sliencer on the gun, leaving his oldest son as the only survivor, a son who apparently hated his father. I imagine the sample size would be very small :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Dr Don Mathias is one of NZ’s top criminal lawyers, both academically and practically. He contributes to the ‘bible’ of NZ criminal law, Adams, and is one of the smartest lawyers you could meet.
    Try looking him up before you rip in to him.

    I did do a search for him before posting this. The only reference to “top criminal lawyer” I could find was one made previously by you. Otherwise, all I could find was a reference to a news item in 2002 where he defended a client. There are a number of academic papers with his name on them but his two identical blogs give no details of current employment or anything much. Care to provide “some sort of evidence” to support this assertion.

    defence lawyers don’t do spin nor provide red herrings. That would be misleading the Court and we can get struck off for it. Whatever we say in Court requires some sort of evidence to support it.

    Cough!@? Yeah right. Lawyers are the masters of spin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Bryan Bruce talks to Larry Williams about his call for a law change to stop defamation of the deceased, and his online tribute for Robin Bain. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/Christchurch/player/ondemand/1673316674-Online-tribute-for-Robin-Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    kaykaybee 1.11

    Your linking to a piece that resulted in a defamation suit, resolved in Karam’s favour. Hardly of any value, particularly to the owner of this site, your re-publication.

    Dean Papa 1.11

    Your post shows why you are not a legal academic and why Mathias is. Additionally, he made no argument about the clothing or other aspects that escape the fumbling witchdoctors. He pointed out that they (case studies, and statistics) needed to be considered before conclusions were drawn, such as those by van beynan. He of course didn’t use the word witchdoctors nor spell van beynan as vanbeynana, despite a widely held view that everybody needs a nana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    “Whoever fought with wounded 14 year-old Stephen Bain in his bedroom that cold Dunedin morning in 1994 and strangled him to death, would have got that young man’s blood all over him. Robin did not have one drop of Stephen’s blood on his clothing when he was found lying next to a blood smeared rifle that did not have his fingerprints on it.”

    Again, if you would believe Karam, Robin used the unlikely method of a computer message to exonerate his son David as being “the only one deserving to live”, having supposedly laid or eliminated so much evidence, in an impossible time-frame, to incriminate David?

    Interestingly, Karam does not mention the bizarre if not ludicrous scenario that would have played out if Robin had been the killer. This involves Robin putting his bloodied clothes in the washing basket and then changing his clothes and socks before killing himself in a highly unusual way.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing
    Then writing David is “the only one deserving to live”?

    Also regarding the timing of the new Karam’s book –
    Joe Karam’s latest book on the Bain family murders is due for release next month, only weeks before David Bain will speak at an international justice conference in Australia.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6224017/Karam-book-to-put-to-rest-Bain-case
    as well as for Canadian judge Ian Binnie benefit?

    KevinH says: During David Bain’s retrail it was revealed that Robin Bain did in fact have blood on him, specifically on his hands, but the Police elected not to DNA test it.

    Martin Van Beyen writes – In David and Goliath, he [Karam] writes, “I have no doubt that, if the blood staining on Robin’s clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of the deceased members of his family.” The blood was analysed and it was all Robin’s blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    kent parker,

    I presume your allegation re lawyers being masters of spin applies as much to prosecution lawyers as to defence lawyers?

    So we cannot really believe what any lawyer says in court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Yvette 1.35

    “Whoever fought with wounded 14 year-old Stephen Bain in his bedroom that cold Dunedin morning in 1994 and strangled him to death, would have got that young man’s blood all over him. Robin did not have one drop of Stephen’s blood on his clothing when he was found lying next to a blood smeared rifle that did not have his fingerprints on it.”

    What this overlooks of course is Arawa’s blood stained jersey that Robin sometimes wore found in the laundry, you (van beynan) make this sort of argument while ignoring Robin’s blood on the towel in the laundry, and the even more significant ‘blood wash’ or blood smears on Robin’s palms. Seen the photo of that?

    You further complicate your bewilderment by failing to note the absence of any air borne blood on David, apart from one small spot on his shorts, and absolutely none on the uppers of his socks or the front of his shirt. This despite, as we all know, blood even reaching the ceiling and walls in Stephen’s room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Don Mathias says: “It is so hugely unlikely that David was the murderer that, as Karam says, anyone suggesting the contrary had better put up compelling evidence. There is none.” He also says that David Bain “must” be paid compensation.

    No reputable lawyer would say such nonsense. He must be playing devil’s advocate. Strange then he doesn’t allow comments on his site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    ross69 1.55

    I think I know the reason for that ross69. The same that applies to the Justice Conference to be held in Australia, abuse and people posting links to ‘particular’ sites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    I presume your allegation re lawyers being masters of spin applies as much to prosecution lawyers as to defence lawyers?

    Smith, Michael Reed knew about the testimony of David's plan to commit a crime while using his paper run as an alibi, but he helped engineer pleadings that ensured that this testimony was not in the trial in case it was prejudicial to David Bain.

    A random search for the meaning of the word 'spin' in these circumstances will bring up definitions such as "To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion"

    If Reed was NOT trying to sway public opinion (ie the jury), then he would have ensured that the testimony remained in the proceedings. A lawyer's pleadings are based on spin; on telling it in a way that makes the person they are defending appear the most favourable. I would have thought you would know this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Tell you what, let’s play a little hypothetical game:

    1. A man comes to you, says he has been charged with murdering his brother. He tells you that his brother attacked him with an iron bar and he fought back and in the process killed his brother in self-defence. The law does not allow you to ‘defame’ his brother, and the law also requires you to take the case because it is within your area of expertise. How do you defend the accused person?

    2. A man comes to you, says that he has been charged with killing his family. He says that he is innocent and that he believes his father, one of the dead family members, was the murderer who then committed suicide. There is evidence of a motive for the father, and evidence can be interpreted to support the fathers guilt. However, the law does not allow you to ‘defame’ the deceased father. Again, you must take the case. How do you defend the accused person?

    I would be interested in seeing what you all suggest, remembering that you may not ‘defame’ the deceased persons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Kent,

    you are dissembling. However, I presume then that, given your definition, you saying that lawyers provide ‘spin’ means that lawyers do their job as they are supposed to?

    Your point about the inadmissible evidence also goes against the Crown, as they also attempted to have evidence ruled inadmissible (that about Laniet and the alleged incest) and therefore the Crown is also guilty of trying to ‘sway public opinion’.

    And using the words ‘engineer proceedings’ makes it appear that by applying to have proposed evidence ruled inadmissible according to law Reed QC was doing something wrong. Notwithstanding, as I have noted, that the Crown also ‘engineered proceedings’ to suit themselves as well.

    You appear to be accusing the defence of playing dirty pool. Are you? And if so, do you accept that your allegation applies equally to the Crown?

    Cuts both ways, you see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    has anyone done the calculations to determine the probability of the rifle magazine landing on its edge? I imagine it would be a tricky little calculation, more a physics problem than prob/stats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    @ Dean. Excellent point. I estimate the probability at zero, or very very close to it. Chances of winning lotto or being struck by lightning are higher. However, if someone were to place it there to make a murder look like suicide, there is a very very high probability, closer to 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Cuts both ways, you see.

    I agree. You seem to think that there is something sinister about ‘spin’. There is nothing. Everything we say is spin, because we are always speaking from our own point of view and we generally say things in order to promote a favourable opinion of ourselves. The phrase “glass half full, or glass half empty” is a good example of spin. In both cases the liquid in the glass is in the same place, but we can describe it in at least two different ways: glass half full, or glass half empty. A lawyer, or in the Bain retrial, a team of lawyers, usually win a trial, in our adversarial system, by putting up the best spin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    kent,

    so you actually have no point at all? You are saying that the lawyer or team of lawyers that does its job the best will win a trial?

    You are quite wrong, actually, as the quality of the evidence plays a huge part of a trial regardless of who does their job the best, but nice try in pulling an about face on the spin point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa 2.14

    Why would you need tricky calculations it is plain it didn’t ‘land’ on its edge, it was placed there, obviously. There’s things inevitably go round and round in circles, links, personal attacks, questions demanded as to why Robin would have acted in such a way or why he wouldn’t. I think you should have taken more notice of the sense Don Mathais has brought to this – and as we now see, attacked for doing so. Any pattern emerging anywhere?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    You are saying that the lawyer or team of lawyers that does its job the best will win a trial?

    I’m sure many would agree with that!!!

    You are quite wrong, actually, as the quality of the evidence plays a huge part of a trial regardless of who does their job the best, but nice try in pulling an about face on the spin point.

    I am not questioning the existence of, in my example, the presence of the glass with liquid in it, which is the “evidence”. There was some evidence in the Bain retrial of blood / injuries on Robin’s hands, which was not DNA tested. The defence would interpret this as blood perhaps belonging to one of the victims of the crime, while the prosecution would interpret it as his own blood resulting from injuries fixing the spouting the previous day. Each side has their own spin on the evidence. The “quality” of the evidence ultimately often relies on the expert testimony that is employed to explain this evidence and so is constantly open to interpretation and ‘spin’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Chuck Bird (4,890 comments) says:

    I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe Joe is very much a victim of David Bain. I would hope most people would hope that Joe 100% beleive in his cause at the start. Reading Rosemary McLeod’s article interdicts he has been a crusader for the underdog. To change his mind now would be just too much for him. I think the chance of David Bain getting compensation would be almost zero. That is a least some compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    kent,

    your use of the word ‘spin’ is out of context. The word you are looking for is ‘interpretation’. By using the word ‘spin’ in the way you did, it became pejorative, which is how I am sure you meant it to be.

    Nice backpedal, though.

    EDIT: Very little evidence is ever subject to expert interpretation, each opposing interpretation, if there is one, is left for the jury. But of course you will say you were talking specifically, not generally…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    If a Hollywood Celebrity or Millionaire is charged with a crime, they spend megabucks on lawyers. Look at OJ. If the case is decided on evidence, then they would use the cheapest lawyer. Of course the case is decided on who can spin the evidence the best, and the more money spent on spin, the more likely the chance of success. There are lawyers who are regarded as “good” and are in demand even when charging high fees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    @ nostalgia

    Robin had no recent signs of injury. The only way his own blood could be on a towel is post mortem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    hiphip,

    please do not take the celebrity trials that occur from time to time in the USA and use them to generalise regarding trials in NZ. It doesn’t work like that.

    Skill is important in a criminal lawyer, but all the skill in the world won’t help you if the evidence is against you. A good criminal lawyer is one who can work well with the evidence that is provided, not one who puts the best ‘spin’ on anything. You could get a top criminal defence QC to represent you and pay megabuck doing so, but if there is conclusive video evidence proving you committed the crime then a junior Crown lawyer will still win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Smith you’ve been spinning like a washing machine this whole thread. What’s been proposed is making it possible to sue someone for defaming the dead, the example being karam’s latest book slandering Robin. You’re dishonestly pretending they’re proposing eliminating criminal defense that someone else did it, if that person is dead. Can we expect your resignation from the profession since you’re letting down their high standards in regards to spin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    insider 2.41

    Robin had considerable damage to his hands, including fresh bleeding and bruising, as well as blood smears on his palms. The photos that the pathlogist’s staff took off that smearing were withheld from the first Jury without the knowledge of the Pathlogist. He only discovered this pre-second trial when doing his trial preparation. From the letter he wrote to the Crown about this and about gurgling I got the impression his view was that the Crown shouldn’t have continued with the second trial because there was obviously a lot of withheld evidence as we also know from the PC Judgement.

    But don’t take my word for it, read Karam’s book perhaps, or next time you are in a bookstore check out the 3 photos of Robin’s hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    your use of the word ‘spin’ is out of context. The word you are looking for is ‘interpretation’. By using the word ‘spin’ in the way you did, it became pejorative, which is how I am sure you meant it to be.

    You’re splitting hairs. In this context they both mean the same thing. The supposed respectable QC, Michael Reed publicly stated on Close Up that Robin Bain was “a dirty old man”. Is this a “non pejorative” use of “interpretation” of the evidence that is worthy of all this high minded talk you have about the ethics of lawyers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    PIA,

    there have been suggestions all through the Bain proceedings to get rid of the ability to blame deceased persons as a part of the defence. We also saw it with regards Weatherstone. I continued that on this thread. It certainly wasn’t dishonest of me, although it might be a slight threadjack.

    The idea of allowing a suit of defamation re deceased people in civil proceedings is just plain laughable and not worth addressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    kent,

    whatever. You used the word spin as a pejorative and you were wrong. Just accept it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Actually, I may be wrong but I thought I read recently that it is possible to sue on behalf of the dead if the person(s) bringing the suit were able to display that their reputation was damaged as a result. I suppose that could relate to familys, maybe business partners as well, a sports trainer. Perhaps that situation might be overseas, I may ask someone about that.

    Even if it were true, who could sue in the Bain case. There’d be an insurmountable hurdle to overcome in disproving Robin didn’t suicide, and I can’t see how it could in anyway arise out of pleadings, or evidence in a trial. Seems to be going down the track of having Judges answering to the Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    whatever. You used the word spin as a pejorative and you were wrong. Just accept it.

    It’s not a matter of right or wrong. It is opinion, and held with good reason. Lawyers are the masters of spin. Just accept it.

    This is irrelevant to the thread anyway, except in that Karam’s book, which the video has been published to address, is a very fine example of spin (in my opinion).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,
    If there is a right to sue in defamation on behalf of a deceased person (and I don’t think that there is), that right would rest with the administrators of the deceased’s estate.
    I suspect that Mr Bain snr had a will as, from memory, there were proceedings on behalf of his estate to deny from Mr Bain jr his right to participate in his parents estate as a beneficiary. So if there was a power his trustees would be able to sue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’m also bemused by Mathias’ comment that he was unaware of research into the propensity of suicide victims to change into their “best” or respectable clothes. He seemed to indicate that Robin changed into his best clothes. What did he change into after allegedly wiping out his family, bar the son who apparently hated him? According to van Beynen:

    “To meet his maker, he chose an old pair of light-blue tracksuit pants, an equally delapidated T-shirt, an old business shirt, a brown woollen jersey and a thick hoodie. He also donned a green knitted beanie. He put on clean socks and shoes, but no underpants.”

    Wow, Robin really did go the extra mile :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “there have been suggestions all through the Bain proceedings to get rid of the ability to blame deceased persons as a part of the defence.”

    Not at all, FE Smith. You have mischaracterised the argument. I have no problem if the defence wishes to blame the deceased where there is clear and compelling evidence that the deceased is the offender. But that doesn’t apply in this case. Quite the opposite in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    there have been suggestions all through the Bain proceedings to get rid of the ability to blame deceased persons as a part of the defence. We also saw it with regards Weatherstone. I continued that on this thread. It certainly wasn’t dishonest of me, although it might be a slight threadjack.

    Seriously? That’s been suggested? What on Earth would Keith Abbott have argued in the Steven Wallace murder trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Mark1 (90 comments) says:

    Very true Graeme. And I think Doug Gardner copped a bit of stick from Gay Oakes and her defence team (didn’t work though).

    Re Karam; he was an average kicker and he couldn’t handle it in league. Story of his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    from Listener article on Karam:

    “For Karam, this shows how flawed the justice system is. He plans to set up an organisation similar to the Innocence Project in the US, where those with skills and resources offer their help pro bono, like a support club for single crusaders such as himself, Keith Hunter and Mike Kalaugher (the Scott Watson campaigners). But he’ll probably only do it if he wins. ”

    of course the Innocence Project in the US being founded by one Barry Scheck, who made his name while serving on you-know-who’s defense team. I spot a pattern emerging here!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    So you resort to a fictional description to try to explain away the absence of blood on Robin Bain’s clothing. Presumably he washed the bloodied ones. Did Robin hang out his washed clothes to dry too? What became of them? Why would he bother? (washing and drying his clothes) He wouldn’t be needing them. (I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question)
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    F E Smith says:- ” it is imperative that the defendant have the right to blame any other person, alive or dead”

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting withholding that right, or is blaming Bain’s lawyer for doing his job. What most of us here find morally repugnant is the fact that David would so blithely besmirch the good name of his father in an attempt to clear himself of blame. But I suppose having just shot him in the head that kind of thing wouldn’t really bother him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Robin Bain’s supporters can learn the truth when they meet him, in person, in Hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    alex Masterly 3.17

    Because we are discussing something which might not even be Law, I guess it is okay to consider the Trustees wouldn’t be able to sue on behalf of the dead but only on behave of the living who claimed to be defamed because of their association with the dead person, and presumably how that association they were ‘showered’ the in some way by the defamatory comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – wouldn’t you also expect someone who, hypothetically, may have thought the rest of his family was shot by his father to feel like besmirching his father a bit more than blithely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    F E Smith says:- “your [Kent's] use of the word ‘spin’ is out of context. The word you are looking for is ‘interpretation’”

    It is impossible not to spin in an adversarial contest which is inherently subjective. Spin arises from taking a subjective stance on any given issue.

    Presumably it is the judge’s and the jury’s job to *interpret* the spin though the latter is generally incapable of doing so imo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris 4.14

    Fictional discription? That’s all evidence.
    The jersey by the way was too small to fit David. And the whole situation was that in theory he would have had to change out of his clothes and back into them. This was one of the reasons the Crown pulled a ‘surprise’ in the first trial and changed their case to one of the family being killed before the paper run, something else also ruled out. One of the stories that proliferated from certain quarters was that David wore a mask and a plastic sheet. And a computer ‘mockup’ was generated and placed on the internet of that by a physics graduate. But the real evidence is that while there was a ski mask and plastic sheet found in the laundry, they were undisturbed and had no blood on them. There was, as I said earlier, Robin’s blood found on the towel in the laundry and David’s palm print said to be ‘in blood’ but which was later discounted as being blood.

    Actually, Detective Sergeant Weir hung out the clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Lee – congrats on being the most moronic David bain apologist to ever comment on here. You beat some stiff competition!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Pete, it is clear, to me at least, that David shot his old man in the head so it doesn’t surprise me at all that he would so blithely lie to besmirch Robin’s good name. I wouldn’t expect anything else from a psychopath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia says:- “The jersey by the way was too small to fit David”

    But big enough to fit Robin? Come on! David was a rake, Robin wasn’t.

    Amazing how you can stretch a piece of evidence to fit on one person but not on another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – What most of us here find morally repugnant is the fact that David would so blithely besmirch the good name of his father in an attempt to clear himself of blame. plus 4.48 comment

    This assumes a state of mind where David still knows he did it.
    There is a possibility, which may not occur to people who have not experienced mental illness either personally or in others, that David has now convinced himself that he is innocent. Refer to friends’ accounts of his behaviour in the St Kilda sandhills or the relatives he stayed with before his arrest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    alex,

    I wonder if the right of the estate to sue for defamation would only extend to continuing actions that were underway, rather than instituting a new action? Like you, I don’t recall any such ability of a deceased person’s estate/family to have recourse to defamation proceedings.

    Graeme,

    yes, also suggested during the lengthy debates during the Weatherstone trial.

    Scott,

    Kent was using the term ‘spin’ pejoratively. It was not a matter of splitting hairs. When I called him out on it he backtracked while quibbling. End of story.

    ross69,

    clear and compelling isn’t always available for assertions. Look at the Scott Watson case. Sometimes an allegation is made solely on circumstantial evidence, but it must be available to be made. Sometimes it is just made on the evidence of the defendant. But it must still be allowed to be made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    put it away, at 4:17 pm.
    You may be right, and I am moronic.
    But I got excited, in a very bad way, when I read the Privy Council depositions submitted by confidants and friends of Laniet Bain.
    I guess you didn’t care at all what happened to her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Nostalgia says:- “The jersey by the way was too small to fit David”

    David had put the jersey though the washing machine that particular morning. Woollen jerseys in a machine often shrink. David was normally fastidious about having jerseys hand washed but on this particular morning it was different…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Are we even allowed to talk about all this? That scary Mr Karam (He was an All Black you know…) might sue us for defamation!

    Can’t we just enjoy Wendy’s ‘Fist Pump’ once more?? How to make murder kind of sexy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nookin (3,345 comments) says:

    One’s reputation is regarded as personal and any claim for redress dies with the plaintiff. There was a recommendation by the Law Commission before the last review to the effect that the rule should be changed but this recommendation was not adopted.
    Family members can of course take action for defamation if the aspersions cast on the deceased also reflect badly on their own reputations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > clear and compelling isn’t always available for assertions.

    That sums up Bain’s defence. A lot of assertions that don’t amount to much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    FES, I think you right about the ability of an estate to continue a proceeding for defamation after the death of a plaintiff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    @ longknives

    Not sure about LKAram but you can probably say anything you like re David Bain and this case because calling him something like ‘a family killer’ would fall under fair comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Lee you continue to confirm my suspicious of moronity. Never mind the fact that you didn’t mention the alleged incest and presumably assumed we’d all psychically pick up what you were talking about something completley different to the rest of the thread, did I ( or anyone else) on this thread say Robin was innocent of the incest? For all I know it might have happened. In the absence of any evidence expect hearsay, it seems better to give Robin the benefit of the doubt, given that Laniet was a known bullshitter ( unless you believe the “Black baby” nonsense that’s been well discredited). But maybe he did. Who knows. What we can be fairly sure of, is that David killed her, and we all care about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nookin (3,345 comments) says:

    FES & Alex

    Unfortunately, the case comes to an end with the plaintiff. See Law Reform Act 1936.

    3Effect of death on certain causes of action
    (1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the death of any person after the passing of this Act all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive against or, as the case may be, for the benefit of his estate:
    [Provided that this subsection shall not apply to causes of action for defamation or for inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    David was somewhat of an aficionado of the woollen jersey, so it beggars belief that he would chose that day of all days to forgo his usual routine of separating out the woollies for hand washing. I wonder what the probability is? Perhaps Don Mathias could to that calculation (after he’s completed the rifle magazine landing on its edge calculation).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I can hear F E Smith’s washing machine revving up to full spin cycle again…

    there have been suggestions all through the Bain proceedings to get rid of the ability to blame deceased persons as a part of the defence. We also saw it with regards Weatherstone. ”

    Totally different. You can’t compare a defence of “the victim deserved it” with a defence of “the victim did it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris 4.48

    You don’t have a clue about the details of this case. Robin only weighed 72 kilos, and was either 5:7 or 8. David is approaching 2 metres tall.
    You’re deeply confused, gets difficult when making your unverified claims?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Yvette says:- “that David has now convinced himself that he is innocent”

    Maybe. Seems it is unlikely that he has repressed the memory, though he may attempt to suppress it.

    Repression is usually associated with traumatic events such as rape or witnessing murder committed by another person, and I would contend that as a psychopath, the horror of the crime would have had little traumatic impact on him other than in the contemplation of his own peril.

    Suppression on the other hand comes about as a result of a sustained goal orientated conscious effort to purge uncomfortable thoughts. But even when thoughts are suppressed, they can return to consciousness with minimal prompting so this would have been very difficult to sustain during the trial.

    I found the following wikipage quite informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_forgetting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Nookin (3,345 comments) says:

    PIA

    I disagree. There is a direct comparison. For a start, the defence of provocation does not involve any suggestion that the deceased “deserved it”. In fact, it is not even necessary that action is attributable to a deceased person in a provocation case be defamatory of the deceased. That is possibly why the Weatherstone case is an inappropriate analogy.

    A more appropriate analogy is the case that was being heard at roughly the same time where the deceased was accused of making inappropriate sexual advances to the accused.

    The issue in this debate is whether it is appropriate for a defendant to make statements defamatory of a deceased person by way of exculpation. The comparison between that provocation and the “dead person did it” is quite valid. In each case it is alleged that the actions of the deceased person exculpate the accused. The difference perhaps between the two is that as I have pointed out, in a provocation case, the actions attributable to the deceased are not necessarily defamatory whereas blaming a deceased person for a crime is defamatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I’m not mired in unnecessary detail like you are. Try Occams Razor. It generally works:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    Re the jersey, refer to Kent Parker’s comment at 5.08

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Put it away, at 6:06 pm, I ‘ll continue to play dumb, by asking how a non-sleeping man could be
    persuaded, or forced, to press his head squarely against the end of a rifle barrel.
    The best evidence, the pathologist who saw the head wound in person, said it was a ‘contact wound’.
    If Thompson’s estimate of 150 mm or Ferris’s estimate of 300 mm is used, how or why would a
    non-sleeping man turn his head squarely toward the end of a rifle barrel, at those small distances?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    A fitting tribute to Robin Bain would be David doing the decent thing and stretching his neck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    8.07

    You’re sniping at Don Mathias about the magazine being ‘found’ on it’s edge, however he didn’t mention it. What he said in the overall context of the evidence is very important, a challenge of course, but not something you, predictably, will follow.
    Good on him for speaking out, he’s well qualified to do so

    ‘My impression after reading Karam’s book is that the onus now rests on those
    who say Robin’s death was not a suicide to prove it.”
    That’s absolutely reasonable.

    First of all start with an explanation of the blood smears on his hands.
    Then show how he had blood spatter on his shoe occluded being from his own wound.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    No Nostlgia, it’s not reasonable, and it’s unclear why you’re supporting Mathias.

    You should know, and any lawyer worth their salt should know, that you can’t prove a negative. So immediately Mathias has lost credibility. The key point is that Karam reckons Robin did commit suicide. Presumably he can prove that. Alas, so far he hasn’t come within a bull’s roar of proving it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Maybe Karam would like to publish the opinion of Henry Glaser, whose opinion Karam sought on the likelihood of Robin’s suicide. I’m sure Karam would have taken great delight in publishing Glaser’s opinion if the conclusion was that Robin had likely killed himself. But Glaser apparently indicated that that was unlikely. It’s disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Karam isn’t interested in the truth, just his version of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    A Victorian armourer found Robins death was not suicide. http://www.marc.co.nz/david-bain.html . Robin has not only not been found guilty in court, but charges would never have been laid, due to insufficient (or non-existent) evidence had he lived. The victims of crime deserve far more respect than has been shown towards Robin by one man and his mini-me’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    lee – surely you’re not seriously trying to argue that the position for David to shoot him was somehow less likely than the ludicrous suicide contortionism? And why are you calling the “best evidence” Thompson’s opinion from the first trial that he retracted in the second, due to mistaking the effects of the gases on the skin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    My impression after reading Karam’s book is that the onus now rests on those who say Robin’s death was not a suicide to prove it

    I wonder if this Don Mathias also believes as historical fact that a fellow named Count Dracula was running around biting young ladies necks in Whitby as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Don’s a lovely guy but he’s never really set the legal world on fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    ross69 6.39

    Mathias said something to the effect of forget about the computer time, the washing machice cycle and all the other distractions from the key event, the suicide. That’s common sense.

    ross69 6.42

    That opinions been published everywhere including by your ‘link’ friend hiphip. The opinion by the armourer was inconsistent with that of the pathologists, including the Crown Pathlogist.

    On the suicide, and in particular the blood smears this could be helpful to you

    ‘Blood in the wash basin – there were some spots of what may have been blood, never tested. But yes, probably Robin’s. I suspect that wound on the vein on the back of his hands might have bled a bit.

    Residual as in left over from being perfunctorily wiped off. That’s how the experts referred to it, and it means that it has to have been there from something other than Robin’s own wound.’

    Wiped off blood on Robin’s hands. Difficult I’d assume?
    With regard the spatter, I think everyone agrees that only one person died in the lounge. There is no contest on that, so the spatter must have arrived on Robin when he was in another part of the house it appears?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Put it away, at 6:42 pm, the position for any shooter, other than Robin himself, is way beyond my limited
    imagination. That’s why Ferris, when asked by Reed, if Ferris could explain the blood on the chair, on the
    carpet at the foot of the chair, and then on the carpet extending northeast to the beanbag, said, “No,
    I can’t explain that”.
    And I wasn’t calling Thompson’s evidence the ‘best evidence’ I was calling Dempster’s evidence ‘best
    evidence’, because Dempster saw Robin’s head wound in person. Dempster said he saw no ‘gun powder
    particle abrasions which, as you will know, aren’t found in contact gunshot wounds.
    And, you haven’t answered my question, except by asking your own question.
    Did you learn that technique from Lady Gaga?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    I don’t know what you’re talking about. Alex Dempster said that he’d never seen a suicide with the same bullet trajectory as that which killed Robin. He indicated that it was unlikely that Robin had killed himself. Doesn’t it seem strange that Robin apparently wanted to ensure that David lived, but at the same time left behind evidence which pointed away from him (Robin). All Robin had to do was to leave a hand-written suicide note, or of course he could’ve phoned police just before he was about to kill himself and told them that David wasn’t responsible. How convenient for David that didn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Put it away, Kenneth Thompson wasn’t at the first trial.
    The 8 blood drops on the curtain, and Dr. Cropp’s analysis of them, also weren’t mentioned at the first trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    >> “Dad..”

    >> (Sighs)”What is it David?”

    >> “Turn around and look at me damn you”

    >> Robin turns. Bang.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Have a look at the photo and the words beneath by the pathologist:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2321914/Wound-unusual-for-suicide-pathologist

    :arrow: “never seen a self-inflicted gunshot to the head that was “even close” to the path of the bullet that killed Robin Bain.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    ross69 7.10

    Yes, Dempter said that. I think he used the word ‘angle’ however.
    Dempster was not present in Every Street on the Wednesday following the killings when Detective Sergeant Weir was easily about to perform a suicide scenario that matched with Robins.

    Interestingly, Dempter made the skull cap which had the rod on it to emulate thebullet trajectory into Robin’s head. That was the skull cap used to demonstrate the ease with which Robin suicided. You might know that Robin when found on the floor still had his right leg bent, consistent with it having been raised on the chair. You might also know that the blood spatter on his trouser leg went in 2 directions which was consistent with Robin’s suicide with his right leg bent.

    When Dempster, who at no stage ruled out suicide, but spoke of suicides within his experience, was informed and able to consider of the spatter and other evidence due to be called by the defence, he said that suicide was ‘quite feasible.’

    That’s no doubt part of why Mathias made the point he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    lee – And I wasn’t calling Thompson’s evidence the ‘best evidence’ I was calling Dempster’s evidence ‘best
    evidence’, because Dempster saw Robin’s head wound in person.

    Oh great, another David Bain supporter who assumes the audience is going to psychically pick up names he hasn’t mentioned. You lot seem to have considerable difficulty organising your thoughts coherently…

    Dempster said he saw no ‘gun powder
    particle abrasions which, as you will know, aren’t found in contact gunshot wounds.

    As mentioned by ross69 above, Dempster didn’t think it was suicide. You really should stop quoting sources who disprove you.

    And, you haven’t answered my question, except by asking your own question.
    Did you learn that technique from Lady Gaga?

    Lady Gaga? Jesus Christ, I think that tells me all I need to know about you.
    Your question didn’t need answering, it’s obvious, but as well-stated by Scott Chris above: “Hey dad!”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Put it away 7.46

    Scott Chris has said several things and he has indeed posted a ‘link’ taken, hopefully faithfully, from the evidence. But it remains Dempster said ‘quite feasible’ when under cross examination.

    Scott also mentioned a couple of days ago that blood on Robin’s hand was ‘wiped’ on by David Bain, which when understanding what ‘smears’ are must have also been wiped off again. What do you think the point of that would be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Planting evidence and decided he overdid it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    The police didn’t think so, because they hid that evidence from the first jury. Why do you think they would do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Put it away: “Planting evidence and decided he overdid it?”
    Absolutely not. Don’t forget he planted broken glasses on a chair in his room, after planting bloodstained opera gloves
    under Stephen’s bed.
    Seriously practical joker…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Why would Robin don a green knitted beanie if he intended to shoot himself in the head? Yet another task for Don Mathias -perform a statistical analysis of those who commit suicide while wearing a green beanie, and what proportion of those who do so are also not wearing underpants? These are important statistical questions that are easily overlooked by the novice.

    If it was Robin who left the message “SORRY YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY” on the computer, then surely this was a cunning plan to frame David for the murders? For David was hardly the one who deserved to stay, he was a 22 year old with a paper round who had flunked all of his uni papers. He should have been the first on Robin’s hit list, if indeed we are to believe Robin was the killer. But if we were to replace the words YOU ARE with the words I AM in the message on the computer, we might be getting a little closer to something that makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Notwithstanding the expert testimony regarding the wound on Robin’s temple, the likelihood of it being suicide is further diminished by:

    The fact that Robin was right handed and the wound was on his left temple
    The reality that Robin took a big risk of failure by not removing the silencer and / or shooting into his mouth to ensure a kill
    The lack of a coherent suicide note
    The fact that it was known that Robin and David did not get along, or at least Robin got along better with Arawa and would not have been likely to consider that David was the only one who deserved to stay
    The supposed suicide note was written in the past tense. If Robin was writing it prior to killing himself he would have used the present tense. As a school teacher he would have left a more prosaic note. The note is more befitting of being written by someone who failed all their papers at university and was writing the note after the deed
    The lack of any other evidence that supports the notion that he committed suicide

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa

    I guess at 8.28pm you think that’s it really time to let go and be silly.
    Robin Bain lifted the Beanie before he shot himself as the evidence shows, a common human characteristic of suicide that includes the way people might prepare for suicide. You also might get a clue to that by reading what Mathias said.
    All your other comments are diversions away from the evidence of suicide.
    Talk about the blood smears on Robin’s hands, and the spatter, something relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Bryan Bruce nailed it: “You just have to follow the blood trail” Bruce said. “Whoever fought with wounded 14 year-old Stephen Bain in his bedroom that cold Dunedin morning in 1994 and strangled him to death, would have got that young man’s blood all over him. Robin did not have one drop of Stephen’s blood on his clothing when he was found lying next to a blood smeared rifle that did not have his fingerprints on it.”

    How inconvenient. That doesn’t fit the spin at all….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Dean Papa, at 8:28 pm, Robin certainly left a mess, with his son left to stay, enduring a life that’s seemed mostly tragic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And I wasn’t calling Thompson’s evidence the ‘best evidence’ I was calling Dempster’s evidence ‘best
    evidence’, because Dempster saw Robin’s head wound in person. Dempster said he saw no ‘gun powder
    particle abrasions which, as you will know, aren’t found in contact gunshot wounds.

    You’re so full of shit. If Bain shot himself, the barrel would have been hard up against his forehead, the skin around and in the wound would have been a residue gold mine & the skin edges burned from the hot gasses.The only way there would have been no residue around the wound is if Robin topped himself with a very high powered weapon (not the .22 that was used) – but then the residue would have been around the exit wound.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I don’t know why you are supporting David when the weight of evidence is against him. Why would Robin leave so much evidence behind implicating his son if he wanted him to “stay” (a strange choice of words)? To make it easier to kill himself, Robin could’ve removed the silencer, but didn’t. Why not? And why did Robin want to kill Stephen, who apparently still sat on his father’s lap, and not David, who apparently hated Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    ross69 – I doubt whether many of these David apologists actually believe their own comments. I suspect most are just contrarians and cop-haters who will disagree with the prosecution case for the sake of it, no matter how obvious the evidence is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Bevan:
    Dempster said there was soot in the wound, but no gunpowder particle abrasions on the skin surrounding the wound.
    Thompson said there were gunpowder particle abrasions on the skin surrounding the wound.
    This page,
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XXuJMfwaaiAJ:library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_45/iss_
    and this excerpt, from that page, I think, are what Dempster(from examination of Robin’s head) and Thompson(from examination of photographs of Robin’s head) were looking for, and on which they disagreed:

    “In near contact
    wounds, the muzzle of the weapon is not in contact with the skin,
    being held a short distance away (few cm). In near contact range,
    a wide zone of powder soot overlaying seared blackened skin sur-
    rounds the entrance wound. An intermediate range gunshot
    wound is one in which the muzzle of the weapon is held away
    from the body at the time of discharge, yet is sufficiently close so
    that gunpowder grains expelled from the muzzle along the bullet
    produce “powder tattooing” of the skin. Microscopic examination
    is conducted to verify the presence of partially burnt or unburnt
    gunpowder particles. In the distant range no damage effects or
    discharge particle patterns are observed around the gunshot
    wound.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ The police didn’t think so, because they hid that evidence from the first jury. Why do you think they would do that?

    The tiny blood smear on Robin’s hands wasn’t used in evidence in the first trial because there’s wasn’t enough blood to test. DUH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. lee.hinkleman (17 comments) says:

    Put it away,
    do you suspect that Lords Bingham, Rodger, Brown, Baroness Hale, and Sir Paul Kennedy were just ‘contrarians’ and cop-haters who would disagree with the prosecution case for the sake of it, no matter how obvious the evidence was?
    For me, this whole mess was knocked out out in May 2007, when your evidence(one fingerprint and a couple of spots of sibling blood, from a contaminated crime scene) was not obvious to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Bevan says:- “If Bain shot himself, the barrel would have been hard up against his forehead”

    That’s not the only thing Philip Boyce got wrong. There is no way that the kinetic energy from a medium velocity .22 bullet could have altered Robin’s center of gravity sufficiently to cause him to end up on his back given the contorted forward crouching poses he would have needed to adopt in order to shoot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Lee – the Privy council found technicalities with the way the court of appeal handled the claims, they recommended a retrial on those grounds, they did not exonerate him. In fact they said that “nothing in this judgement should influence the verdict in any way.” If some of the retrial jurors weren’t giggling morons who hugged and shook bain’s hand and went to his party after the trial, he would likely be back in jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    “If some of the retrial jurors weren’t giggling morons who hugged and shook bain’s hand and went to his party after the trial, he would likely be back in jail.”
    Imagine if they found him guilty and then partied with the prosecution……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Putitaway
    11.24

    Try to say something sensible please, although I do appreciate you attempting to deal with the crux of this case the suicide, the blood smears were hidden by the police because they showed that Robin had wiped blood of his hands that morning, and the police didn’t want the Jury to know that. Attacking the Jury just undermines your credibility on this matter. Even though it was a murder trial some of the evidence presented by the Crown was laughable, like the Detective Sergeant hanging out the washing and the fingerprint expert failing to appreciate the skin flattens under pressure and expecting a jury to believe him.

    Scott Chris
    11.29

    You continue to misunderstand the evidence. There is no other way Robin would have fallen. Have you ever heard of somebody falling up stairs? Though I’ll concede in your case you probably have. Robin was in the same position as a climber, the first thing that happened after he shot himself was his left leg collapsed and down he went backwards. Nobody argued that couldn’t have happened, simple phsics. Temple shot by the way, not forehead.

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left
    7.32

    You are entitled to take up any complaints you might have, arising out of rumours, to the Justice Department. They have had to warn particular people about stalking the Jury and I’m sure they would take any substantiated complaints seriously, as is their job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Put It Away Says: “the Privy council found technicalities with the way the court of appeal handled the claims, they recommended a retrial on those grounds, they did not exonerate him. In fact they said that “nothing in this judgement should influence the verdict in any way.”

    Totally correct. In fact, they recommended that David Bain remain in custody pending a retrial!

    Another inconvenient truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – defending the retrial jury’s behaviour means you have no credibility whatsoever. But that’s not really news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    8.11am

    Why don’t you read the decision instead of reporting someone else’s version of it. The PC decision wasn’t in anyway helpful to you and the others that wish to avoid Robin’s suicide. Their decision was based not only on procedural matters, but also new evidence from which they concluded that ‘an Actual Miscarriage of Justice had taken place.’ At that point the blood smears on Robin’s hands were unknown to them, to the defence, and not within the knowledge of Dempster that his staff’s photos of the smears on Robin’s hands had been hidden. Had they known about them, they may have simply quashed the conviction, such is their indication of Robin’s involvement in killing his family.

    They also indicated that whilst the ordered a retrial that it was up the nz authorities on whether one should proceed or not. Guess what one did proceed, 5 not guilty verdicts were returned, and now we await the recommendations of a prominent jurist on compensation and hopefully recommendation on other matters.

    Typically, you ignore the sound advice of Mathias

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Put it away
    8.26

    Inviting you to take any credible complaints you have about the jury to the appropriate authority, isn’t defending them or anything more than respecting our Justice System. The complaints are yours not mine, I have an issue that you appear now only to have been referring to rumour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Nookin (3,345 comments) says:

    I think both sides of the argument are overcooking the goose as far as the PC advice is concerned. PC made no findings of fact and specifically stated that it was not their function. They simply recorded that the jury did not get to hear all the evidence. Whether the jury beleived the evidence and what weight they put on it was up to the jury and PC refused to get into that debate. PC did not suggest that the crown not proceed with the retrial and expressly backed off making comment on guilt or innocence.
    The PC approach is in the following passage:

    103. A substantial miscarriage of justice will actually occur if fresh,
    admissible and apparently credible evidence is admitted which the jury
    convicting a defendant had no opportunity to consider but which might
    have led it, acting reasonably, to reach a different verdict if it had had the
    opportunity to consider it. Such a miscarriage involves no reflection on
    the trial judge, and in the present case David’s counsel expressly
    disavowed any criticism of Williamson J. It is, however, the duty of the
    criminal appellate courts to seek to identify and rectify convictions which
    may be unjust. That result will occur where a defendant is convicted and
    further post-trial evidence raises a reasonable doubt whether he would or
    should have been convicted had that evidence been before the jury.
    104. In the opinion of the Board the fresh evidence adduced in relation
    to the nine points summarised above, taken together, compels the
    conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred
    in this case. It is the effect of all the fresh evidence taken together, not the
    evidence on any single point, which compels that conclusion. But it is
    necessary to identify the source of the Board’s concern in relation to each
    point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – you said no such thing, you are simply lying to look less foolish. It isn’t working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ says:”Why don’t you read the decision instead of reporting someone else’s version of it.”

    And then: “Typically, you ignore the sound advice of Mathias…”

    Haha – Pot. Kettle. Black.

    And typically, you ignore the sound advice of Bryan Bruce. Instead, you mimic the words of the fiction writer Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    In the Bain retrial, I am concerned with the extent to which Karam’s publications might have affected any jury outcome by prejudicing the jury members in advance of the trial. Juries are notoriously fickle and measures are in place to attempt to stem this influence taking place. The sub judice rule exists for this purpose, but it is hard to enforce. After Karam reprinted David and Goliath in 2007 the Solicitor General considered taking him to court for contempt, because this publication represented public discussion of a case while awaiting trial. However he took no action, because he had recently lost a similar action against another publication, but described Karam’s reprinting as “extremely irresponsible”.

    It has since been reported that a member of the jury downloaded some of Karam’s material from the internet, and another member bought one of his books and brought it to the trial to get autographed by the author. These actions represent contempt of court, and if reported at the time, may have resulted in a mistrial. The retrial in my opinion was trial by media rather than trial by impartial judgment of the evidence. Some members of the jury had long made up their minds before all the evidence was in.

    David should just take his not guilty verdict and run. The more that Karam pushes this compensation issue, the greater chance he has of breaking what he has created.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Now now kent, you know that being concerned about the jury’s misbehaviour just undermines your credibility. Somehow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Anyone convicted of any crime, regardless the severity of it, should have the right to defend themselves, even if it means demonstrating negative aspects of a dead person.

    There seems to be some sort of confusion here, by many, that Karam has committed some sort of crime. Some seem to have difficulty distinguishing between his support of David, and David himself. It doesn’t matter what your opinion of Karam is, the Crown claimed that either David or Robin murdered that family. If it wasn’t David, and there isn’t evidence to prove it was, then it must have been Robin, and therefore Robin killed himself.

    I am sure Robin was a loving, caring father and friend. He had achieved much in his life, but then so have many mass murderers. Bryan Bruce is not a forensic scientist, he is a documentary maker whose job it is to sensationalise certain topics. He stood to gain financially and professionally from his documentary, and now is attempting to retain his name by using some touching footage. His videos say nothing and prove little, except that Bruce is prepared to exploit the dead to promote himself. Karam has been writing books for years about this case, but Bruce leaves it till now to make his tribute. His efforts are not genuine and merely opportunistic, however, I’ll give him credit, he knows how to fool the suckers.

    [DPF: First I agree Karam of course has done nothing wrong but promote his view.

    But you totally get it wrong when you say "If it wasn't David, and there isn't evidence to prove it was, then it must have been Robin, and therefore Robin killed himself."

    Just because a jury did not find the case against David was proof beyond reasonable doubt, that does not mean that it is proven that Robin was the killer.

    One can have a view that that case against David is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that on balance of probabilities there is far far more evidence pointing towards David than Robin]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    David may have moved Robin’s body when he was placing the rifle magazine. While it is unlikely that had Robin gone to the trouble of changing clothes for the occasion, that he would have chosen to go commando. And even if Robin did change clothes we could have expected at least some transfer of blood to the new clothes. Yet no blood other than his own was identified. The only possibility I can see that fits in with the facts is that Robin was careful to wash away any blood as part of his scheme to frame David for the murders. I can see no other possible explanation. This is also the only explanation I can think of for the odd suicide note Robin supposedly left on the computer. It makes no sense that David was the only one who deserved to stay. David was a right plonker by all accounts. Do those who are convinced Robin was the killer have any theories regarding the message on the computer? Did Robin set out to frame David, or did Robin really think that David was the bee’s-knees?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Now now kent, you know that being concerned about the jury’s misbehaviour just undermines your credibility. Somehow.

    I think that jury misconduct is something that we should be concerned about. There have been a number of cases in both the UK and US recently which have resulted in prison sentences. The jury have a duty to perform according to the requirements laid out to them and in the case of this retrial a number of jury members breached their contract with the Court. The facts surrounding this are only now coming to light.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Privy council decision courtesy of Scoop:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00225.htm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    I found it quite incredible someone with a criminal conviction was in the jury. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10657315 Many people with such a record would have difficulty understanding right from wrong, and usually have a hostile attitude to police. Prospective jury members should be required to declare such details before selection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    9.55

    Instead of wild allegations that have no support from the evidence, answer two questions arising from the evidence of which there was no doubt and no contest.

    How did Robin Bain get blood smears on his palms?
    How did Robin Bain get blood spatter on his right shoe that was not from his own wound?

    If you can’t answer those questions you have nothing of any benefit to say, you are simply jumping from water lily to water lily trying to not get your feet wet in the evidence against Robin. Read Mathias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Yes of course I agree kent, I was just sarcastically repeating Nostalgia’s ludicrous comment against me. Maybe I should’ve made it clearer. Or maybe like nostalgia I should refer back to clarifying remarks that I never actually said. Odd bunch,.these david supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    hiphip
    12.06

    Tell you complaint up with the Justice Department.
    When you’ve done that answer the two questions, instead of flittering about like a butterfly from link to link, tell us about Robin’s palms and his right shoe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia- empty words from you again. I’m sure you know that complaints about juror conduct can only be heard during the trial, and since the juror with the dishonesty offence just two years previous wasn’t found out in until after the verdict, they got away with it. You must be proud

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    at Nostalgia-NZ ;

    “How did Robin Bain get blood smears on his palms?
    How did Robin Bain get blood spatter on his right shoe that was not from his own wound?”

    moot points, given that we do not know who contributed the blood. My guess would be that it is Robin’s blood.

    But I note that you’ve not addressed my main question :

    Did Robin set out to frame David for the murders? If not, then how do you explain the message on the computer?

    You’ve also failed to comment on why David changed his usual routine of separating out the woollies for hand washing. Also, how did David receive his injuries -the bruising to his face and scratches on his back?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    12.34

    You obviously have no answer. Why would you possibly be frightened of evidence that shows both murder and suicide?

    Elaycee
    12.38

    If you have contact with Bryan Bruce ask him to answer the questions you can’t. Make it easy for everybody. Give him a call.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Still no alternative to Bryan Bruce’s comment: “You just have to follow the blood trail” Bruce said. “Whoever fought with wounded 14 year-old Stephen Bain in his bedroom that cold Dunedin morning in 1994 and strangled him to death, would have got that young man’s blood all over him. Robin did not have one drop of Stephen’s blood on his clothing when he was found lying next to a blood smeared rifle that did not have his fingerprints on it.”

    Wow!

    The David defenders and fiction writers would have us believe that someone could commit suicide using a rifle and silencer aimed at the side of the temple / could do so without leaving any fingerprints on the rifle butt, the rifle barrel or the silencer itself. And the person who they suggest stretched their arm right out in order to reach the trigger, somehow pulled the trigger, but didn’t leave any finger (or thumb) prints on either the trigger or the trigger guard. And they weren’t wearing gloves either….

    How inconvenient… That doesn’t fit with the fictional version at all…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    at Nostalgia-NZ ;

    your attempt of obfuscation is noted. Now, if those questions you had posed were about blood smears and splatter that had been shown to have been contributed by family members other than Robin, then they would indeed be questions worth asking. But as matters stand, you have nothing. Sorry about that. Now would you care to answer some of my questions? Perhaps you’d like to give Joe Karam a call, I’m sure he’d be of some help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    12.48

    If you can’t answer the questions Elaycee just admit it. All you’ve done to date is hop around foot to foot, making comment that you have no support for. My questions are supported by evidence. Incidentally, the officer resposibilty for ensuring the rifle was made safe many hours after the killings wore gloves and admitted he would have destroyed any prints in the area of the trigger and trigger guard. You see your questions are pointless because there are already explanations for them which you have chosen to ignore. Take the very sound advice of Mathias, prove Robin didn’t suicide, start doing that by explaining the blood smears on his hands and the blood spatter on his shoe occluded as being from his own wound. That will be a good start and move the debate to align with the evidence against Robin. If you believe in his innocence prove it, I believe in his guilt and I have given you 2 reasons why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    12.59

    Thanks for your partial answer. Something worth considering.
    On the basis that the blood spatter wasn’t from Robin’s wound whose wound do you think it was from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ: Do you actually read what you write before you hit the ‘submit comment’ button? Yet again you’ve suggested something totally different to what has been said – no wonder several here question your comprehension ‘skills’…

    You write: “If you have contact with Bryan Bruce ask him to answer the questions you can’t. Make it easy for everybody. Give him a call.” And you’ve also said: “If you can’t answer the questions Elaycee just admit it.”

    WTF? Who said I have contact with Bryan Bruce? And what questions am I supposed to ask him? Actually, I don’t need to ask him anything – I found his article that rubbished Karam’s most recent piece of fiction, to be totally logical. And as such, I have no questions. So stop trying to suggest I say things I haven’t – all you’re doing is proving that you can’t read / proving that you can’t comprehend what has been written / and proving that you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the arse. You remind me of the kid who puts their fingers in their ears and goes “La la la la la” when someone is speaking to them – if they can’t hear it, then it can’t be true. :D

    Read what Bruce wrote in his article. It contains several inconvenient truths you cannot fit into the fictional scenario. Or don’t read it – it doesn’t matter. Because I doubt you’d actually be able to understand it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    There is no way that the kinetic energy from a medium velocity .22 bullet could have altered Robin’s center of gravity sufficiently to cause him to end up on his back given the contorted forward crouching poses he would have needed to adopt in order to shoot himself.

    Scott, I hadn’t thought this angle but you’ve highlighted something. The rifle which Robin supposedly shot himself with would have been too difficult to hold against his head with any force (frail old man holding a rifle at arms length..), firing the weapon would have resulted in force or kickback leaving space between the end of the weapon and Robins head, meaning there would have been more residue around the wound, that there was little around the wound (according to the Bain supporters) suggests that either adequate force was used to hold the weapon against Robins head, or the weapon was fired from enough range that the residue did not travel….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    1.21

    I appreciate your unease. I invited you to seek his help to answer the questions you cant, because of your apparent faith in his knowledge of the case.

    Incidentally the book you keep calling ‘fiction,’ have you read it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Bevan
    1.20

    Could you explain how the ‘kickback’ would work on top of a chair?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia asks: “Incidentally the book you keep calling ‘fiction,’ have you read it?”

    No – for fiction I’ll usually purchase something by Lee Child or Michael Connelly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    at Nostalgia-NZ ;

    “On the basis that the blood spatter wasn’t from Robin’s wound whose wound do you think it was from?”

    not worth the conjecture, really. Who knows where and when it occurred. But if that’s all you’ve got then you should be worried. And you’ve still not answered any of the questions I posed. How did David receive his injuries on that day, if not from a violent struggle? Why did David consider it so urgent that his green jersey be washed that he changed his usual routine of a separate hand wash? A change in routine around the time a crime is committed is often a telling factor. If Robin was the killer then was he attempting to frame David for the crime, or was the message on the computer genuine sentiment? If so, then why did Robin think David the only one deserving to stay? I await your responses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    2.03

    You don’t seem to realise that your comment at 12.59 was an acknowledgement of Robin’s suicide.

    ‘blood smears and splatter that had been shown to have been contributed by family members other than Robin,’

    and of course we know those family members were all dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    It appears somewhat disgusting that even after a man is slain, there are some who continue to kick him. In deed, it is probably because he cannot defend himself that brings out those sort of cowardly people. Should Bryan Bruce be successful in bringing about a law change to protect those who cannot defend themselves, and hopefully it can be made retrospective, we are bound to see those who are currently so boldly defaming a helpless victim scurry for cover. The tribute to Robin Bain and Laniet Bain are very well deserved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    Does Mr Karam say in his new book why Robin Bain wore David’s gloves for the killings. I’d have thought gloves would be annoying when you were on a killing mission. Wouldn’t it be more likely you would wear gloves to hide fingerprints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    c’mon now Nostalgia-NZ, are you really that desperate? You missed out the “if” from that quotation of me. I really do hope you’re not a crank like those two clowns Karam and Mathias?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – every time you mention the shoe blood you say it “wasn’t from robins wounds” but you never mention that it was robins blood. Is there an honest reason for that? The sample was so tiny it wasn’t detected in testing for the first trial. Seems most likely it was from some previous very minor injury of robins, and once again you’re hanging your whole case on an irrelevancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    2.43

    ‘if those questions you had posed were about blood smears and splatter that had been shown to have been contributed by family members other than Robin, then they would indeed be questions worth asking.’

    There you go, your ‘if’ is in there and it is still a complete a complete acknowledgement of Robin’s suicide. Because those questions ‘were posed about blood smears and spatter that had been shown to have been contributed by family members other than Robin.’

    We know how the ‘other than Robin’ fits don’t we Dean Papa, because you can’t get the spatter from someone else’s wound off his shoe, nor the blood smears off his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    3.31

    The ‘honest’ reason is the proof of the blood being ‘occluded’ as being from his wound, remember I use the word spatter, that is, as found on his right shoe. Not drips of blood from his hands, but somebody elses spatter going across his shoe that didn’t come from his own wound. In reality, that is the reason why Mathias is right about where the debate should be, there are a number of other reasons – but as we see no one can get past the first 2 questions, Scott Chris has said ‘wiped on’ and therefore presumably ‘wiped off’ later. Dean Papa has gone further, and in the right direction of proof of suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia says:- “Nobody argued that couldn’t have happened, simple phsics.”

    I’ll assume you meant physics and not psychics. Either way you’re wrong again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Gt4QmUG5k

    Pathologist Dr James Ferris’ testimony at Killer Bain’s retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    hiphip
    2.22

    Those are misguided, emotional comments. The Crown spent somewhere over $10 million defending Robin as not being the murderer and failed. You and others ‘defend’ him now not withstanding you attack his only surviving child, his dead wife and children. Don’t pretend nobody defends Robin. Not only that, you present facts that aren’t facts and ask questions ‘why’ about things that don’t matter or can’t be answered because they’re in the mind of a dead man. Mathias has been probably ‘accidentally’ helpful in this debate, and I respect his judgement on that. No doubt he will subject to an online assault for that, and I will write and apologise to him if I have in any way contributed. But for a living man, with experience in the law, being unable to make lucid, reasoned, comment then we have entered dark times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    hiphip says: “The tribute to Robin Bain and Laniet Bain are very well deserved.”

    +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    3.21

    Certainly evidence from the trial, but not enough to convince the Jury and not enough to answer the 2 questions that have tripped you over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    It amazes me that you can’t work out the answer to you two questions.

    1) The blood smeared on his hand was transferred there by David when he moved Robin’s body.
    2) The blood on his shoes got there either as he was crumpling in a heap, or when David moved the body.

    Simple and plausible.The smears were insignificant, and yet Robin had not washed his hands having removed the extremely bloody gloves.

    :arrow: “Robin’s hands were inspected by a detective in charge of the victims, who found dirt around the fingernails and in the creases of his hands. They did not appear to have been washed.”

    The ‘smears':

    >>smear of blood on heal of thumb inside left hand
    >>smear of blood on left little finger
    >>no blood on right hand
    >>splash of blood on nail of second right finger
    >>spot of blood on outside of left thumb

    Also, why did he wear gloves? There is no conceivable reason for him to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    blood splatter from the victims was identified on Robin’s person? That’s news to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Mathias has been probably ‘accidentally’ helpful in this debate

    I thought you might have stopped, Nostalgia, but alas I was wrong.

    Mathias has lost any credibility he might have had by asking resonable people to prove a negative. Why didn’t he simply ask Karam to prove that Robin killed himself? That’s what any competent lawyer would ask. Indded, if David wants any compensation he’ll have to prove that Robin did indeed kill himself. So where’s the evidence for that scenario? in the meantime, maybe Nostalgia you could tell me why Robin’s other three kids didn’t desever to “stay”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    *deserve

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    4.05

    At least you’re trying.

    1) No evidence that body was moved, no place for conjecture. Try again.
    2)No on both of those – incosistent with spatter. Try again.

    You’re demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    4.13

    Not exactly what I said. But no news about it all, evidence in the trial.

    ross69
    4.14
    Perhaps if you read Mathias again, you’d understand what he said.
    And what he said was based on forensic proof, a challenge if you like. To answer questions that point to not only Robin’s suicide, but his role in killing his family.
    Actually you have this ‘sides’ issue going on. I don’t believe Mathias was necessarily taking sides at all, unless you talk about forensic evidence being a side.
    Stick with the evidence and don’t seek diversions away from the critical evidence of suicide.
    Also don’t take it personally please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Could you explain how the ‘kickback’ would work on top of a chair?

    WTF? Clearly you have no idea regarding the physics involved in firing a weapon? Even a .22, no matter where you fire it from would recoil – even very small caliber and low power rounds will do so minutely, enough to allow the gas to escape thereby leaving residue. Even if Robin rested the butt of the rifle against the floor or wall, the hot gasses and powder residue would need to escape out the end of the barrel. If held against his head the residue would be around the entry would, inside the would and around the exit wound. At the awkward angle Robin would have to have been holding the rifle to commit suicide – he would not have been able to control the force exerted from the rifle when firing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Bevan
    4.36

    Are you trying to say that the chair had a hole in it, or that if fell over from the ‘kickback.’ No evidence of that. But you are right the hot gases do have to escape out of the barrel. First of all they’re forced out by the momentum of the round, then because of the vacuum created, the closest possible ‘air’ is drawn back into the barrel until the pressure is equalised within and in the surrounding ‘atmosphere.’ In Robin’s case, the vacuum drew back spatter from his wound that had swirled around and exited again, because of the velocity, out the entry point. The spatter ended up inside the silencer and inside the barrel itself. As you say WTF?
    But at least you’re talking about the suicide.
    Do you know anything about spatter, because clearly I have no idea about physics, or psychics either, as Scott Chris has pointed out. Or do you know anything about blood smears found on the hands of a person who has committed suicide? Whether they would be there or not, if he hadn’t been involved in some other bloody pursuit before killing himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia says:- “You’re demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the evidence.”

    Stop being a patronizing prat. We are not in a court of law. Rigid rules regarding the treatment of evidence don’t apply in a debating forum.

    Of course the body was moved. That aside, I repeat my challenge from GD a few days ago. You give me your 10 best pieces of evidence against Robin, and I’ll give you my 10 best pieces of evidence against David.

    No doubt you will evade the challenge again because you have no material to work with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Don Mathias85866 (4 comments) says:

    Thank goodness for freedom of speech and the vigorous exchange of ideas. I don’t mind insults and invective, even directed at me, as long as they are motivated by humour and wit and not by madness. There is a misperception that my mind is made up. I simply invite any reasoned argument that will rebut the thesis of Karam’s book. I found persuasive what he says about the bloody footprints being Robin’s. As the Privy Council accepted, if those footprints were Robin’s the case against David collapses. This is because Robin could have committed suicide. The footprints, being Robin’s, change that “could” into “did”.

    That, at least, is the thrust of Karam’s argument, and without rebuttal I must say I find it persuasive. So please, someone show us why the footprints must be David’s. Given their size and their having, according to Karam, been examined by scientists from both sides, they must have been Robin’s. Martin van Beynen says no, they were tested in an odd way. However it seems the way they were tested, with blood-soaked socks, would have led them to be bigger prints and therefore more likely to be like David’s but they were still too small to be his.

    There has been a lot of imprecision in this debate. Going back to Martin’s point about Robin’s clothing not being his best, thereby rebutting the dress-up-for-suicide theory, I note Martin’s adjectives when he suggests the clothing was hardly of the dress-up sort. But looking at the pictures, it isn’t as bad as he suggests. The trackpants are clean, apart from the blood, and seem to be fairly new, not frayed at the waist, or ankles and not stretched or worn thin at the knees. The outer shirt too seems fairly new and clean. Robin seems to be dressed in a mixture of work clothes – the inner shirt – and clothes for warmth. Not his green jersey, but a hoodie. A little strange, but even so, you can’t fairly accuse him of dressing down. And the context is important: what other choices of clothing did he have? But the original argument was that he would be unlikely to change his clothes if he was going to commit suicide, and I still don’t think doing so is unusual to the point of being inconsistent with suicide.

    Any sensible person can see that there is a case to be made for a course of events with David as the killer, but the difficulty with that case seems to be the bloody footprints and the blood deposits connected with Robin’s death. I suspect the jury found these points significant.

    Carry on with the invective if you must, but illuminate it with a bit of reason and accurate reference to the evidence and you might persuade me.

    (And if that person who mentioned my efforts to describe the prosecutor’s fallacy could expand on his point and clarify it I would be most grateful.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Dean – nostalgia is being dishonest here. The blood on robin was his own, but one tiny patch which was from a less likely angle, most likely it was old blood. He carefully phrases “not from his wounds” to imply it was the other victims. He has nothing but deception.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    5.11

    Where is your proof that the body was moved? Do you mean taken out of the scene by the pathologist, because there is no other evidence that it was moved. Proof of that would have been proof of David’s guilt. So lets deal with what proof we do have against Robin. Only two questions, or 2 points, and you can’t budge them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    5.19

    You have nothing but deception. I have evidence. You have words and accusations. I have evidence.
    Say what you like to Dean, he’s already made a frank observation that indicates he understands the circumstances by which smears were on Robin’s hands and spatter ‘occluded’ as being from his own wound was on his shoe – see 12.59 above.
    Don’t attack me, I didn’t make the evidence and I didn’t try to hide it from the Court or from the Pathologist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    The small band of David Bain supporters should have simply and quietly breathed a sigh of relief when the second trial found him not guilty – or as the Scottish courts would have it, Not proven. They could have discussed the inadequacies of the police investigation and prosecution and the relentless focus on introducing doubt to key pieces of evidence that is the heart of good criminal defence tactics.

    That should have been enough, and even if the defence team felt they had to go further in pushing the jury into “reasonable doubt” by crafting some pale web of an alternative scenario – something the original defenders of Arthur Allen Thomas saw no need to do – that’s no reason why people outside of them should do so. One would think that simple decency and empathy towards the dead would hold them back.

    But the nutters simply cannot stop there: they have to hammer away at the other part of the equation, as if the thought of a freely roaming psychopath is a guilty itch they can’t live with. So they have to pin the guilt on someone else. Luckily for them this is not the OJ Simpson murder trial, where OJ may even now still be searching for the mysterious killer of his wife. In the Bain case there is another suspect. Even better, he’s a dead one who cannot speak in his own defence.

    Focusing on tiny, debatable points in a courtroom is one thing, it’s what’s expected of a defence lawyer, and they generally never worry too much about the alternative story that might be crafted from such things. It’s not their job to solve the murder mystery.

    But for those of us outside the courtroom it must be part of the discussion. If David did not kill them then who did? And if the answer is Robin then it behooves those people to step back from the tiny details and ask themselves how believable is the story so spun: that Robin Bain entered his house, took off all his clothes, put David’s clothes on, walked around the house killing his family, before taking David’s clothes off again, putting them in a washing machine, walking back through the house naked, putting his own clothes back on and then shooting himself.

    It would be nice to think that even if the likes of Nostalgia-NZ can believe such a story, they would have sufficient doubts to refrain from pushing it too hard in public. But then of course that is the whole point; they must believe such a fairy tale and obsess over it’s details because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    tomhunter
    5.44

    You attack me freely, but where is your evidence to support your scenario. I’ve never heard it before. If you have details of the evidence or summations, you will know it was never proposed that Robin wore David’s clothes – pure fantasy. If you want preach some sort of standards please at least have a basis in fact. I don’t believe in fairy tales, it’s obvious you have a talent for writing them. If you want to write fairy tales and use them to attempt to force somebody into silence while you persecute a man found not guilty after years in prison, observe your own character before preaching to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “If you want to write fairy tales and use them to attempt to force somebody into silence…”

    Haha – this from the man who touts the latest Karam book as ‘evidence’ and who buries every other Kiwiblogger with the sheer volume of obfuscation / innuendo / distortions and in some cases, downright lies.

    It is no coincidence that, of the 180+ posts on this thread, Nostalgia-NZ has made 40. Gives substance to the tactic: If you repeat bullshit over and over, some gullible people will eventually think that somehow its fact when the opposite is really the case.

    Because that’s exactly the tactic you’re demonstrating now – trying to point the blame at someone who isn’t around to defend their reputation. Because they were murdered.

    It almost appears as if you are on Karam’s payroll. After all, you share a common love of fables.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. cha (4,026 comments) says:

    ++ Tom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    +++ Tom.
    It is interesting david has expressed no genuine remorse at the loss of his family or anger at the person alleged to have done it. He acts exactly as we would expect a psychopath to. Some of his most fanatical supporters can relate to this and see nothing unusual about such behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Are you trying to say that the chair had a hole in it, or that if fell over from the ‘kickback.’

    The final location of the chair, or bullet holes in it has nothing to do with firearm recoil. I’m talking about firearm recoil in relation to gunshot particles, burns and residue.

    But you are right the hot gases do have to escape out of the barrel. First of all they’re forced out by the momentum of the round, then because of the vacuum created, the closest possible ‘air’ is drawn back into the barrel until the pressure is equalised within and in the surrounding ‘atmosphere.’In Robin’s case, the vacuum drew back spatter from his wound that had swirled around and exited again, because of the velocity, out the entry point. The spatter ended up inside the silencer and inside the barrel itself. As you say WTF?

    So you agree then that the weapon MUST have been held hard against Robins head until AFTER the fatal shot was delivered. Then answer, how can an old man hold a rifle at arms length and an awkward angle hold the rifle with enough force to keep the rifle there AFTER he was dead?

    But at least you’re talking about the suicide.

    No, I’m pointing out how ridiculous the suicide explanation is and all the holes that come with it. So far, yourself, David, Mathias and Karam have not explained how the laws of basic physics have been broken for Robin to have committed suicide. Nor has anyone explained why, if Robin committed suicide, he didn’t simply remove the silencer to make it easier to do it.

    Do you know anything about spatter, because clearly I have no idea about physics, or psychics either, as Scott Chris has pointed out. Or do you know anything about blood smears found on the hands of a person who has committed suicide?

    No, although I suspect they wouldn’t be too dissimilar from blood splatters resulting from an execution.

    Whether they would be there or not, if he hadn’t been involved in some other bloody pursuit before killing himself?

    Or the bullet wound he received resulted in blood splatter the landed in the places it did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter
    5.44
    What an excellent post

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    A quick look at Nostalgia-NZ’s rant site on blogspot reveals he’s fairly clearly off his rocker and has way too much time on his hands, with endless posts with charming and reasonable titles such as “Retard Ralph Taylor – the pedo-apologist”, “The filthy hate-siters at work. “, “Retard Rachael”, “Head pedo-supporter” , “pedo pals” etc etc, they seem to mostly consist of him copy and pasting a comment from some unnamed other forum and responding with such well reasoned argument as…

    Would you like to put some money on it fiddler old pal, or are you still full of it like when you wouldn’t back up your claims that rotten daddy’s blood was in the barrel or that David had scratch marks to his chest when he was stripped searched? You’re so pathetic Ralph, just because you stick up for pedos with other sicko cultists you think you’re normal. But you’re not normal Ralphie, you’re a sicko sick pedo sticker upper. I’ll put money on that, but what about you Ralph – too gutless you persecuting piece of dog waste? ( http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.com/search/label/Pedo%20pals )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Tom 5.44. Well done. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to ascribe the likes of Nostalgia’s activities as due to any kind of conscience, in his case it’s definitely ego and batshit insanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    6.30

    Point out the downright lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Bevan
    6.59

    You’ve changed your recoil arguement, because you realise it can’t have recoiled or ‘backfired’ in the way you previously said.

    No I don’t agree the rifle was held against his head hard or any other way after he was shot, I never argued that.

    A lot more hot wind, nothing to do with the evidence and their was no obligation to explain anything Robin did, let alone removing the silencer – particularly when he, as the reconstruction showed was easily able to pull the trigger.

    Well, the spatter went in the wrong direction to have come from Robin’s wound. Therefore it was spatter from somebody else shot that morning.

    And no, too you last point – because the evidence showed it didn’t come from his wound, it was travelling in the wrong direction across his shoe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Well your 8:53 am would be a good place to start, Nostalgia.

    “Inviting you to take any credible complaints you have about the jury to the appropriate authority, isn’t defending them or anything more than respecting our Justice System.”

    Can you point out where you said that to me? You simply made it up after the fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    7.04

    Finally found some evidence.
    Of course it doesn’t alter any of the evidence that you can’t overcome in the Bain case, like those two questions for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Which questions are you still banging on about, long after they’ve been disproved? The head angle? As Scott Chris would say, “Hey, dad!”.
    Or is it Robin Bain’s own blood on his own shoe, most likely from a previous injury, that you keep phrasing as “not from his wounds” to try and deceive readers that it was from the other family members? Shameful dishonesty on your part.

    But as I see from your site, you’re clearly obsessed, hate-filled and likely have some form of mental illness. No matter how many times your nonsense is disproved you will keep chanting “occluded from his wounds” like it was some kind of magic incantation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    7.29

    Blood pressure up. Finding it difficult to make headway consistent with evidence.
    I guess you overlooked this as well. Fascinating that you are searching back through my posts and elsewhere for evidence about the Bain case that you know so well.

    Nostalgia-NZ (375) Says:

    February 21st, 2012 at 8:53 am
    Put it away
    8.26

    Inviting you to take any credible complaints you have about the jury to the appropriate authority, isn’t defending them or anything more than respecting our Justice System. The complaints are yours not mine, I have an issue that you appear now only to have been referring to rumour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Don Mathias @ 5.13 says:- ” if those footprints were Robin’s the case against David collapses”

    I would suggest that claiming that the footprint is either Robin’s or David’s based on the interpretation of the evidence we currently have is impossible. Therefore the bloody sock print is irrelevant.

    I’d be interested to know what Karam seems to think so conclusively identifies the sockprint as being Robin’s. How do we know, for instance, how much of the sock had blood on it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    7.44

    Here’s the shameful dishonesty.

    Q. Just in relation to scene A, and if I can take you back to what we saw in scene A, perhaps if we could go to photograph A5. What can you say about the stains that you have observed on the shoes being consistent with the position of Robin Bain, namely whether before the shot or at the time of the shot, whether he was kneeling, sitting, standing, what can you say?
    A. If these stains originated at the time of the shot then the shoe would not have been occluded from the source of the blood. By kneeling you would tend to occlude the upper surface of a shoe, and therefore these spots couldn’t have originated as they did at the time of the shot.

    Further on, it is described how the blood is travelling left to right. Robin’s wound was in his left temple. Of course that would be more ‘shameful dishonesty’ even though it is from the evidence. There’s more, but you can’t answer just 2 questions.

    What are your sources of information pia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Lying again, nostalgia? That is the quote you retrospectively made up, to try and retract the ridiculous comment you actually made, after I called you on it. Where did you originally tell me to take complaints about the jury, before then? Oh that’s right, you didn’t. You simply said that criticising the jury “undermined my credibility”. Jeez, what an idiot I must be, thinking that someone with a dishonesty offence two years previous should not be on a jury… especially if that same juror hugs Bain and goes to his party. Then you realised that was kind of an idiotic thing for you to say, and pretended you’d told me to complain to the authorities ( also idiotic, since they won’t hear complaints after the case is over, and your crooked juror wasn’t found out until the after the verdict)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Take a look at this if you will. It’s a news item featuring Philip Boyce’s crucial testimony. What interests me is his statement regarding the way in which suicide victims fall:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxukweo638E

    >>“the *normal* thing I’ve seen when people have been shot is that they buckle at the knees and go backwards”

    I don’t know what the prosecution countered this statement with, but what strikes me as a gaping flaw in his testimony is that the proposed manner of Robin’s suicide is far from normal, as is evident from Boyce’s demonstrations of possible poses. I’d be curious to know how many people have committed suicide using a silencer. None in Dr Ferris’ experience for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    And that’s it from me. It seems like the dishonest lunatic is the only one still posting in here, and since it’s utterly futile to argue reason with someone who believes for entirely non-rational reasons, especially one who seems to have infinite time on his hands ( jeez Nostalgia, with a mind as sharp as yours and such a winning personality I can’t believe you’re not gainfully employed…) Seriously, I’ve had more intelligent conversations with Creationists. Outta here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia

    8.01

    You know you made accusations about the Jury to myself and another poster. I can’t be bothered getting in further arguments about it. None of it detracts from the suicide, or from your opportunity to complain to the appropriate authority about them.

    For you and Scott Chris’s benefit or any of those trying to absolve Robin, the following, also from the evidence, indicates the importance of the previously undisclosed blood smears on Robin’s palms. This might have been the reason for Dean Papa’s 12.59pm comment.

    Bloodstain patterns can assist, I mean basically letting you know whether or not an action may have occurred in relation to an item or nearby to an item. By looking at bloodstain patterns one can typically comment on how they may have arisen. For example, a smear – a so-called contact stain would have arisen from an item wet with blood coming in contact with an item that is not wet with blood

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    pia
    8.07

    Tough work eh Pia when you’re pulling facts out of mid air, I’d already made the previous post and it might be helpful to others. You almost made a slight impression on those 2 questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    8.07

    As far as this wasn’t a ‘normal’ suicide in that the spatter on the trouser leg indicated his right leg was bent, nevertheless, the supporting knee (unbent) would collapse first, sending the body backwards not only because of the body mass and gravity of the upper thighs, gluts, stomach and so on, but in this case the head would have moved violently away from the rifle barrel throwing the shoulder back as well.

    It’s been a long day, what I’ve described above (and I’m not an expert by any means) is also consistent with how Robin’s body was found. right leg still bent and so on. But the blood going the wrong way, left to right across his right shoe (the raised foot) wasn’t spatter from that head wound, but it certainly was spatter. This was pointed out and shown to the Jury.

    On your final point, Robin didn’t need to remove the silencer. A pointless exercise when he could reach the trigger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ says: “Point out the downright lies.”

    I’ve already done it. Remember? One such occasion was my comment to you at 1.21pm today. If you don’t understand it, then get someone to read it to you so they can explain to you what it all means. But you told porkies. Spoke crap. Uttered bollocks. Told tusi talas. Wrote fairy tales. Described fables. And told downright lies.

    It’s almost as if your spin has taken on the taint of a zealot who could even have a vested interest somewhere. Because you’ve tossed all logic out the window in your efforts to paint Robin’s murder as a supposed ‘suicide’.

    I suspect you’re actually one of Karam’s disciples. Or maybe your link with Karam is closer again…

    Now there’s a thought…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    10.44

    Hysterical as always.

    ‘If you have contact with Bryan Bruce ask him to answer the questions you can’t. Make it easy for everybody. Give him a call.” And you’ve also said: “If you can’t answer the questions Elaycee just admit it.”

    WTF? Who said I have contact with Bryan Bruce?’

    Hard to follow the ‘if’ much?

    Good work at getting off topic, again. Really helps.

    ‘I suspect you’re actually one of Karam’s disciples. Or maybe your link with Karam is closer again…

    Now there’s a thought…’

    What comedy. I wouldn’t expect that you’d think that somebody might speak out for others, particularly against attacks built on lies. But don’t be too sore, at least you went from being an expert on the Bain murder/suicide to what I wrote at 1.21pm today. I guess you could call that progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Robin Bain was described as: kind, gentle, nice, caring and thoughtful by those who knew him. Robin could not even kill a spider. http://www.3news.co.nz/Robin-Bain-like-a-grandfather-to-his-pupils—court-told/tabid/419/articleID/100937/Default.aspx Whereas David liked killing rabits, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Nostalgia says: “But don’t be too sore, at least you went from being an expert on the Bain murder/suicide to what I wrote at 1.21pm today…..”

    Whaaaat? Er, you didn’t post a comment at 1.21pm today. Almost every other minute of the day, but not at 1.21pm. Wrong again – did you get your clock from David? So in addition to poor comprehension, you have a problem with facts too… Who’da thought? :D

    You also wrote: “I wouldn’t expect that you’d think that somebody might speak out for others, particularly against attacks built on lies.”

    Well, actually, Nostalgia, I do. That’s exactly the reason why so many ordinary people are pissed off that Robin’s name is being tarnished at a time he can’t defend himself against the innuendo and the lies.

    Because (in case you’ve forgotten), Robin was murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Still proof of nothing.
    Pass mark on just two questions – zero.
    The body moved, blood wiiped onto the palms – then off again, clothes swapped and swapped back again (I presume leaving David naked), recoil working in reverse – you could say we’ve heard it all. Futile yes, progressive toward understanding a straight forward murder/suicide? – well not for those that cant’ or won’t read.
    Completely happy with the verdict, pissed off with the over $10 million spent on Robin’s disproved defence, looking forward to some insightful comment from Justice Binnie and a result long before then for Watson, Hall and Ellis.

    I’ll leave it there.

    Cheers for the calm and insult free exchanges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “I’ll leave it there.”

    Great! But even in closing off, you bugger it up when you say: “…pissed off with the over $10 million spent on Robin’s disproved defence…” Whaaat?

    NEWSFLASH: Robin wasn’t on trial. There was no defence needed for Robin. Robin was one of the victims. Robin was murdered. FFS!

    Nostalgia Report Card:

    Comprehension – FAIL
    Retention of Fact: FAIL
    Story Telling: PASS (HONS). His imagination knows no bounds.
    Credibility: FAIL.
    Phys Ed: PASS (Hons) Nostalgia can spin better than anyone else in the class.

    Summary: Nostalgia is disruptive in class. He refuses to consider anything but his own, myopic view on things and when pressed, he has a propensity to resort to innuendo and even tell porkies. He sometimes has fits of pique – most likely a sign of frustration due to his limited thinking skills. He HAS to try and have the last word on all topics – not a healthy sign for the future.

    Career: Limited prospects. Due to his poor social skills, he may actually be unemployable, or perhaps signed up as a left MP. As his ability to create spin is without peer in his class, he may be able to utilise this ‘talent’ by seeking a future with the Gweens.

    And I’ll leave it there. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Don Mathias at 5.13, sorry about some of the invective, but you surely must agree that questioning the objectivity of anyone who might have a contrary view to your own is not a very good way to begin a discussion. It invites a response. I’ve no doubt Karam’s book is very convincing, but then that should hardly be a surprise. Karam is a persuasive writer who has spent the last 15 years obsessing over the Bain murders. Why would you expect it to be anything else? But of course, you surely must also have expected Karam would massage and manipulate the evidence to suit his agenda. That should come as no surprise to a lawyer. It would be like a jury hearing only the case for the defence before retiring to consider their verdict.

    The bloody footprint evidence is inconclusive. As Martin Van Beyen points out the margins for error do not allow any conclusion to be reached. The footprints could be from Robin or David, there’s no way to tell. While a 280mm may be too small to have been David’s, equally it is too large to be Robin. Recalling Johnnie Cochran’s famous line “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Well, we all know how that turned out, don’t we?

    Don, as regards your explanation of the Prosecutor’s fallacy. I’m afraid it would be unintelligible to anyone without a thorough knowledge of the subject to begin with, which defeats the purpose of the exercise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Don Mathias85866 (4 comments) says:

    My reasons for thinking that the footprints can’t be airily dismissed as irrelevant begin with what Lord Bingham, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Bain v R [2007] UKPC 33 said at para 107 (the judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2007/33.html ):
    “At trial, it was asserted and accepted that the 280mm complete toe to heel sock print, found outside Margaret’s room, seen and measured by Mr Hentschel, was David’s because it was too big to be Robin’s. The fresh evidence throws real doubt on the correctness of that assumption. The jury could reasonably infer that the print, if a complete print, was about the length of print that Robin would have made and too short to have been made by David. A question now arises whether, as Mr Walsh suggests, his earlier report was misunderstood and misapplied by the third Court of Appeal. If the jury had concluded that the print had, or might have been, made by Robin, the jury might have thought this significant for three reasons. First, it would indicate that Robin had been to parts of the house on the morning of 20 June which, on the Crown case, he would never have visited. Secondly, it would establish that Robin had changed out of blood-stained socks, since if he made the print he must have been wearing blood-stained socks and the socks he was wearing when he was found dead in the lounge were not blood-stained. Thirdly, if he changed his socks, the jury might not think it fanciful to infer that he changed other garments as well, as (on David’s case) he had. The implausibility of Robin changing his clothes if he was about to commit suicide, was a point strongly relied on by the Crown, as something a normal and rational person would not have done. But the jury might conclude that whoever committed these killings was not acting normally or rationally.”
    Note the critical sentence “The jury could reasonably infer that the print, if a complete print, was about the length of print that Robin would have made and too short to have been made by David.”
    So there we have the size issue.
    Then, according to Karam (p 313 of “Trial by Ambush”) before the retrial the Crown had further experimentation done by the ESR which showed that “a foot exactly the size of Robin Bain’s would be expected to make the prints that Weir and Hentschel discovered [in the Bain house].”
    The jury had these results.
    Also, at the Privy Council hearing the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins QC conceded that if even one of the prints found in the carpet at the Bain house was Robin Bain’s then the Crown case was over (Karam, p 313).
    That is, the Crown was well aware of the significance of the footprints and so ordered the further experimentation just mentioned. This experimentation supported the defence case.
    Naturally enough, from the point of view of a barrister, Mr Bates in the Crown opening address at the retrial did not mention the footprints (Karam, p 314). That was a sensible tactic.
    It seems that attempts were made at the retrial to obfuscate the footprint testing by using the term “complete” print in an unusual sense, which if I understand Karam’s book correctly was to apply it to a complete but merely partial print – that is, a partial print that is complete in itself – instead of applying the natural meaning of “complete” to mean a heel-to-toe print. The issue was probably clarified by the defence witness Dr Anna Sandiford who had tested David’s foot and found it could not make a complete print as small as those that had been found in the house.
    In his closing address on this issue Mr Raftery suggested that the fact that the murderer was “creeping stealthily about the house” (Karam, p 316). It seems that the jury were being invited to dismiss the evidence concerning complete (heel-to-toe) footprints because their size was shortened by stealth. Well, I don’t find that convincing.
    It seems that the Crown was really against the ropes on this issue, and I think that if we are to ask what is the explanation for the acquittals, this evidence must be a significant contributor.
    I am not persuaded that the footprint evidence was “inconclusive” and that Martin has demonstrated that the margins of error “do not allow any conclusion to be reached”. Scientists are well aware of margins of error and Crown scientists in particular would have made that point if it were correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Don,

    I’m surprised someone in your position unquestioningly accepts everything Karam says. Where’s your sense of fair play? Have you taken the time to read both of Martin van Beynen’s articles on the case? You will be aware that Karam omitted relevant information from his latest book. Maybe you’d care to speculate on the reasons for him doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    That, at least, is the thrust of Karam’s argument, and without rebuttal I must say I find it persuasive. So please, someone show us why the footprints must be David’s. Given their size and their having, according to Karam, been examined by scientists from both sides, they must have been Robin’s. Martin van Beynen says no, they were tested in an odd way. However it seems the way they were tested, with blood-soaked socks, would have led them to be bigger prints and therefore more likely to be like David’s but they were still too small to be his.

    The footprints are most likely a red herring, that cannot prove anything for either side, just like the arguments surrounding the computer turn on time. You, Don, like so many others, are distracted from a long list of highly incriminating items of evidence by Karam’s focus on one or two items which he has made controversial and whose discussion have filled up most of the talk about the case such as the following:

    David Bain’s strange behaviour before and after the murders

    David Bain’s changes of testimony

    His mother’s glasses were found broken in his room, and the lens in Stephen’s room, and it is known he sometimes used them, consistent with David being the person who fought with David.

    The injuries on David Bain’s face were consistent with the glasses being whacked off in a fight (with Stephen)

    David Bain’s strength and fitness made him more likely to have been able to overpower Stephen than his father, something which swayed at least one member of the first jury

    The gun belonged to him and was kept in his room

    The spare trigger lock key was in his room and supposedly unknown to anyone else, and that was the key used that morning to unlock the trigger

    The bloodied gloves belonged to him. Robin had a similar pair in his room. Why use David’s if he has a pair? Why use any gloves if he is going to commit suicide?

    David Bain was not able to explain the 20 minute delay between finding his father’s body and ringing 111 which is consistent with him coming home and waiting for his father to rise so he could then shoot him.

    David Bain had a shooting board with five targets

    The washing machine cycle had insufficient time to finish according to the accused’s story

    An empty magazine was lying on its edge by Robin Bain’s hand and could only have got there by being placed

    Fingerprints consistent with David Bain’s were found on the washing machine

    David Bain had blood on his clothes that belonged to Stephen, who was the only one who put up a fight and was likely to transfer blood

    Blood marks on the doorways were consistent with someone of David Bain’s stature

    The suicide note was written in the past tense, as if written after the murders were completed

    A school teacher would write a more considered and prosaic suicide note than that found

    Robin Bain had only his own blood on his clothes and the only injuries on his person were on his hands, but he was known to have worked on the house gutters during the weekend

    Robin Bain had dirt under his fingernails and was unwashed, yet there were blood stains in the shower that indicated the murderer had showered

    Robin Bain had a full bladder, which while possible, would be very unlikely if he was the murderer

    David spoke of hearing Laniet gurgling and then the Defence had to develop a story to explain it

    Joe Karam does not pay much attention to evidence that does not suit his conclusions, so yes, any book he writes will be full of only those things that suit his interests. Martin V Beynen also refers to a forensic report that he commissioned from Melbourne in which the conclusion was that Robin could not have committed suicide. This was neatly hidden under the carpet until the police unearthed it in 2007.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Don, you seem like an intelligent person. You should probably read more about the case than just what Karam does. Oh wait. Karam has a habit of sueing all those who argue against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Don Mathias

    It surprises me that you wouldn’t think the debate over the semantic exactness of the meaning of the word ‘complete’ in reference to the print, combined with the qualification “if a complete print” would cast reasonable doubt on the theory that the footprint was Robin’s.

    Put your defense lawyers hat on for a second and imagine that you were defending an alive Robin Bain in a trial in which a print larger than his foot was being used as a piece of evidence to attempt to convict him. You’d go find some forensic expert or academic study to prove that the print may not have been his. (apparently the field is well researched in India where a large proportion of murders are carried out by barefooted people) And the only forensic expert to have actually seen and measure the prints, Peter Hentschel said that his opinion was that they were a match for David’s foot size not Robins.

    Some variables to ponder:

    Did the print maker step on carpet soaked with blood or hard floor?
    Was it a pool or a smear?
    How much blood would produce only 5 luminol visible prints?
    Why were there only five prints?
    How heavy was the print maker?
    How dry was the blood he stepped in?

    Enough doubt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    8.20

    Glad to see you’ve progressed to seeing Robin as the defendant. Good work.
    He was vigorously defended, latest estimates on the defence of Robin Bain exceed 20 million.
    A wasted defence of course as we all now know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Nope, what I’m doing is addressing a point (something you have great difficulty doing) Don Mathias raised and applying the same forensic method of casting doubt on it as was practiced by the very accomplished Michael Reid QC. His job was made all the more easy by some very sloppy police work.

    Certainly I’ve become better acquainted with some of the detail of the Bain trial over the course of this discussion but my opinion hasn’t shifted one iota. David Bain murdered his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Don Mathias85866 (4 comments) says:

    Many interesting questions are raised by these comments, about how fact-finding in criminal trials should be done. The Law Commission is interested in everyone’s views on this and online submissions can be made at http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/alttrials .

    People who support the retrial acquittals in the Bain case need to criticise the Crown case by finding the logical stumbling-block. People who criticise the acquittals tend to focus on the Crown case as it was in its pre-trial form. Indeed, there was a lengthy list of circumstances (helpfully set out above in this discussion) which indicated guilt. In every case there needs to be sufficient evidence to amount to proof of guilt if it is unanswered by the defence, or else the prosecution will be dismissed, even before the jury gets a chance to consider the evidence. That is why having a second trial was appropriate in the Bain case: there was new evidence but it needed to be considered by a jury because even with that new evidence there was still evidence available to the prosecution to support an inference of guilt.

    So it is what the jury does with the evidence that matters, and this, in our current way of doing trials, it the great unknown. Should juries be required to answer as part of their publicly announced verdict a series of questions about their determinations of the facts? We would all be greatly assisted in our present discussion if that had been done. Currently, question “trails” (steps towards a decision) are used in criminal cases where the law is complex, but these are only to assist the jury to reach a verdict, not to publicly expose the jury’s reasoning.

    How logical does a jury have to be? The law tolerates perverse acquittals but not perverse convictions. If facts are to be found by judges, can judges be allowed to return perverse acquittals? Not under the current judicial oath. But that is a side-issue. Some people say that the permitting of perverse acquittals is an important constitutional safeguard against oppressive prosecution or against misconduct by investigators.

    How much guidance should judges give juries on how to reason? Currently the usual direction given by judges at the end of the closing addresses by counsel is that the jury members must consider all the evidence they have heard and seen. They must decide what they accept and what they reject. Then, in relation to what they accept, they must consider whether that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Importantly, the jury is not told how to decide what to accept and what to reject, unless there has been agreement between each side over a particular fact. Where inferences are necessary, the jury is only told that inferences are an ordinary process of thought and must be drawn logically from proven facts. In some cases where there is a risk of misapplication of some evidence to the wrong issue the judge will be more specific.

    Except in some cases (not the Bain case) where there is a reverse onus of proof, judges do not tell juries to what standard of proof they must be satisfied about the existence of any facts. It is only a verdict of guilty that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Should there be more guidance on this?

    A particularly interesting question is how evidence on one issue supports or diminishes the likelihood that another piece of evidence is true or false. In the Bain case, does the eyewitness evidence about the time David arrived home tend to support or diminish the likelihood that the washing machine was turned on before he did his paper round, or whether he turned on the computer? A juror might think that the computer evidence reliably indicated a turn-on time that was inconsistent with the eyewitness evidence, although the same juror might have accepted the eyewitness evidence on its own. Another juror might accept that Robin was most unlikely to have committed suicide, therefore the eyewitness was wrong about David’s homecoming time. Should each item of evidence be considered on its own merits? If one item of evidence is considered by a juror to be highly likely to be true, how if at all should the juror adjust that likelihood in the face of inconsistent evidence?

    You can see that there is potential here for a huge mess, and it is not surprising that at present in trials by jury the law does not require judges to get involved. Yet in trials by judge-alone, judges have to face up to these issues. As far as jury trials are concerned, the current judicial direction to juries favours a “pooling” approach, which seems consistent with allowing the likelihood of one issue to influence fact-finding on another, although this is far from certain.

    So, people who criticise the Bain verdicts are probably poolers, whereas those who support it are probably not, or at least not to the same extent. Karam seems not to be a pooler, as he takes each item of prosecution evidence and shows why he thinks it is unreliable. His approach is to filter out the unreliable evidence before it enters the pool. The other approach would allow all relevant evidence into the pool to see whether its reliability might be increased or diminished in the mix. Our Evidence Act 2006 allows in relevant evidence if it passes a low threshold of reliability. This was held by the Supreme Court in the Bain appeal before the retrial. The Court held that the 111 call recording did not pass this minimum threshold of reliability so it was excluded from the pool.

    Once a jury agrees on a verdict of guilty, probabilities in the case become what amounts to certainties. If guilt depends on acceptance of only one available chain of proof, we can say that a guilty verdict makes it certain that each link in the chain was true. Jurors do not have to agree, where there is room for disagreement, on which chain of proof advanced by the prosecution is proved, so in factually complex cases like this one a guilty verdict would not necessarily mean that every fact the prosecution sought to prove was true. But the point is that until a guilty verdict is agreed, there are probabilities, not certainties. This raises the question how probabilities should be assessed. This too is hugely controversial.

    But don’t let me bore you with a lecture on what may well seem obvious. I have almost forgotten which side I am arguing for. The energies devoted to the debate on this site are all well-intended, and could also usefully be directed at helping the Law Commission with submissions to the link above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Thanks for your response, Don. It is much more in line with what I would expect from an experienced lawyer than the diatribe on your blog. BTW why do you not allow comments on either blog?

    There is another matter regarding this jury in this particular trial that goes beyond your learned discussion above. I have mentioned it previously in this thread and won’t mention it again but it may get more publicity later on in the piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    I agree with Don’s description of ‘poolers’ and ‘non poolers.’ I thought it was the way of the Law currently, to filter out evidence which is unreliable or unacceptability prejudicial. I think it works well for a number of reasons – not least of those, would be the concern that a juror might fix on a prejudice one way or the other, and whilst perhaps not necessarily revealing it within the jury room, have his or her mind set on a guilty or non guilty verdict. So removing from the pool unnecessary or potentially dangerous triggers to such prejudices makes the process safer. Of course it is of little benefit to ‘poolers,’ particularly in the Bain case where they want to ‘have another crack’ because of some ‘other’ importance evidence heard over the back fence, or from another malcontent.

    That’s the primary reason I agree with the conclusion reached by Don Mathias in his review of the book. Otherwise we have a trial in ongoing perpetuation, where finally there are calls for an acquitted man to answer to a minority who feel they represent the public, and who also feel that because they know what should have been in the ‘pool,’ even belatedly, the acquitted man should travel the country for cross examination in hay barns at midnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Normally courts work fairly well and juries get the right result. However, the David Bain retrial shows the need to improve and enforce sub judice law to prevent potential jury tainting and ensure justice is served. The facts show clearly David does not deserve “compensation” and should be very happy with the result he got.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    On second thoughts, if Don comes back to this thread to read the replies, then he may as well have a repeat of the concerns that I have about the jury in the retrial.

    1. After Karam reprinted David and Goliath around the time of the announcement of the retrial in 2007, the Solicitor General wanted to take him to court for contempt, but was put off by another case that happened against him just previously. He describes this reprinting as “extremely irresponsible”.

    2. The following information comes from a member of the jury in the 2009 retrial:
    a) Early in the trial (well before the prosecution closed), one jury member suggested that, “Once this is all over, I’ll invite Joe Karam over to my house so we can all meet him.”
    b) Another jury member bought one of Karam’s books at some stage during the trial. He made it clear that his wife, who attended the trial from time to time, was trying to get it autographed by Karam.
    c) This same juror presented some printouts about Karam’s campaign that he/she had downloaded from the internet. The juror was quick to add that he/she hadn’t read them, yet he/she still brought them in to show other members of the jury.
    d) The influential members of the jury had already made up their minds before the defence testimony had started.
    e) There are other matters which I cannot discuss here which are in front of Justice Binnie

    3. As we all know, a couple of jury members went to the Defence after party. Someone from the Defence team invited them to attend.

    Rather than sounding off with a completely partisian diatribe in unison with Karam’s malicious vilification of Robin Bain, I would be more concerned about the breaches of judicial practice and rightness that the whole Bain case represents. From a legal perspective I would have thought that, more than anything else, it is a farce as you commented previously: http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/free-speech-and-foolishness/ .

    All your high minded ideas in the previous comment appear to go against what you have previously said. Did you just wish to irritate the pro-Robin group? To what end? F E Smith keeps going on about you being one of the country’s “most respected intellectual lawyers”. I would have thought that being such a person would include sticking to some sort of principles instead of playing around with people’s minds like some troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Some lawyers may seek a free ride on the never ending gravy train if they say the “right” things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    A quote from Don Mathias:

    The [Bain] case has almost left the law behind. It is now a form of entertainment, as is the expression of all ill-informed opinion. My own views are just as likely to be silly as those of anyone else who was not at the trial. I can argue either side, and in fact do, depending on who I wish to irritate.

    Taken from http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/free-speech-and-foolishness/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Bevan
    6.59

    You’ve changed your recoil arguement, because you realise it can’t have recoiled or ‘backfired’ in the way you previously said.

    I see it is pointless discussing this topic with you as you dont even has the basic understanding of the physics involved in firing a weapon.

    And no, I have not changed my argument. It must be a special skill to read into someones statement what they haven’t written..

    No I don’t agree the rifle was held against his head hard or any other way after he was shot, I never argued that

    Then if you had even a basic understanding of how a firearm works you would realize how Robin could not have committed suicide with the rifle without leaving a large amount of residue AROUND the entry wound. That there was very little AROUND the entry wound means the rifle was either held against his head very firmly until after he was dead (would be difficult to accomplish once he had a bullet in his brain)or was shot from distance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I see one juror who sat on the re-trial is adamant that he doesn’t want David to receive any compensation. He has also raised several issues surrounding the conduct of some jurors. Martin van Beynen is correct…David won the lottery. The question is: why does he think he’s going to win it again?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6472004/Don-t-pay-Bain-compo-juror

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Bevan
    1.20

    You seem to be confusing who gave the evidence, you certainly didn’t and either did I. The pathologist that examined the wound said contact or close contact – he didn’t eliminate either of those opinions at any point from trial one.The wound specifically showed more sooting on one side than the other, consistent with the silencer tip not firmly touching the temple on the ‘high’ side. Dempster also said that suicide was ‘quite feasible.’ You need to argue with him Bevan perhaps offer him your expert opinion, but that won’t change the verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    How is it that you seem to have never sat down and looked at this tragedy from both sides? It seems to me that you decided from day one that David Bain was not guilty and from that day on you grabbed hold of any tiny scrap of information that might suit your case and (in true Karem fashion) build an entire defence around that scrap of information.

    Any rational person can only come to one conclusion when you weigh up all the information; this is why David Bain will not get one red cent from the tax payer. It should be enough for you and those who are equally deluded to see David Bain walking the streets when you know in your heart of hearts that he is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Dempster also said that the trajectory of the bullet was highly unusual and he’d never seen such a trajectory among any suicide victims. Of course it would’ve been so much easier for Robin to simply remove the silencer…just as it would’ve been helpful if Robin had written a suicide note. Maybe Robin wanted to implicate David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Big Bruv

    I briefly dated a woman from Dunedin who thought Davd was innocent. She’d read Karam’s books and quoted him ad nauseum. You couldn’t have a rational discussion with her because she’d get offended at the thought that David was guilty. To suggest he’d committed mass murder was tantamount to treason. It’s funny how some people’s minds work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    The difference between poolers and non poolers:

    Say you have 10 incriminating pieces of evidence. Each one has a small element of doubt, as do all pieces of evidence.

    The pooler looks at those 10 pieces of evidence, takes into account the general circumstances of the alleged crime and makes a decision based roughly on the laws of probability combined with his/her experience of how people behave in reality. (not fiction)

    Non poolers ignore the laws of probability and simply add up each small element of doubt and reach the conclusion that there must be significant doubt.

    But you can’t expect your average jury to understand that idea, especially in an adversarial court environment.

    Time to ditch juries and switch to an inquisitorial system, where the emphasis will be on establishing the truth of the matter, not on who wins the argument.

    Justice and truth are pretty much the same thing in essence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    And now it emerges that a juror from the second trial has seen fit to write to the Minister of Justice recommending that no compensation should be paid.

    “The juror wrote to then justice minister Simon Power in April 2010 raising, among other things, misgivings about the conduct of the jury during the trial.” The article also says: “Much of the letter cannot be reported because the law prevents the publication of material revealing the deliberations of a jury. The Bain juror also expressed concerns about the jury not having access to evidence that was suppressed until the verdict was reached and then released after the trial.”

    How inconvenient for the pro David lobby group.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6472004/Don-t-pay-Bain-compo-juror

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Big Bruv
    7.48

    I had no opinion on the Bain case until about 3 years ago. Until that point, and particularly because of the quick arrest, and no insult to David, but his appearance, it went no further with me. I read little about it, none of the books etc. Happened across a discussion about it on line, was offered a link to the PC decision and made a decision some months later about it. Partly influencing that decision was the amount of info I was fed by people who reported the ‘evidence’ which was simply at odds with the facts. At some point I realised with all the claims going to and fro, the lounge scene must have held the key, largely from that point on, is where I focused my interest. It was never revealed in the papers that David had been strip searched and was found not to have scratches on his chest despite all that I read on line. I found that out independently because I was sure the police must have checked him over thoroughly. I also didn’t know about the DNA inside the barrel, the spatter patterns in any great detail, or the blood smears on Robin’s hands. I was aware that the suicide was physically possible. I couldn’t believe David needed to draw attention to doing the paper round when the papers in the boxes showed he done the round. I also couldn’t believe that Laniet would have been providing David with a potential alibi years before her death. I couldn’t understand the attacks on Margaret and her children, and still don’t.

    I assume you aren’t baiting me big bruv. But you asked, and without being too exhaustive that’s the story from my view. I should add one point, Robin’s hands. I was told on line that his hands were undamaged and had no blood on them. I was always interested in the hands because of the likelihood the killer would have damaged his hands, at least in Stephen’s room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “Time to ditch juries and switch to an inquisitorial system, where the emphasis will be on establishing the truth of the matter, not on who wins the argument.”

    That might help, but it would be naive to think that there will be no miscarriages of justice, or guilty men won’t walk free. Judges have been known to err. Look at the Peter Ellis case. Justice Williamson, seven Court of Appeal judges and a former Chief Justice have all agreed with the jury’s verdicts. How could so many learned gentlemen get it wrong? A trial by judge alone won’t necessarily help matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Don Mathias85866 (4 comments) says:

    Yes, I admit I am unbiased and open to persuasion. My point in reviewing Karam’s book was that it is persuasive and invites a response. That is what I meant when I said the onus is on those who oppose the acquittal. Whenever I hear a persuasive argument I wonder how it could be rebutted. Isn’t that what fair-minded people do?

    My interest in the Bain case is on legal aspects of it, not on the actual outcome. In particular, at this stage the problem of how facts should be determined in criminal cases has been highlighted in this discussion.

    In law it is accepted that the court can seldom know the “real” truth. Legal decisions are usually made on the balance of probabilities. The exception is the verdict of guilt in criminal cases. Also there are some issues concerning the voluntariness of confessions in criminal cases that have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. But otherwise, the law is satisfied with decisions made on the balance of probabilities.

    There is also a public interest in the finality of judicial decisions after the usual appeal process has been followed. This is why retrials are difficult to obtain. It is also why the process in the jury room is secret and it is very difficult to persuade a court to investigate what went on in the jury room. The law recognises that jurors will have all sorts of beliefs when they begin a trial, but the judge will always tell the jury to put those to one side when they listen to the evidence and determine their verdict.

    Should jury deliberations be secret, or should they be viewable by the judge and by counsel? You may wish to make submissions on this to the Law Commission.

    So, a criminal trial is not a search for truth. It is just a test of the prosecution case against the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t expect you to accept my word for this, so here is Lady Hale saying the same thing (she is a member of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and is renowned for her sense of humanity and compassion for the disadvantaged) in Adams, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18 (18 May 2011) at para 116:

    “Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is, as Viscount Sankey LC so famously put it in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, at p 481, the “golden thread” which is always to be seen “throughout the web of the English criminal law”. Only then is the state entitled to punish him. Otherwise he is not guilty, irrespective of whether he is in fact innocent. If it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”

    So to be entitled to compensation the person does not have to prove actual innocence but only that the state was not entitled to punish him.

    This does not mean he need only show a reasonable doubt, because he is making a claim, and consistently with the usual approach of the law, his claim must be proved on the balance of probabilities. That is the rule in our Cabinet Guidelines for compensation.

    For a person to prove a negative proposition it is necessary for him to dispute the evidence advanced by the prosecution at trial, and to show (usually, and here) with new evidence that he is probably not guilty. In the Bain case there is an extra hurdle because a retrial was ordered: the applicant must show that there are special reasons for awarding compensation. I imagine that here those would focus on the way the police conducted the investigation, and possibly too there might be criticism of the way the prosecution was conducted.

    The civil standard of proof is low: it simply requires the plaintiff’s case to be more probably true than not. Again, this reflects the difficulty of proving anything. Now that we have dispensed with trial by battle or by ordeal and we have human fact-finders who have no personal knowledge of the relevant events, we have difficulties that wouldn’t have occurred to anyone 800 years ago. No doubt, 800 years from now people will not believe the difficulties we are having. Their disbelief will, one hopes, be due to the effect of your most helpful submissions to our Law Commission.

    Since I was asked, I add that I do not accept comments on my blog site because (1) I do not want to have to spend the time filtering out the obscene ones, (2) I do not want to become a tutor to law students around the world, (3) I think discussion of legal issues is best done in the classroom, the law office, or the courtroom, (4) the blog is not really a “blog” but is in the form – as its heading indicates – of a developing textbook, or as law students and teachers might say, a casebook, and it is intended to help students and law practitioners with their study of issues in criminal law. Also, (5) comments may be discoverable for many years – perhaps 800 – and could embarrass people who regret some spontaneous and ill-thought out utterance that might come to the attention of potential employers. And with that suggestion that silence may be the better course, I take my own advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Ok, Don, thanks for your reply and your reasons for not commenting are accepted, by me, anyway.

    I still don’t fully understand why you wrote your blog the way you did, in a manner which appears to be unquestioning of the conclusions made in Trial by Ambush, especially in view of your previous blog post. Why label a case as a farce and then turn round and champion a book written by its clearly biased chief advocate? That doesn’t seem very worthy of someone who expects to attract serious legal consideration. To me your behaviour comes across as rather flippant. It hardly seems worth reading your apparently more serious deliberations as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Don Mathias

    Thanks for the insight. A number of lawyers regularly comment on this site under various pseudonyms (though I think Andrew Geddis is the only one who uses his real name, albeit just his initials) so another expert opinion is a welcome addition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Unusual interest in Don Mathias not accepting comments, I thought that would be his own business and not those that clearly disagree with him.

    Appreciate his quote borrowed from 1935

    “This is, as Viscount Sankey LC so famously put it in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, at p 481, the “golden thread” which is always to be seen “throughout the web of the English criminal law”. Only then is the state entitled to punish him. Otherwise he is not guilty, irrespective of whether he is in fact innocent. If it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    don 5.24 . you should read this http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david . anyway, at least paul holmes has finally come right. “unreadable” “down the dunny” http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/paul-holmes-review-of-trial-by-ambush-down-the-dunny-it-should-go . This thread is a Tribute to Robin Bain, a good man, cut down by a lesser man. The video tribute at the top of this thread has people who actually knew the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    1,177 views. hooray.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Woolmington? Chrissakes, Nostalgia really loves his cases where an obviously guilty murderer got off on a technicality. Still, I can see why that would leap to his mind when thinking about David…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote