Bain says parents made him strong

March 4th, 2012 at 11:34 am by David Farrar

Edward Rooney in HoS reports:

says he was able to cope with the conviction for killing his entire family because his parents had raised him to be courageous and strong.

He makes the comment in his interview with TV3’s 60 Minutesshow, which airs tonight. Asked how he coped with the loss of his family, Bain says, “Thinking back over a lot of the circumstances I don’t know how I got through them. I can only thank my upbringing, my family, my Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are. And somewhere in there I guess was the learned strength and courage that they both had.”

Hmmn so David now speaking so well of his father. Recall the trial, as reported by NZ Herald:

David Bain said he hated his father, a court has heard.

Valerie Boyd, David’s aunty, told the High Court today that she had a conversation with David in the days following the death of five members of his family on June 20, 1994.

Bain, 37, is on trial for the murder of his parents and three siblings in their Dunedin home on June 20, 1994. His defence team say his father Robin, 58, shot dead the rest of the family before turning the .22 rifle on himself.

Mrs Boyd said when she spoke with David, he told her that he hated his father.

David considered Robin sneaky, because he listened in to conversations that had nothing to do with him, Mrs Boyd said.

Robin had separated from his wife Margaret, and David said they did not want him in the family home, but he would not leave.

What a coincidence having the first ever interview, just as the compensation claim is being considered.

UPDATE: I have now closed this thread for further comments. After over 1,250 comments any valid points people wish to make will have been made.

Tags:

1,240 Responses to “Bain says parents made him strong”

  1. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Why is speaking so fondly about a father whom he wishes to paint as an incestuous mass murderer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    While ‘justice’ has been served (DB served 16 years) it is still my hope that one day modern science will develop (ala fingerprinting and then DNA) so we can prove his guilt without any smoke and mirrors by him or Karam who are chasing money, so his victims can be truly set to rest and the truth settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Smaller (4,015 comments) says:

    His parents certainly made him strong enough to shoot his family and to lie with a reasonably straight face.

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

    Is there no depth of bullshit this man won’t sink to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    “I can only thank my upbringing, my family, my Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are.”

    We?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    … and if that modern science produces a different answer, iMP, will you apologise?
    “Justice has been served” would ring hollow then.
    I don’t know what actually happened there, but I am always a bit appalled that so many express absolutely certainty with no more than their own prejudices and interpretations to go on.

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

    bhudson – him and and voices in his head

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I agree with Brian Smaller.
    David Bain is as guilty as sin. This very good post by you, DPF, only reinforces that fact. One of those statements by Bain must be false – they can’t both be true. Therefore, Bain is a lying weasel. Why would he want to lie? Because he is guilty.

    I quote Mark Twain –
    “I always tell the truth. That way, I don’t have to remember what I said.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,479 comments) says:

    I suspect the interview is not going to change many minds. Probably none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I have a question for any legal-minded people out there –
    If Bain says one thing during the trial, and another thing afterwards (which contradicts the statement in the trial), can he be hauled into court for perjury?

    [DPF: Not sure but worth recalling Bain has never once testified in any of his trials]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Is there no depth of bullshit this man won’t sink to?

    Obviously not PIA. Small change compared to slaughtering your whole family.

    Unbelievable timing, the dipshits in the free channels are obviously in the tank for him…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Ahh…. thanks for that, DPF.
    Yes, I see now that the statement about David hating his father came from Mrs Boyd.
    Still, there is certainly a big contradiction between the two statements, as you’ve rightly pointed out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (11,417 comments) says:

    I have no idea of guilt or innoscence but what always did and always will appall my sense of fairness what the haste with which the house was burnt down and any possiblility of further evidence was destroyed.
    I remains suspicious of two things.
    Who gained the most benefit financially from that hasty decision to destroy the house?
    Who benefited most from any coverup that might have been exposed had evidence remained and been pursued by others who were not linked via prostitution and Laniette.
    Many rumours etc involving the constabulary at the time.

    Until extreme sunlight can be shed on these topics (and it probably can’t unless someone decided to come clean or dies and tells on their death bed) then the verdict remains open to question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. meow (19 comments) says:

    Why is the phrase “found innocent” continullay used with DB? He wasn’t found innocent – there simply wasn’t enough evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. My understanding is that some original evidence had been destroyed because it was thought it would never be needed again, it would have been interesting to still have had that.

    It is interesting that every high profile murderer has their band of groupies who are sure of their innocence. In fact prisons a full of murderers (and others) who are “innocent”. I’m sure that even David Gray (Aramoana) has some who think he’s innocent too. Let’s stop giving DB the publicity and make him live the life that every other released murderer has to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hmmokrightitis (1,586 comments) says:

    DPF, correct me if Im wrong, by all means, and this is by no stretch a defense of DB, I have no position or interest either way BUT, HE did not say he hated his father – a witness said he said it. Thats a very different proposition. So he isnt changing his position as you allege.

    IMHO opinion anyway, my lud :)

    [DPF: I see no reason to think David's aunt would have invented her testimony and be perjuring herself]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UpandComer (528 comments) says:

    It is still my opinion having viewed the evidence that is available that he did murder his family, and I don’t see why not he suddenly reveres his father he formerly despised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    thor42 (77) Says:
    March 4th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    I have a question for any legal-minded people out there –
    If Bain says one thing during the trial, and another thing afterwards (which contradicts the statement in the trial), can he be hauled into court for perjury?

    [DPF: Not sure but worth recalling Bain has never once testified in any of his trials]

    Well of course DPF shows his thorough lack of knowledge of the case. One must wonder where his information comes from and on which he has formed his opinion against Bain.

    For the record David Bain did give evidence at his first trial and was also subject to a lengthy cross-examination. The records of his frank interviews with the police were also read to the Court in the normal fashion.

    In the second trial the same interviews were read and the entire transcript of evidence given by Bain, and the cross examination were read by the Trial Judge to the Jury, how either of these events can be described as ‘never once testified in any of his trials.’

    As for the cherry picked comment about David ‘hating’ his father the full context would reveal the comment having been ‘if’ his father had killed the family, at a point in time when that was unclear. The evidence from David was quite clear, he remained remove from the marital strife and his abiding hope was that his parents would reconcile – that’s the evidence for anybody that wishes to inform themselves.

    So thor42, no perjury from David Bain.

    [DPF: I stand corrected on the first trial. It was 18 or so years ago, and my memory is not perfect.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lilman (953 comments) says:

    Agree with upandcomer, he was shown to be more than guilty in the later trail to me.
    Couldnt believe the judge ruled some evidence inadmissable,ie the fact that he had told friends he could pull off a murder using his papaer run as an excuse, because it was hearsay,but allowed evidence from others that robin has an incestist relationship with the daughter that was clearly hearsay as both robin and the daughter were dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. V (701 comments) says:

    Oh well, in the words of Tupac, David Bains favourite song will be”Only god can judge me”.
    So if he isn’t judged for murdering his family he certainly will be for his selection of woollen jerseys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    bhudson, Put it away –

    I think he said “I don’t know how I got through them” because he had to make up a lie to answer the question, instead of being forthright about his guilt.

    I think he then talked about “us” and “we” because instead of talking about himself he was trying to produce a generic response that the general populace can relate to, but he forgot to substitute for himself.

    Somewhat like his stupid computer message.

    He’s a terrible liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    DPF @ 12.58

    Would the Aunt that said he said he hated his father been Robin Bains sister ?

    That might give her some incentive to invent her testimony maybe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    What a coincidence having the first ever interview, just as the compensation claim is being considered.

    Not just 60 MINUTES but also the Australian conference

    The interview comes after Joe Karam’s latest book Trial by Ambush and as David Bain prepares to speak publicly for the first time about his experiences, during the International Justice Conference held in Perth. He is a keynote speaker in a line-up that includes Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter and Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton. 

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6518176/David-Bain-speaks-out-publicly

    Who the hell is Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter you ask –
    An 75 year old boxer from Patterson, New Jersey, who has never been properly cleared either of a triple murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    O Ye de peu de foi. Ne vous occupez jamais de la sensation de vérité juste l’amour. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    There is an absolute stench to the timing of these orchestrated events – the release of Karam’s latest piece of fiction and now the person originally convicted of the murder’s interview with TV3 etc – all timed to coincide with a claim for a taxpayer handout.

    “I can only thank my upbringing, my family, my Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are. ”

    Is this David Bain, Mark Lundy or their script writer?

    The thing that has stood out best for DB, has been his acting ability – the fact that he is able to recite such a fable and somehow maintain a straight face when he speaks of his murdered family, is a talent that, in another sphere would deliver an Academy Award.

    We can but hope that this orchestrated campaign is seen for what it is – the theatre that is a key component of their money grab.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    He would never get the Oscar for best Best Costume DesignElaycee! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Or Best Supporting Actor either really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Just wondering.

    All the posters so sure David is guilty, what do you think his motive was ?

    How do you reconcile his lack of obvious motive with that of Robin who had huge motive on different levels ?

    i already mentioned FBI profiler John Douglas’ comment on the case when he was in NZ .

    He said that while he had not prepared a profile ( NZ Police declined his offer to do so) in his experience of virtually every
    family massacre that he had been involved in investigating, the perpatrator had been the family patriarch.

    Can anyone point to a family massacre where this was not the case ? (exclude cases where the perp was adopted or
    obviously totally insane and found to be so and committed to a mental facility.)

    Brian Schlaepfer massacred his family as the only way he thought he could regain the control he feared he had lost.

    Robin Bain had clearly lost all Mana and all control of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Good theory Beryl. Why didn’t Robin wait for David to finish his paper round though and get the lot of the bastards? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    ‘because he was the only one who deserved to stay.’

    According to the computer message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Zapper (1,019 comments) says:

    It may be the case that ALMOST all massacres have been perpetrated by the father.

    I have no idea what that has to do with this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Well he has certainly had a bloody good stay of execution Beryl.

    Call me a silly old biased prick if you like but I somehow (despite the best efforts of the strange little Karam bloke) can’t get it out of my head that a twenty one year old joker that delivers papers for a job is not a weirdo.

    Disclaimer: I have not let his odd appearance affect my judgement at all, well not very much! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Zapper
    No suprise that you state that you have no idea.

    (OK just joking, i couldn’t resist that one)

    Seriously but. If you feel David did it,
    WHY do you think he did it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    bereal
    3.28

    I do know that the executors of the Bain estate, apparently undisturbed by the knowledge that even the results of the forensic tests had not been established, and knowing that David had not even been arraigned for Trial, made the decision to exclude him from his considerable inheritance. Disallowing in the process of the same swift move, the opportunity to arrange a substantial defence unlimited by the need to fit within the normal legal aid restraints, while discounting due process all at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    iMP:While ‘justice’ has been served (DB served 16 years) it is still my hope that one day modern science will develop (ala fingerprinting and then DNA) so we can prove his guilt without any smoke and mirrors

    Difficult to see how. Some of the forensic evidence was lost in the fire, and whats left has surely been examined as far as is possible. Some sort of brain scanner that can tell when people are lying might be possible but we aren’t there yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Zapper (1,019 comments) says:

    I had a feeling you’d say that bereal, I know you’re being facetious of course.

    When all the evidence points to the son, what do other cases where it was the father have to do with it? The reason I think he did it is because all the evidence points at him. As for motive, why did Bryant shoot up Port Arthur?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Johnboy
    4.19

    It’s true that David Bain had been delivering papers for some years, no doubt for money but also to aid his fitness. He was deeply involved in productions at the University of Otago, Opera, and additionally busy with sports. Many of those he was involved with in those pursuits gave evidence on his behalf, but don’t let that bother you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Mark (1,481 comments) says:

    All the opinion and bleating is a waste of time. He was not convicted at the retrial and it now sits with an independent Judge to determine whether compensation is payable. It is doubtful that the opinions of a few people on a blog is going to influence the final outcome whatever it may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Have you laid this shattering evidence of a Bain Family murder/embezzlement crime before the appropriate authorities NNZ?

    Your evidence could be crucial to finally resolving this case and cause a huge windfall profit to Karam and his publishers.

    A decent man would step forward at once and present all his evidence, not even bearing the thought in the back of his mind that there may be a few bucks in it for him self! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    bereal –
    your end sentence may be an indicator you are looking for – that “Robin Bain had clearly lost all Mana and all control of his family.” would confirm David, with keys [and control] of the lounge, for example, was more in charge of what was going on than Robin, that David was planning the rebuild of the ‘home’ with his mother, and other pointers, indicate David was “the family patriarch” your FBI profiler John Douglas requires.

    Motive – after years of dysfunction, David was about to see another relationship blow up in his face, despite all his controls, while Robin was already resigned to his situation. David was the more unstable mental case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Well yes Johnboy, back then anyone over the age of 18 was a weirdo loser if still delivering newspapers.

    Nowadays, not so much. Anyone under 50 looks a bit weird doing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    You’ve been made redundant too then Dazzaman? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Ha! I stay in the car & let the kids do the running.

    On motives…Yvettes pretty much nailed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Do you think that in the interview tonight he might thank Robin for making him a straight shooter as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    Chiz – Some sort of brain scanner that can tell when people are lying might be possible but we aren’t there yet.

    There is a good chance that David, after telling himself for nearly 18 years that he didn’t do it, has come to believe himself, as mentally unstable people can do, and a brain scanner [or bain scanner] would now do you little good.
    Same with Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Come come Yvette,

    Think about it. If David was planning a rebuild of the family home with his mother, how would that be a motive to
    whack her ? Let alone all the rest of them.

    What relationship do you think David was about to see blow up in his face ? And, even if you are correct, why do you feel
    that that would be motive for him to whack his whole family and not himself.

    And Zapper @ 4.30
    regarding your question about Bryant and Port Arthur.

    i’ll ask you equally intelligent questions.
    Why is a mouse if it spins ? or.
    What is the difference between a duck ?

    Get it mate ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Robin had no motive, not a snifter. He was out of the picture. Possibly smelled a little due to living in a caravan without a shower while teaching out in the sticks…..ummmm, nah, nothing else.

    Laniet was a known story teller.

    Others tell of their relationship being a very normal father/daughter one.

    David OTOH, known weirdo. Lots of motive, controlling towards his siblings and beginning to see himself losing that control; being f’d in the head by his mother; jealous of his mothers affections towards Stephen; disappointment of his achievements or lack thereof by his parents; possible inappropriate relationship with Laniet being uncovered.

    Yeah, no motive there….. :/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Johnboy
    4.35
    It’s on the public record, and the executors unsurprisingly refuse to comment on it. But you already knew that.

    Yvette
    4.37

    Even after 15 years the Crown never advanced a motive for David to have committed the crimes. So you’re taking liberties there as you are with your control ‘issues.’ David had a key to his own room, so what. David was examined by both psychologists and a eminent psychiatrist who contradicted exactly what you claim – but don’t let that stop you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    I hope Karam will come out next with his old dads recipe book. I always wanted to know how to make proper Lebanese bread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    A man can never make a point properly if he doesn’t have a smile on his face Dazzaman! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. James Stephenson (2,155 comments) says:

    how would that be a motive to whack her ?

    But if you’re ascribing Robin’s loss of power to David as the source of his motive, why is he the only one left alive? It makes no sense whatsoever…but then expecting sense from someone who put David’s clothes on, murdered his family, changed back into his own clothes and washed the blood-stained ones and then shot himself, is probably a bit of stretch…sheesh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    James Stephenson +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    James Stephenson
    5.12

    Where did you get that nonsense from? Your ‘theory’ has never been advanced in a NZ court or at the Privy Council.

    As you say….’is probably a bit of stretch…sheesh.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Zapper (1,019 comments) says:

    bereal, I can only assume you re being delibertely belligerent – fair enough. The question was a fair one and I know you understand the point of asking it.

    Of course, the Port Arthur massacre is as relevant as any other massacre to the Bain one. Does that help?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Very frustrating but, we will never know for sure.

    i wouldn’t mind betting that the mother ruled that family.

    Having had the chance to briefly personally discuss the matter with ex FBI profiler John Douglas i’m inclined
    to go with him and bet on Robin.

    Nobody above has been able to attribute a single credible motive to David.

    You may scoff at Joe Karam but if you have read his books you will be aware that Robin had huge motivation.
    Every point Karam makes in his books he backs up with detailed reasons if not evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (13,728 comments) says:

    What are the chances that our deluded pal Nostalgia is in fact Joe Karam (or a relation of Karam)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Ask him for the recipe for Lebanese bread.

    That should clinch it BB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    While your at it BB ask the useless prat why he couldn’t foot it with Warwick! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Dear Zapper @ 6.01, no, doesn’t help at all.

    Port Arthur has little in common with the Bain case, other than people were killed.

    Just for a start, nobody at all, whatever their view of who was responsible in the Bain case thinks that
    anyone other than family members was involved. Can you get that point mate ?

    Your question was not a fair one and deserved the answer that i gave you.
    Actually, i let you off lightly.

    By the way. How long is a piece of string ?
    How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Zapper (1,019 comments) says:

    You let me off lightly? Haha, thanks mate. You’re a funny man. My comparison was obviously not related to the family, but the state of mind of someone who can execute numerous people.

    I do agree that we will never know for certain, one way or the other. We know enough not to give a (probable) murderer compensation though.

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

    Bereal.

    Are you saying that we should put a greater emphasis on the potential motivations of David and Robin over the direction the physical evidence leads?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    Nostalgia –
    Even after 15 years the Crown never advanced a motive for David to have committed the crimes. So you’re taking liberties there as you are with your control ‘issues.’ David had a key to his own room, so what. David was examined by both psychologists and a eminent psychiatrist who contradicted exactly what you claim – but don’t let that stop you.

    David may have had a key to his own room, but I understand he had one to the lounge and controlled who used that and when.
    My opinion on the Crown never coming up with a motive for David, nor psychiatrists or psychologists, would not be helpful.
    And they apparently didn’t want to know what your FBI profiler John Douglas thought.
    ______

    John Boyd, David’s uncle, claimed in 2009 that David had agreed to the burning of the house.
    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/5/4

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

    David Bain – the interview. ! !
    Is that one of those interviews we get all the time now, where in return for getting a uncritical interviewer and an easy ride the TV channel gets an exclusive.
    And is that the second time in a week for TV3. Mr Dotcom ?
    We have seen TV3 do this too many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    You obviously watch TV3 KH, a lot.

    You poor bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Yvette
    6.40

    That’s incorrect about the lounge, in fact of an extension him having a key to his own room.

    As to your 2nd point, a motive isn’t necessary for murder though any prosecutor would prefer to have a motive. There was a strong motive against Robin.

    I can well understand why the police didn’t want a profiler because bereal is quite right in what he says of the typical person who commits familicide, and that would not have been helpful to the Crown. They appreciated that even at the first trial and made no evidence available that showed Robin’s depression, nor did they investigate the allegations made against him which they knew on day 2 of the investigation. Finally, they didn’t even test the blood profuse upon his hands, in fact later destroyed the samples despite knowing that the case continued on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Nobody above has been able to attribute a single credible motive to David.

    bereal which part of sole heir don’t you get?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. James Stephenson (2,155 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia.

    What are you on about?

    1) The clean clothes in the washing machine were David’s
    2) No trace of anyone else’s blood was found on Robin

    The series of events I gave must have happened if Robin was guilty, but of course they weren’t put forward in court, because Robin wasn’t on trial.

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

    DPF,

    You say Bain never once testified. In fact, he testified at his first trial. His testimony was read at his second trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    I always come back to the same point, if Robin did it, he did a great job setting up his son. The interview seems to be one of fluff.

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

    Last year a young guy in the US was convicted of murdering his parents and sister. An horrific crime.

    http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-northridge-family-massacre,0,6413872.story

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Was there ever talk about a 3rd person murdering the Bains as David and Robin have alibis and evidence tampered with then the house burned down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RandySavage (216 comments) says:

    Is David a bender?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. big bruv (13,728 comments) says:

    Nothing in that very soft interview has changed the way I think about David Bain. He remains shifty, his answers are carefully constructed and not at all natural and he is as guilty as sin.

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

    In David Bain’s interview on TV3 he repeatedly says that “it’s been proven” that he wasn’t home at the time of the killings. What proof is he referring to? He is bullshitting because it’s never been proven.

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

    Big Bruv,

    One can only hope that Justice Binnie, who is looking into Bain’s compo claim, has the opportunity to ask Bain the questions that TV3 weren’t permitted to ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “What are the chances that our deluded pal Nostalgia is in fact Joe Karam (or a relation of Karam)?”

    Haha – touche.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    ross69,

    In David Bain’s interview on TV3 he repeatedly says that “it’s been proven” that he wasn’t home at the time of the killings.

    Very interesting. The last time I recall someone claiming similar (in their case it was the absence of a prosecution being equivalent to proven innocence) was Darren Hughes. That led to the extraordinary circumstance of the police speaking out in the media to indicate that a decision not to prosecute meant no such thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Of course if you found a family slaughtered coming come you will hold someone to see if there is life there “getting blood on your clothes” and walking through the blood that was left. This was well planned whats the chances of a “3rd” person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    ross69 says: “In David Bain’s interview on TV3 he repeatedly says that “it’s been proven” that he wasn’t home at the time of the killings. What proof is he referring to? He is bullshitting because it’s never been proven.”

    Yup – so much is passed off as ‘fact’ when in reality, it’s not – it’s all just theory and a scripted version of events courtesy of vested interests.

    But the Bain cheerleaders clearly follow the mantra: If you keep repeating the lies and distortions, then hopefully the gullible in society will start to think that maybe what they’re repeating is fact, rather than fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Swampy (191 comments) says:

    bereal (1,450) Says:
    March 4th, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    He was mentally ill, you don’t need much of a reason. Black hands and all that. Read James McNeish “The Mask of Sanity”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. mara (772 comments) says:

    Watched him perform on TV tonight. And it was a controlled performance. Very egotistical. I’m surprised Karam didn’t coach him to mention his late siblings with compassion more often. Actually I saw no compassion at all for what his father allegedly did. His motive? Naivety, delusions of fulfilling some fantasy life without his bickering family and inheritance of the family money. Karam was duped from the start and was too blinkered and stubborn to ever reconsider that his initial assessment of Bain was wrong. “I visited him in prison, looked him in the eye and just KNEW he was an innocent man.” Bah humbug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Swampy (& bereal)

    “He was mentally ill, you don’t need much of a reason. Black hands and all that. Read James McNeish “The Mask of Sanity”.”

    Was a flawed book in some ways, but did a good job of detailing and explaining the dysfunction in the Bain family, with Margaret the manipulator at the centre of it all. David murdered her and the rest of the family to escape the “smother mother”. Not a perfect explanation – but a reasonable one given the VERY strange way in which Margaret operated (wouldn’t buy vegetables unless approved by her divining pendulum which she placed over them, regarded her husband as “the devil” – and she wasn’t being metaphoric!).

    bereal – either way, you overlook that in the same way the Crown didn’t have to prove or demonstrate exactly how the murder was committed, neither did it have to prove or demonstrate motive. Just proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.

    Robin, in the circumstances, and from what we know, had no more motive than David. The incest allegation is just that – an allegation, that due to the propaganda work of Karam, and repetition, has erroneously entered the Kiwi subconscious as incontrovertible fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. mowog (1 comment) says:

    Someone might be able to correct me, or explain the evidence better; for me the part of the case that was never explained and which didn’t favour David Bain’s evidence for innocence was the blood on the curtain between the lounge (where Robyn Bain died) and the computer room. Logically that blood was scuffed against the curtain by the person turning the computer on. If it was Robyn, then after marking the curtain with blood, he had to turn on the computer, write the message, change his clothes, turn on the washing machine and then shoot himself within the 3 minutes between the PC being turned on and David Bain returning. Has anyone else mulled over this??

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

    Would have expected a better performance after all these years of practice and coaching. FAIL. If he keeps that sort of performance up, the black hands will have to take him off stage. Still GUILTY x 5.

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

    He missed out on the inheritance he thought he would get of over $600k and is now acting for the grand prize of $2m. Well, it’s worth a try, but you’d have to be pretty dumb to fool for it. He’d do better on a game show such as Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Bogusnews (473 comments) says:

    Probably the biggest problem I have with this case is the lack of fingerprints left by Robin on the gun. I don’t see how you can carry a gun around a house, murder your whole family, kill yourself and not leave a single print.

    Karam mentions that in lots of suicide cases this can happen, but this was not a suicide, this was a murder suicide. Apparently the defense wanted us to believe that fingerprints from Bains brother could still be there after they had used it for hunting, but for some mysterious reason Robins never stayed on there.

    Seems a bit odd to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Bogusnews (473 comments) says:

    And for the record, Bain most certainly did appear on the stand in the first trial. Karam wouldn’t let him do it on the second because he did so much damage to his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Cox conceded that the computer was turned on at 7.41, 4 minutes before David Bain was seen at the gate of 65 Every Street returning from his paper round. That will be too difficult for most to follow, but it means he wasn’t at home as he said, and the evidence proves it. Cox was a police witness btw.

    There were a number of unidentifiable prints found on the rifle, some excluded as being from within the family, others undetermined. Gun oil is not a surface that easily retains fingerprints. Robin used the rifle other times, yet his fingerprints were not identified as being on the rifle, but not excluded of course from those prints that were unidentifiable. Fingerprints can last a very ‘long time’ taken from the evidence of Jones the police ‘fingerprint expert.’

    Looking elsewhere for definitive proof, Robin had blood smears on his hands that can’t have got their after his own death, he had blood ‘spatter’ on his right shoe that wasn’t from his own wound. he had spatter going in two directions on his right trouser leg indicating that leg was bent at the time of his death, his body was discovered with his right leg still bent, the spatter in the lounge was not shielded indicating there was no body to Robin’s left side when he shot himself, Robin’s dna was found deep inside the rifle barrel – all proof of suicide.

    hiphip
    12.20

    Your comments are nonsense and don’t deal with the evidence against Robin, instead try to create a motive for David and attack him personally. Your case against David is sunk, even the police concede that.

    bogusnews

    All of David’s evidence from the first trial was read at the second including his cross examination and police statements. When you seek to correct the record try to ensure that you know what you are talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “Cox conceded that the computer was turned on at 7.41, 4 minutes before David Bain was seen at the gate of 65 Every Street returning from his paper round. That will be too difficult for most to follow, but it means he wasn’t at home as he said, and the evidence proves it. Cox was a police witness btw”.

    Nope, the computer evidence doesn’t exonerate David. Remember, the police didn’t have to explain in precise abd accurate detail every event – just prove beyond reasonable doubt.

    It IS quite possible Robin turned on the computer, and because it was slow (this was 1994!), he left it to fire up while he got on with his prayers/usual morning routine, intending to come back to it before he left for school. He certainly brought in the morning paper (delivered by a boy on a different round to David) just like normal.

    David, also knowing that routine, slips into the alcove, possibly telling his Dad he wants to briefly use the computer, and then shoots him with the rifle he left stored/hidden there after he killed the other four family members, but before the paper round.

    David then kills Robin while the latter is knelt, as expected, in prayer. And because the computer is on, David in a moment of unplanned opportunity writes the ridiculous note on the computer, “Only you deserved to stay” (begging the question, why did 13-year-old Stephen deserve to die like a stuck pig in a room that looked like a charnel house!).

    All very possible due to the 30+ minutes that elapsed between the time David arrived back home from the paper round, and eventually called the police (during which time he supposedly ascertained “they’re all dead”, yet he hadn’t, he admitted to police, visited all the rooms. You find one of your family members dead, then another with a rifle next to him, you yell out, get no answer, but you don’t go and check everyone?!

    The computer is NOT physical evidence that points to Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    What is it that make people believe in Bain’s innocence? Do they also believe in other lost causes – Tamihere, Lundy, Barlow? Does it feel romantic? Are the acting out on some other grudge? Strange, really strange.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    What is it that make people believe in Bain’s innocence?

    I think its simply a selective miscalculation of doubt. If you take the 10 pieces of most compelling evidence against David Bain, each one in isolation has a small element of doubt so the Bainer will simply add up these small elements of doubt in defiance of the iron clad laws of probability which state that if 10 likely events are highly correlated with a single event, then the probability that the single event actually occurred is almost certain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    I think the reinvention of DB is a terrible thing. Robin Bain was known by all as a caring, kind, gentle man who served the local community for years. He was trying to keep his family together by living in a caravan, was a Christian, and prayed every morning, and had no blood on his body when found (after killing 5 people?). Hev apparently left an unnmed suicide note on a computer praising david and exonerating him, and then wiped his finger prints off the keys before committing suicide. YEAH RIGHT!

    David was moody, prone to strange public outbursts and behaviour witnessed by many, hated his father, worshipped his very strange mother, stood to benevolent soley in the demise of his family, owned a gun with silencer which he guarded with a key, had threatened his family with this rifle before, his siblings were afraid of him, he left bloody hand prints, in the house, tried to wash bloody clothes, and had scratches on his body from a fight. RIGHT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul Marsden (996 comments) says:

    [DPF: I see no reason to think David's aunt would have invented her testimony and be perjuring herself]

    Oh for heaven’s sake David, don’t be so naive. People perjure themselves everyday in court for one reason or, another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    “What is it that make people believe in Bain’s innocence?”

    I have an acquaintance who fervently believes in Bain’s innocence- She also believes Lundy, Tamihere and Watson are all victims of an ‘evil police conspiracy’. She will also argue that Al Qaeda are innocent of the 911 attacks (apparently they were orchestrated by George Bush..) and the moon landings were clearly fake.
    Conspiracy theorists.
    And there are loads more of ‘em out there..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    iMP- You pretty much hit the nail on the head right there mate.

    For the record I only watched a minute or so or the Bain ‘interview’ when I switched over during the Family Guy ads-
    I was almost sick in my mouth when I saw two women (clearly lapping up their 15 minutes of fame) gushing about what a ‘hard case’ and ‘hilarious’ guy he is….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Bogusnews (473 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I heard the debate between Michael Laws and Karam. Laws said on two separate occasions the fact that Bain had not testified in the second trial because the decision was made not to let him because he had done so much damage to his case in the first trial.

    KARAM DID NOT DENY THIS. If there was no truth in this, then he most certainly would have. So why don’t you get your facts straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    8.21

    Disprove the suicide, forget the waffle.

    IMP
    8.20

    I agree some witnesses made those claims, others spoke differently about him including a colleague who was a registered psychologist and reported to the Police on day2 of the inquiry that Robin was in a mess, and depressed. Both sides of the story please. But deal with the suicide if you can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Bogusnews
    9.40

    I don’t know what point you are trying to make. You claim that the evidence David gave at the first trial was instrumental in his being found guilty, the fact remains that evidence was also heard at the second verbatim. I do have my facts straight and I’m not relying on a radio show you heard as a reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    ross69 @ 8.19 pm

    He was adopted. The FBI have a different class for adoptee family murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    mikenmild 8.00 am

    Just to throw a spanner into the works of your theory.
    Whilst i don’t know, i lean towards the logic of Robin being the guilty party for reasons i have given above.

    Tamihere, Lundy, and Barlow. Guilty. No doubt in my mind whatever.

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

    bereal #6.01pm

    Nobody above has been able to attribute a single credible motive to David.

    You may scoff at Joe Karam but if you have read his books you will be aware that Robin had huge motivation.
    Every point Karam makes in his books he backs up with detailed reasons if not evidence.

    David has provided a description of the motive himself: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-a-number-of-possible-motives . This is similar to the motive of Sef Gonzales: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1085028468571.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true who was of a similar age to David, and who killed his family because he felt betrayed by his mother disapproving of his girlfriends, and his father cutting him out of his inheritance because of bad grades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Disprove the suicide, forget the waffle.

    It’s only waffle if you don’t understand basic probability theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Sure like your claim David wiped the smears onto Robin’s hands, probable much?

    Without anything further to add maybe we should leave it here Scott Chris, the suicide unchallenged. Particularly because KB is getting links to a defamatory site posted by a desperado.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    @Ross69: “In David Bain’s interview on TV3 he repeatedly says that “it’s been proven” that he wasn’t home at the time of the killings. What proof is he referring to? He is bullshitting because it’s never been proven.”

    No, he repeatedly says “I wasn’t there”, not “it’s been proven”. We weren’t there either, nor were we on the jury which acquitted him.

    Almost always those who are wrongly convicted are in some ways “odd”, unusual or criminal and perceived to be so by police, witnesses or both which colours both judgements and actions. David Bain clearly fits this mould along with Peter Ellis and Arthur Thomas. So does the hostility towards him evidenced here.

    That said, the interview was also very odd in not exploring the family dynamics and crisis in any depth at all. That just left all the doubt still hanging in the air even more heavily.

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

    Alan

    Have another look at the intereview…he does say “it’s been proven” that he wasn’t at home. There is no such proof.

    As I said, TV3 would not have been permitted to ask Bain any hard questions. That will hopefully be left to Justice Binnie, but I don’t expect we’ll get clear answers.

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

    > Disprove the suicide, forget the waffle.

    Nostalgia,

    You’re making the same basic mistake that esteemed lawyer Don Mathias has previously made. If you, or anyone else, believes that Robin committed suicide, the solution is simple. All you, or they, have to do is prove it. But to ask someone to prove a negative shows that your position is untenable. It’s like asking an atheist to prove there is no God. Instead, it is up to christians to prove proof of God’s existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Sure like your claim David wiped the smears onto Robin’s hands, probable

    I didn’t claim that. I simplysaid it is possible. I didn’t say he intentionally smeared the blood either. The only thing the defense proved was that it was possible for Robin Bain to have committed suicide in view of the evidence alone. (even though various experts dispute this)

    All you have to do Nostaligia, is to apply the same level of scrutiny to the scant evidence suggesting Robin Bain committed suicide that was applied by the defence to the evidence suggesting David Bain was the killer.

    You simply haven’t done that, either because you just don’t want to, or because you simply lack imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69
    12.41
    I’ll produce it below see what you can do with it. I’ve done this because you apparently don’t read the thread in its entirety. Don Mathias made a meal of you, talking about proving a negative is nonsense he was talking about cold hard facts – not about atheist and God. Wake up to yourself.

    Scott Chris
    12.47

    Ditto you. Wide on bluster short on facts. See how you get on with this reposted from above.

    ‘Looking elsewhere for definitive proof, Robin had blood smears on his hands that can’t have got their after his own death, he had blood ‘spatter’ on his right shoe that wasn’t from his own wound. he had spatter going in two directions on his right trouser leg indicating that leg was bent at the time of his death, his body was discovered with his right leg still bent, the spatter in the lounge was not shielded indicating there was no body to Robin’s left side when he shot himself, Robin’s dna was found deep inside the rifle barrel – all proof of suicide.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    I think we can all agree that the person who wrote the computer message was the killer (DB or RB).

    The message is pre-occupied with David and his innocence. Hmmm. It is un-named. Hmmmmm.
    No “Sorry,” “I did it because…”

    There were no finer prints on the keys. If Robin, WHY did he wipe them off before committing suicide?
    WHY were his last words ever, all about David.

    That alone establishes David guilt in my mind, HE WROTE THE COMPUTER MESSAGE AS AN ALIBI, let alone all
    the other substantial actual and physical evidence as laid out dispassionately by van Beynen and Rosemary McCloud.
    A Muderer/Suicide does not wipe his finger prints off a keyboard seconds before he dies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    David on the other hand has EVERY critical reason to remove his finger prints from the keyboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    mikenmild (3,096) Says:
    March 4th, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Why is speaking so fondly about a father whom he wishes to paint as an incestuous mass murderer?

    I know, weird eh?

    It’s almost like his thirteen years in Jail somehow ***changed*** him…

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

    Nostalgia,

    You’re looking increasingly silly.

    Don Mathias made a number of assertions. I am not interested in assertions but facts. The fact is that David has claimed “it’s been proven” he wasn’t at home when the computer was turned on. The fact is that is hasn’t been proven. He is a liar.

    You believe Robin committed suicide. Prove that with reference to facts. You can’t. In the meantime, you might like to speculate on what David did in the 25 minutes prior to him calling police.

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

    “Bain has yet to explain the circumstantial evidence against him. How he got his brother’s blood on his clothes and socks, the broken glasses found in his bedroom, and the matching lens found in Stephen’s room, the fingerprints on the murder weapon, or the 25 minutes between his arrival home and his 111 call.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6520171/David-Bain-says-it-again-I-wasn-t-there

    Bain could have addressed the above issues in last night’s interview. What a shame he didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Paulus (2,608 comments) says:

    Am I right in suggesting that David Bain is suing his father’s family for his inheritence which they took when he went to jail ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    ross69, my recollection is that he said “it’s been proven” just once at the beginning. But he repeatedly said “I wasn’t there”.

    And claiming it to be a lie is an entirely subjective judgement since the fact is disputed. You are presuming that Bain does not believe it has been proven but that is far from provable itself and given Karam’s strong opinions actually very unlikely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69
    1.29

    Ha ha, As I said, Mathias owned you. You now simply want to run for cover, hop from irrelevancy to irrelevancy.

    You’ve got the details of a suicide twice already above. I’ve made it easy for you, given you the details for you to explain. Go ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Spoon (104 comments) says:

    Just to play the devil’s advocate here, I don’t think those two statements are mutually exclusive. Let’s pull the two opinions out:

    I can only thank my … Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are. And somewhere in there I guess was the learned strength and courage that they both had.

    …and…

    he hated his father

    I don’t see any reason why these are mutually exclusive. You can hate someone, and still learn things from them. I bet Hitler taught a lot of people the importance of not being a douchebag, and he’s fairly widely hated. Surely David could have been taught to be strong and courageous by Robin either before developing the hatred, or while hating him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Wide on bluster short on facts

    LoL! That’s rich coming from you. I rebutt your assertions. You ignore mine.

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

    The interview was disappointing and did not answer many of the questions people have for the killer, david bain, such as “why did you do it?”. Perhaps he will come clean at a later date. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2493809/Plan-to-rape-jogger-revealed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. KevinH (1,221 comments) says:

    There will always be skeptics who will argue that David committed the murders, however after watching last nights interview I am more of the opinion that he is innocent and that a terrible miscarraige of justice has occurred.
    Whoever did committ the murders is an entirely separate issue, one that will be difficult to prove considering the destruction of evidence and botched Police inquiry.

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

    Nostalgia

    You’re being a dick. Here’s what Mathias actually said:

    “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”.”

    So Mathias found the footprint evidence persuasive. In other words, he ignored all the evidence implicating David. And the footprint’s have never been proven to be Robin’s.

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

    @kevinh. surely you jest. plenty of people are convicted on far less evidence than exists against david. it’s a fair cop and he should just admit it and move on. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    hiphip, he had 13 years to admit it but continued to protest his innocence just as did Peter Ellis. He was then acquitted by a jury following a Privy Council decision that he had been subject to a serious miscarriage of justice.

    Possibly you are the one who should just admit it and move on. Particularly since you have no skin in the game.

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

    Alan. You misunderstand the PC ruling. They were not commenting on his guilt or innocence and stressed this point. They only wanted a new trial to be held where all the evidence is heard. It WASN’T. Evidence which would have sealed his fate was suppressed by the Supreme Court because it was too prejudicial to david. The PC also wanted david to remain in custody until the retrial, which was not done either. david is guilty and his family paid a more significant price than he ever will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    No, I don’t misunderstand the PC ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t suppress evidence just because it is prejudicial. They suppress it if it is unreliable and/or contrary to the rules of evidence.

    I don’t share your certainty and I find Joe Karam a far more convincing judge of common sense and character than the likes of James McNeish. Likewise I find the likelihood that the person mad/bad enough to commit the offence was Robin rather than David fairly compelling. But I claim no certainty and see no basis for others to claim it either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69
    2.17

    Ha ha. Typical. Mathias ignored nothing. However you did.
    You’ve run away from the evidence of suicide, again!

    hiphip
    2.15

    Stick your hate site where the sun don’t shine. You’re posting defamatory links to a site already embroiled in defamation proceedings and subject to inquiry about matters of contempt of Court.

    hiphip
    2.47

    You idiot, people have read the PC ruling and understood it. You’re talking bs. They said the first trial was an actual miscarriage of Justice, ordered a retrial on the proviso that whether or not it went ahead was up to the NZ authorities. 10 million dollars later, an acquittal and you’re still bleating. Get a life.

    If you’d been faced with needing to gain parole by admitting guilt you would have blubbered you guts out, you don’t deserve to stand in the shadow of David Bain.

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

    > he had 13 years to admit it but continued to protest his innocence just as did Peter Ellis.

    Alan, the Bain and Ellis cases are like chalk and cheese. It’s widely accepted that Ellis suffered an egregious miscarriage of justice. In fact, there is no clear evidence that any crimes were actually committed. In the Bain case, several people were murdered.

    Some murderers do protest their innocence, but that in itself is not proof of innocence. There are many unanswered questions in the Bain case and David’s lack of answers to some of those questions is troubling.

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

    > You’ve run away from the evidence of suicide, again!

    What evidence of suicide! LMAO

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

    > you don’t deserve to stand in the shadow of David Bain.

    Not without a bullet-proof vest anyway. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    ross69: “There are many unanswered questions in the Bain case and David’s lack of answers to some of those questions is troubling.”

    Possibly. I am more troubled that the questions were not actually put to him. That would seem to be the essential first step, surely?

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

    Alan,

    Well, at his second trial Bain decided to stay silent. He has been asked to explain the bruises on his forehead and has claimed that he didn’t have them when he went on his paper run. One can only speculate how and when he received them. Justice Binnie will hopefully be allowed to question him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    ross69: “the Bain and Ellis cases are like chalk and cheese.”

    They certainly had one common factor: the same judge who in both cases suppressed evidence favourable to the defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69

    You got own by Mathias and now by Alan Wilkinson.

    The evidence of suicide that a jury accepted, 5 times not guilty remember. I don’t blame you for being afraid to answer it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Dexter (292 comments) says:

    “The evidence of suicide that a jury accepted,”

    You are of course aware that members of the actual Jury, you know the people who claim to speak for, were so outraged by people making the same ridiculous propositions such as yours, that they felt compelled to contact the media to correct such ignorance.

    I’d suggest you do a bit of reading, you seem to be trying to ‘win’ by hysteria and spamming that wouldn’t even convince your average womans weekly reader.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    A snapshot of erudite comments from the Bain cheer club:

    “Ha ha. Typical. Mathias ignored nothing. However you did. You’ve run away from the evidence of suicide, again! Stick your hate site where the sun don’t shine…. You idiot, people have read the PC ruling and understood it… You’re talking bs…. You’re still bleating…. Get a life….”

    Looks like his argument has been busted – the only thing left is bluster. But his tactics are consistent: If you tell the same lies and distortions over and over again, hopefully (sooner or later) the public will somehow accept the bullshit as being credible and maybe even as fact.

    Or maybe not….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    “As for the cherry picked comment about David ‘hating’ his father the full context would reveal the comment having been ‘if’ his father had killed the family, at a point in time when that was unclear. The evidence from David was quite clear, he remained remove from the marital strife and his abiding hope was that his parents would reconcile – that’s the evidence for anybody that wishes to inform themselves.”

    In fact, Bain’s affectionate references to his father rather weaken the case against him. No sign David was trying to poison his father’s reputation in order to pin the crime on Robin. Rather that he was stating the confused truth as he sees it. I think we are a long way from understanding the puzzle and I suspect both David and Robin wore such thick masks over their emotions it may never be unravelled.

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

    The fact is many bain supporters are in it as an anti-police crusade rather than anything to do with bain. They often have criminal records … and it shows in their abuse of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    ….you seem to be trying to ‘win’ by hysteria and spamming that wouldn’t even convince your average womans weekly reader.

    Exactly. It’s tiresome reading too……fortunately for NNZ but not for the rest of us, it’s generally not overly long dribble either…..that crime is all Penny Brights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    “The fact is many bain supporters are in it as an anti-police crusade rather than anything to do with bain. They often have criminal records … and it shows in their abuse of others.”

    The fact is- Despite what New Zealand’s salivating media say.. Bain ‘supporters’ are fucking mentally ill!
    The evidence against him is absolutely overwhelming! There is no way in hell that events occurred in the ludicrous way the defence counsel suggested they did..For Christ’s sake Bain supporters- I know you hate the police and love a good ‘Woman’s Day’ conspiracy theory, but please look at the facts of this case…GUILTY AS SIN

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Robin Bain had no such mask Alan Wilkinson. You’re being disingenuous.

    The anecdotal evidence of their characters seems to indicate Robin was a pretty decent guy and those with whom he associated with overwhelmingly agreed that such was the case. The only one who didn’t seem to think so were the psychologist whom NNZ keeps referring to who thought he was depressed essentially due to his being smelly & a bit dishevelled whilst living in a caravan with no running water…..clever girl that one.

    David on the other hand had more than a few of the people with whom he was acquainted with who thought of him as rather strange and quite controlling.

    By the way, he has already pinned the crime on his father, through his legal team & Karam. I don’t doubt he was fully aware of their tactics in defending him in the 2nd trial….their blaming of the father during the trial indicates his implicit approval of such a slant by his defence team.

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

    Longknives I stand corrected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    @Longknives – stupid ad hominem abuse brings no credibility to anyone’s case, even yours. The evidence and facts failed to convict, end of story. Self-evidently the evidence was not overwhelming. At least to people with average common sense.

    @Dassaman – not credible either. No-one could struggle on in Robin’s personal circumstances trying to practice a profession without a very false mask. Nor put up with the totally bizarre and disfunctional behaviour of his wife. Neither do I believe anyone who wanted to transfer blame to someone else for killing his family would then create an impression of a good father and loving family. Total disconnect there.

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

    AW – you appear to have missed reading or understanding an excellent article written by an award winning journalist. you may learn something if you try. then again, judging by other members of the cult of bain, perhaps not. here it is anyway. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    No-one could struggle on in Robin’s personal circumstances trying to practice a profession without a very false mask. Nor put up with the totally bizarre and disfunctional behaviour of his wife.

    Bullshit, plenty of people push on with difficult personal lives & marriages. Sounds like Robin did, he moved or was pushed to the caravan….still worked, still did his other activities, still collected the morning paper & said his morning prayers….right up till getting a bullet in the brain from his disappointing eldest son.

    Transfer blame! Create an impression! You’re f’n kidding mate! David was the bloody navel gazer…and gunman. Back to your Karam book you dreamer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson
    6.58

    ‘Neither do I believe anyone who wanted to transfer blame to someone else for killing his family would then create an impression of a good father and loving family. Total disconnect there.’

    I think that could be possible Alan, trying to create that impression, however difficult to sustain without supporting evidence. It would seem to me to be irresistible to a guilty man and desperate man to avoid accusation against another. To me that was a critical part of David’s position in his interview on 60 mins, and in his police statements all those years ago, or when he took the dock, if just for a moment, I did overlook the evidence supporting Robin’s suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Should be ‘not avoid,’ edit facility seems to be down at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    This part always says a lot about the killer from that article. Those that support David Bain are trying to tell me that Robin managed this….yeah right.

    Stephen, however, had woken up and grabbed the silencer on the rifle before Robin could shoot. When he did, the bullet went through Stephen’s hand and tore a gouge out of his scalp.

    Stephen, pumped up with adrenaline, fought for his life, but Robin, belying a frame described as cadaverous, soon had the better of the brave teenager, strangling him first with his T-shirt and, when he was incapacitated, putting a bullet through the top of his head, like he had done or was to do with Laniet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    hiphip, yes, I read that article when it first appeared. The fact remains that 12 jurors came to the opposite conclusion on the same evidence. Without direct knowledge of the case and people I make no judgement.

    Dazzaman: “plenty of people push on with difficult personal lives & marriages.” Yes, by creating a mask for the outside world. And not too many with such extreme circumstances requiring a much thicker mask.

    Again, resort to insults shows weakness not strength.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Say Goodbye
    8.17

    You haven’t got that in context. You’re not giving the full picture, the description was nothing to do with Robin’s strength, and no evidence in the trial suggested he was infirm, physically wasted, or deteriorated. His frame wasn’t described as ‘cadaverous’ and the pathologist report didn’t indicate he wasn’t starving of physically debilitated. The evidence on which you try to rely was that his ‘cadaverous’ appearance was that of someone ‘dead behind his eyes.’ But you probably got Robin’s despatch of Stephen very accurately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    SGtH, this report gives a more balanced picture: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10627004

    Obviously Stephen’s killing was a central disputed feature of the case and not something the jury just overlooked.

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

    > Self-evidently the evidence was not overwhelming

    That’s a naive way to look at it. You could argue that since Peter Ellis was convicted, they evidence must have been overwhelming. Anyone who has studied that case will realise there were anomalies with the jury. There were also anomalies with the jury in the Bain case. Irrespective of that, juries sometimes get it wrong, as do Judges. If Justice Binnie says David probably killed his family, will you disagree with him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    reminds me of the movie “primal fear” ed norton and richard gere believing him take a look http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117381/ . Doesnt mean im saying he is guilty but is what i feel a lot are thinking. Im still asking is there a possibility of a 3rd person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    I always like the bit where Robin covered in blood from Stephen then decided he need to change his clothes before killing himself. I mean makes sense huh.

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

    SGTH,

    Yeah I find that strange. He wanted to change clothes but at the same time he didn’t want to implicate David. Hmmm by changing his clothes, it did help to implicate David! Geez, for a school teacher Robin was incredibly thick! LMAO.

    Joe Karam thought it was perfectly reasonable for David to do the washing that morning because he worked to the same routine. Hmmm so even a mass murder couldn’t change David’s routine. Incredible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “Likewise I find the likelihood that the person mad/bad enough to commit the offence was Robin rather than David fairly compelling. But I claim no certainty and see no basis for others to claim it either”.

    Hmm. Yes, you are right – on first, second and third look, Robin is the obvious culprit in terms of whatever “motive” in a mad/evil/illogical enterprise can be determined.

    Just like when the cops arrive, it looks open-and-shut. Dead bodies, corpse with a rifle next to it, suicide note on the computer screen.

    It is what happens next – the sheer accumulation of coincidences in the physical evidence at the crime scene, each on its own quite plausible, but cumulatively, for me at least, is way beyond the realm of reasonable doubt (and I won’t catalogue them here and now, although as my Tourette’s kicks into gear real fast on the Bain case I can with just the slightest prompting – so you’ve been warned, old friend!). Karam and Reed did a good job, like the lawyers of the defendants in the Rodney King case, of breaking down cumulative effect, so only atomistic variables remained. But like the prosecutor emphasised during summing up at the first trial, stressing the sheer improbability of coincidences that had to occur to explain the crime scene – “If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…”

    David Bain was having a real unlucky day – not only was he now an orphan with no siblings, but it seems that his old man, even with a bullet through his head, is somehow setting all the physical evidence up to inadvertently look like it can only be David – e.g., the spent cartridge case from the shot that kills Robin just happens to fly through the air on discharge through the small gap in the curtains and into the alcove – whoops, the Tourettes has kicked in.

    Yes, Karam was more plausible that McNeish on motive – but then the Crown never had to prove it, and it was always going to be a fraught topic given the nature of the murders. Whatever McNeish’s faults, he accurately painted a highly dysfunctional family – not just Robin, but rather with Margaret as the primary cause – where the actions of an enraged son to be rid of a smother-mother were not beyond the realm of possibility. Which just leaves the physical evidence that pointed exclusively in one direction…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69
    9.10

    Getting any nearer with explaining Robin’s suicide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Again, resort to insults shows weakness not strength.

    Pft, pompous git. You are pushing shit uphill Alan, you’re starting to drift into the realms of Karamland that NNZ inhabits. I’m guessing he’s a most convincing fiction writer.

    You cannot escape the fact that most of the evidence and a full raft of corroborating testimonials points to David being the killer. The Robin suicide/murder scenario doesn’t stack up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    9.17

    Your problem is that David didn’t put the blood smears on Robin’s hands, nor the cuts and contusions. He also didn’t introduce blood spatter onto Robin’s shoe that didn’t come from Robin’s wound. But you might like to explain who did. An alleged dysfunctional family does not count against David, it counts against your powers of subjective reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    ross69, two logical fallacies there. A marginal decision is not overwhelming. A decision based on incomplete evidence may correctly be reversed on further evidence.

    Kimbo, yes, I agree there are difficulties both ways. I doubt we will ever know unless more unexpected evidence is unearthed. Just remember that cartridges had a habit of moving inconveniently for the defence in the Arthur Allen Thomas case as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    ross69, not only that. Robin was so not wanting to implicate David that he decided to wear Davids clothes to do the killing….and then wash them! School teachers in the 90’s, I dunno….

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

    Don’t forget Robin also wore David’s gloves…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    David Bain’s Aunt gives testimony about David’s strange behaviour after the murders.

    Listen to how cleverly Michael Reid puts words into her mouth at 5.10. I think the judge must have been asleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    ” Just remember that cartridges had a habit of moving inconveniently for the defence in the Arthur Allen Thomas case as well”.

    True, and a possibility the public in general, and jurors in particular should always be mindful of – which is why, in an age of clear-cut CSI/dna forensic science the defence usually does!

    In Bain’s case there is just a bit too much. I’m tempted to give Scott Watson the benefit of the doubt on the one piece of evidence that I think swung his jury, which he obviously never succeeded in convincing the jury the police planted it/incompetently transferred it during analysis. (i.e., Olivia Hope’s hair found on the blanket on board the ‘Blade’ – maybe he brushed against her in the crowd at Furneaux Lodge that night).

    Plus, unlike the Crewe investigation, that dragged on for months, in the case of the Bain murder it seemed like open and shut murder suicide. Until they looked further.

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    No – not stuff Joe Karam says is physical evidence – I mean real, indisputable physical evidence assessed in terms of cumulative effect – a man about to commit murder suicide wearing his son’s gloves when he has his own, someone knowing, “they’re all dead” even though he doesn’t go into all the rooms, who hears his supposedly dead sister gurgling but doesn’t investigate, who has bruises on his face consistent with being in a fight with Steven (Robin had “cuts and contusions”? Hah!), but who can’t account for them, who just happens to wash his clothes supposedly not knowing the family is dead (but strangely leaves a bloody palm print), thus denying the possibility of proving there was no blood on them (bugger!), whose dad’s dead body somehow conspires to make the ammunition magazine stand upright as it tumbles/is jerked out of his dead hand…

    I don’t think I’m the one with the subjective reasoning problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott, I listened to the video. It told me that when David Bain imagined the murders he became extremely upset and fantasised grotesquely but when he was asked what he saw he reverted to normal and answered straightforwardly. And Reid merely made the logical conclusion. What else could David have meant?

    Kimbo: “in the case of the Bain murder it seemed like open and shut murder suicide” Really? My impression was that the police latched onto David as the culprit pretty early.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    kimbo says: “I don’t think I’m the one with the subjective reasoning problem.”

    +1 :D

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

    > My impression was that the police latched onto David as the culprit pretty early.

    It’s been widely reported that police initially thought it was a murder-suicide. When you think about it *objectively*, it would’ve been far simpler if that scenario had been the correct one. For a start, there wouldn’t have been two criminal trials, or any appeals. Murder-suicide would have been a simpler and cheaper explanation. Bet where a family is murdered, clearly the one surviving member is always going to be a suspect unless they have an alibi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    10.51

    A pleasure to discuss points such as you have made with someone who doesn’t personalise the conversations and ‘bed hop’ from point to point if things get difficult. Generally, I head straight for the final death scene, because I always believed the evidence of either murder or suicide would be found there. But I’m happy to address the other points you’ve raised because I note that they represent fundamentals of the way some people tackle the tragedy.

    On the gloves for example, nobody suggests that anyone committing these killings would have been in their right mind and cases of familicide are often surrounded by what seem odd events not least because the perpetrator has gone over the top and is trying to reconcile something that needs to be put right. Some have even worn masks despite knowing they would suicide at the end. Simply using one pair of gloves or the other isn’t therefore significant, and even on a practical level they were available, and they were in the same room where the rifle was. That they were opera gloves might have had some significance in the emotional wrench, but ultimately the use of the gloves doesn’t overcome other evidence, particularly not when it is remembered that Robin had blood smears on his hands, and left his own blood on the laundry towel. Ratima put bibles on the chests of his slain children, Charlie Lawson took his family to town and brought them new clothes the day before he slaughtered them – no apparent logic in either of those 2 events but obviously significant to the 2 men.

    To place significance on what David said, and the order in which he recalled events and blacked others out diverts from the sheer horror of finding his family dead. To put that in context one of the first officers at the scene completely forgot going into one of the particular rooms and was adamant that he hadn’t despite it being obviously true because he partner went with him and kept a record of that. Those bruises weren’t there when he was thoroughly examined by one of the ambos, they were after he fainted in the small area between his bed and the wall. If you’ve seen any of the photos it was obvious at 6.50 that morning that every one was dead, and at the retrial one of the ambulance officers estimated up to an hour after death a body could still gurgle, by then Dempster the Pathologist had already written to the Crown pointing out a more recent experience of a body gurgling an extended period after death.

    No need to believe me about the cuts and contusions, the photos are in your book store. Also the Crown evidence that the only blood in laundry was in the basin and on the towel. What looked liked blood under a palm print tested to be otherwise by the Crown’s own experts. The magazine standing upright, at what point and in what photos? After the police said Dempster knocked it over so they stood it up? Are you aware that exhibits were moved about the scene and photographed in different places and the police used tomato sauce in their reconstructions? But even on a wider view if any scene is corrupted by movement of exhibits, or the planting of exhibits isn’t the integrity of the scene destroyed, and why is it just for parts of a corrupted scene to be used as though they retained their integrity. However, while the blood from Robin’s hands was never tested before being destroyed, the blood smears on his palms, the cuts and lumps on his hands, the spatter going the wrong way on his shoe, the spatter going up and down on his trouser leg was all evidence accepted by both the Crown and the defence without controversy. I think that is where Justice Binnie would focus his attention in the first instance, where Robin died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “ultimately the use of the gloves doesn’t overcome other evidence”. Or, depending how you look at it, and view it in its cumulative affect (rather than atomistically as Karam wants you to, as as Reed persuaded the jury) it confirms a pattern that looks bad for David. Speculation about Robin’s stae of mind is just that – speculation. Nowhere near as strong as physical evidence he was doing ordinary things that morning, e.g., bringing in the paper. Maybe he did, and did still kill his family – I can buy that – but not the cumulatrive coincidences.

    Specualtion on David fainting is also just that – speculation. The ambulance officers at the scene, highly experienced in dealing with people under stress believed he was faking.

    You make the crime scene sound like a pristine clean place – it was a tip. About all the defence could do was try and muddy the waters on the police evidence gathering – and they succeeded. Good luck to them. I don’t buy it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    “But even on a wider view if any scene is corrupted by movement of exhibits, or the planting of exhibits isn’t the integrity of the scene destroyed, and why is it just for parts of a corrupted scene to be used as though they retained their integrity”

    On that basis, any police and/or ambulance team moving into the house (which I reiterate was a confused messy tip due to the way Margaret conducted her household) would have corrupted it. How convenient for David!

    It was an emergency calls. People may still have been alive. THAT was the initial priority!

    “To place significance on what David said, and the order in which he recalled events and blacked others out diverts from the sheer horror of finding his family dead”.

    Sheer melodrama and rhetorical diversion – he was the first witness! Of course what he had to say was significant! You find some members of your family dead and you don’t check ‘em all out?! Yes, people can react differently under stress, and on its own, no, it doesn’t conclusively prove David is the killer. But 35 free minutes, with an ambulance team saying he is faking and listening in on police conversations as they subsequently attend to him, in the cumulative context of all the other physical evidence? Come on!

    You are right – it is about how you “choose” to view it. I give you a challenge – do what Bryan Bruce did, flip it over, play Devil’s Advocate, and make the case against Robin from the clear, unambiguous, undisputed physical (not speculative “state of mind” etc.) evidence. It leads only in one direction. No wonder Karam and Reed went ape-shit over Bruce’s documentary! But then there is nothing to stop libelling or maligning of the dead, and Robin ain’t around to defend himself, is he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    9.27

    If you consider the gloves important, which they no doubt were, you must also look at other evidence, the hands of the two men, of course one had blemish free, blood free hands while the other did not, one had ‘cleaned up’ in the bathroom and left his blood on the towel – the other did not. And that is the physical evidence to which you refer.

    The speculation of David fainting as you put it had a confirmation from defence witnesses with more experience that the witness who did indeed speculate.

    I have intended to call the place as having been in pristine condition, look at the photos, it was hardly a ‘tip’ either.

    9.39

    No, you go to far on my point about a corrupted scene by mentioning other situations. The crime scene at 65 Every Street was corrupted, fortunately that isn’t universal and I can even imagine, before the order came through from HQ is was most likely being treated for what it was, a straight forward murder suicide. Moving items within a murder scene, not recording times of place of their original position is corrupting the evidence and the scene.

    I’m happy for you to consider that people don’t suffer shock or fright when faced with horror, but that they rather remain cool and collected. I obviously have a different view. You’ve stretched that time to 35 minutes I note. ‘Listening in’ to police conversations when you’re in the same room, frightened and not aware of the full tragedy has some significance? You also stretch the ambos to include all of them giving evidence of the ‘faked’ fit but that wasn’t the evidence, nor the defence’s reply.

    I see you veneer of reasonableness is thinning. I’ve pointed to what evidence is against Robin, taken from his body, the rifle, and the immediate area around him. I don’t think I can be clearer or fairer than that, and it’s not Karam’s or Reed’s evidence as I’m sure you understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “I’m happy for you to consider that people don’t suffer shock or fright when faced with horror, but that they rather remain cool and collected.”

    Straw man. I never said that. Neither did I imply it. Neither did I mean it.

    But I’ll repeat it – in the context of the other cumulative stuff, and the opportunity it gave for David to “clean up”, type a note on the computer screen – and I have no problems Robin turned it on – David now has an unplanned opportunity to increase the “framing” of his old man – but if it really was Robin who typed it, it begs the question why he didn’t just hand-write a suicide/confession note, which hand-writing experts could verify? Another unlucky coincidence for David that could have exonerated him. Bugger! See where the coincidences are continuing to lead? On its own, yes, unusual, but possible. But keep it in its context…

    Also, you have chosen to ignore the expert testimony of the ambulance staff. Strond compelling evidence from people who know what they are talking about, who know how to assess physical and psychological factors. Alawys give weight to experts in the field – especially when it confirms a pattern!

    The evidence you point to against Robin is not, as I specified, undisputed. As you may guess, I am almost immune to the “framing” of both individual items of “evidence”, and how it is woven together by Karam.

    But ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick. I’ll leave it to others to assess whose “veneer of reasonableness is thinning.

    Cheers,

    Kimbo

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

    victim support determined david bain “was not a victim” – although the retrial jury did not hear this suppressed evidence. many of bain’s most fervent supporters, even on this forum, are perhaps wishing a precedent set to enable them to gain “compensation” for their own “miscarriages of justice” and jail time served.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Kimbo’s Challenge To Nostalgia:

    I give you a challenge – do what Bryan Bruce did, flip it over, play Devil’s Advocate, and make the case against Robin from the clear, unambiguous, undisputed physical (not speculative “state of mind” etc) evidence.

    I second that challenge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    I watched the program off the web.

    The thing I don’t that got me was the way he tried to suggest that even if people believe he is guilty then essentially “well gee he’s done 13(?) years so it’s time to let him get on with his life”…

    Personally I don’t think anyone who kills 5 people let alone members of their own family ever deserves to get out of prison (unless they ‘fess up, which he says he won’t do because he maintains he is innocent).

    Watching it I thought people may be easily fooled by DB’s pleasant exterior. But his good manners etc don’t preclude the strong probability that he killed his family.

    I went to high school and played cricket at lunch time with a kid who just a year or two later murdered a girl and is still in prison today doing time. What he did was horrible and I completely understand that the victim’s family would never want him out of prison. But I also know that this kid I played cricket with at school wasn’t all that different from all the rest of us… I think our typical stereotype of a murderer is some evil psychopath, but while this may be true in some instances I don’t believe that it is a prerequisite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    I also don’t see a motive for Robin killing each of his children. Why was David, who at 22 running a paper run, the only one who deserved to stay?

    Did he just have better manners and politeness than Arawa, Laniet and Stephen? Maybe that’s it.

    DB mentioned on the program that he didn’t know what when wrong, but in hindsight he had inklings. Unfortunately the interviewer didn’t ask him what those inklings were. How we had no idea what went wrong but also had inklings (as well as those worries about bad things about to happen) is all rather difficult for the objective person to accept, IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Ah yes another thing – DB is now a member of the hunting club, apparently. That’s great, but personally if I’d had my entire family who I loved killed with a gun, then a gun is the last thing I’d ever want to touch in my free time.

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

    > even if people believe he is guilty then essentially “well gee he’s done 13(?) years so it’s time to let him get on with his life

    Yeah I thought that was odd too. David seems to think that 13 years is adequate punishment for slaughtering his entire family. I think otherwise. I think mass murderers should never be released from prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    11.46

    I’ve already done it, given you the evidence of suicide. The closest you got to explaining it was either that David did or might have put the blood smears on Robin’s hands.

    ross69
    2.00pm

    What you seem to think David ‘seems to think’ is as irrelevant as anything else you posted on this matter, hopping from lilly leaf to lilly leaf. Just as in your imagination you believe you are entitled to imply that David is convicted of any crimes when we all know that he isn’t. He’s free sunshine, flying to a Conference in Australia as a key note speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ david@tokyo

    “DB mentioned on the program that he didn’t know what when wrong, but in hindsight he had inklings. Unfortunately the interviewer didn’t ask him what those inklings were. How we had no idea what went wrong but also had inklings (as well as those worries about bad things about to happen) is all rather difficult for the objective person to accept, IMO”.

    Quite right. Typical of the “vagueing out” that James McNeish, for all the problems in “The Mask of Sanity” had, got right. Nothing has changed – David still the passive-aggressive, getting others (now Joe Karam and Michael Reed) to do the arguing and running for him.

    OK, so you don’t know why. You are 22, and had no explanation. David – you had a lot of spare time on your hands in the following years to think about it, to study up, to form some coherent opinion – and it was in your interests to – or at least it was until Reed decided you weren’t going to take the stand in your 2nd trial (which was his right – good luck to him).

    But just like the premonitions of doom, of hands reaching out to get him, enough in the statement suggesting something was wrong with his family in hindsight that suggest malevolence “out there” and not within David’s scope of knowledge or action – but no specifics that can be cross-checked, or cross-examined to test their veracity and David Bain’s credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    david@tokyo, I think you’ll find the only thing he has in his hands at the hunt club is a horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    2.20pm

    Read Professor Mullen’s, Professor of forensic psychiatry services in Melbourne’s evidence, or the latter evidence of Brinden who professionally consulted Davie, and took the rare step in Forensics and said he believed David was innocent, be informed.

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

    They used to hang people for just one murder. Now david bain not only thinks two and a half years for each murder is not only plenty, but wants money for doing it too. How many years has poor brave Stephen lost – and Arawa and Laniet? The thought we should feel sympathy for david is appalling. Justice has not been served for david’s hapless victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    I think our typical stereotype of a murderer is some evil psychopath

    I have no doubt David Bain is a psychopath:

    Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. It is defined in different ways, but can involve a lack of empathy or remorse, false emotions, selfishness, grandiosity or deceptiveness

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Alan, thanks for setting me straight on that point. I’ve obviously not spent enough time in New Zealand to learn a few basics like that :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    OK Scott, you got me too :)

    I’d love to ask David what his idea about what his pop meant by the “only one” comment, since in his version of events his pop was the one who wrote it.

    One circumstance I can think of that Robin might have wrote the message would be if indeed he HAD intended to frame David, as a form of punishment for something.

    But if that’s the case then Robin must have done a lot of ground work planning how to frame him for it given all the circumstances, when he could have just popped him off out right like with all the others and made it certain.

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

    David@tokyo, I believe the comment on the computer was meant to be longer. There was a window in that alcove that faced towards to the road. I think Robin started that message intending it to be more, he was well versed with computers and was the first Principal in the area to get the internet and computers at his school. It makes sense that he used this type of medium, and like I said, I think it was to be a longer message, in keeping with Robin’s literary skills, however, David, and probably the dog first were seen coming up the road, so he cut the message short, to end his life before David could arrive and stop him.

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

    Scott Chris: David Bain has been submitted to intense psychiatric and psychological analysis since the time of his arrest. He has been examined by five of this countries top people in the field. Psychopathy can be detected by certain scans etc of the brain, and other such tests. David Bain had none of the features of psychopathy, or any other mental illness. He gave permission for his medical records to be available for the Courts to see these results. The tests were carried out by the Department of Corrections, and other such organisations and had nothing to do with Karam or were instructed or requested by Karam.

    David Bain had NOTHING to signify any form of behaviourial or mental illness or defect or condition, and still doesn’t.

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

    Kimbo: David Bain was a young man with friends and a social life, he had finally found a university course that suited him after a failed attempt and had a full social life plus training for a marathon etc. Many young men ignore emotions of family members, especially females during that stage of their lives (many men do it for their entire lives). Of course he ignored it, most do, however hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I’m sure now he can point to things that were wrong.

    None of the extended family noted much wrong with the family either, and yet, there was plenty to notice. Most girls don’t become prostitutes, most men don’t stink, most women don’t use pendulums to make decisions. Everyone ignored the signs of a family self-destructing. If this country learns anything from this tragedy, it should be to firstly to pay more attention to families that are struggling, and secondly, to have some form of independent body that can investigate miscarriages of justice, as we appear to be serial offenders.

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

    “help help … the black hands are after meeeeeee.” “now, now, david … black hands are quite normal … just zone out for another twenty minutes”.

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

    perhaps someday david bain will admit to what he undoubtedly did, and tell us why he killed his siblings and parents. probably a combination of things including inheritance and jealousy.

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

    hiphip: The black hands were the best sort of description David could give for the darkening around the aura of the eyesight. The phenomenon is well known in medical fields and occurs frequently with people under stress. Some just refer to a dark aura, others say dark wavy branches, black hands round the edge of his sight is explanable, and certainly not the emotional hysterics you are acting out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Oh oh. Nostalgia drops out and ‘Jinny’ picks up the mantle.

    A tag team of myopic, david bain cheer leaders.

    Poor buggers… :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Thanks for the explanation about the black hands, Jinny. Is killing your entire family stressful in some way?

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

    I don’t know, I’ve never tried it, when I do I’ll let you know. We could ask Robin, but he hasn’t been answering his email. I should imagine arriving home to find your family splattered all over the house, would be pretty stressful though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Psychopathy can be detected by certain scans etc of the brain, and other such tests.

    Jinny, no it can’t. It is only my opinion that David is a psychopath.

    A 2008 review found various abnormalities reported in the literature, centered on a prefrontal-temporo-limbic circuit — regions that are involved in emotional and learning processes, as well as many other processes. However, the authors report that the people classed as “psychopathic” cannot in fact be seen as a homogeneous group (i.e. as all having the same characteristics), and that the associations between structural changes and psychopathic characteristics do not enable causal conclusions to be drawn. They conclude that psychopathic characteristics involve multifactorial processes including neurobiological, genetic, epidemiological, and sociobiographical (the person’s life in society) factors.

    there is no consensus about the symptom criteria for psychopathy, and no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis of “psychopathy” itself.

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

    Elaycee (2,250)

    Rather a childish comment don’t you think Elaycee. Do you think there is only one person in New Zealand that disagrees with you? Do you find it really hard to accept that there are people who don’t think like you do (thank goodness)?

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

    Scott Chris: If you had read the medical records you would know that David Bain was submitted to all of those tests, the results which were negative. Psychological testing and counselling also failed to find any association with psychopathy and in more than ten years of regular fortnightly consultation, he never demonstrated any negative behavioural issues. Are you trying to say that psychopathy can not be found, even if psychopaths? David Bain did not present with any evidence in all of the areas, including sociobiographical, for any of the five people that submitted him to examination and testing.

    Are you now trying to tell us that you, who have never examined David Bain or probably met him, are able to diagnose him from a distance, and find that he is? God save us from armchair experts.

    Psychopathy can not be cured, it doesn’t ‘come and go’, how do you explain that David Bain has not exhibited any signs of psychopathic behaviour since his release from prison?

    What evidence do you have that you have observed David Bain in conditions conducive to making such a ‘diganosis’?

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/54159/bain-trance-like039-state-talking-about-black-hands039

    “Then everything changed, his body became tense, his fists clenched and he began speaking ‘‘as if the words were being dragged out of him”. She could feel spit on her face as Bain repeatedly talked about ‘‘black hands taking them away”, about ‘‘everyone dying” and how he ‘‘couldn’t stop them”, that he should have run faster.

    She told him it was not his fault, but he repeatedly talked about ‘‘black hands taking them away”.

    When she asked if they had tried to take him away, Bain said ‘‘no, just the family, just like [the movie] Schindler’s List, dying, everyone dying all around”.

    She asked if he had seen them dying.

    He said ‘‘No, I only saw Mum and Dad and they were already dead.” Bain was looking her straight in the eye and his speech was back to normal, Mrs Clark told the court.

    Clearly he’s not attempting to poetically describe a physiological optical illusion. By his own story he wasn’t present when they were being “taken away”, the black hands are something going on in his mind after the event.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    I don’t know if David is a psychopath, I think he’s a cunning shit though. I will always believe he committed the murders. Robin committing the murder just doesn’t fit for me. I still don’t get why you would change your clothes when you are going to top yourself. It is stuff like this that just doesn’t seem logical. To get any compensation Bain needs to prove he is completely innocent, good luck with that.

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

    “David Bain listed himself among the possible killers after five of his family were shot dead” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10569482

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    how do you explain that David Bain has not exhibited any signs of psychopathic behaviour since his release from prison?

    Psychopaths are pathological liars. Because they are incapable of shame or fear, they can lie with such confidence that listeners are often fooled.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Lying_and_manipulation

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

    Say Goodbye to Hollywood: I don’t understand that either, but a person that can kill their family and then themselves is hardly going to be acting and thinking rationally, are they? I think that is what causes so much misunderstanding with this. People look at it and think about what they would do. Whoever shot the Bains, wasn’t rational, and wasn’t thinking about the logics of what they were doing. Trying to fit normal behaviour into the mix, will never work. The same goes for judging how a person should react finding their family slaughtered. As far as I know there is not any instruction book or document that tells us what is the appropriate or normal way to act in such circumstances.

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

    Scott Chris: So where is David Bain lying and not showing emotion. Did you expect him to cry on TV for you? Are you with him 24/7 and can see his lack of emotion? I think you are getting a bit carried away with what you expect peope to believe you know, when it’s obvious you have no means of making such observations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Well, well, another spammer. Must be an approved tactic of Joe’s. Doesn’t do anything for ones credibility though…..keep it up jinny, thrash that horse!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    hiphip
    8.02

    Getting more frantic and desperate by the moment? Why not post the full context of that – David responded to a leading question by a police officer who said that it must have been Robin or David. Too hard for you to keep perspective? I can think of another such question ‘can you explain how you palm print was found on the washing machine in blood.’ Of course he couldn’t, nor was it ever corrected that the palm print wasn’t in blood until the only trial not appealed. As it turns out the police officer was right with his theory on choices, and we now know who the Jury thought it was – after carefully considering all the evidence and being directed in their duty by a High Court Judge.

    Your’e going down a well-worn track that was rejected by a Jury and which earlier resulted in a mistrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Jinny, just as you are convinced of David Bain’s innocence, I am convinced of his guilt.

    Perhaps you are a nicer person than I am, and consequently are incapable of recognizing Bain’s dark side. Or maybe you know someone who was abused by her father, so you assume that Robin is the automatic culprit – who knows?

    But I guarantee you this: David won’t be getting any compensation from the crown. We can chew it over again when that happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Dazzaman, your childish insults are just pathetic. If you haven’t anything useful to say why do you bother? You seem to have a major problem with people coming to a different conclusion than you. Particularly a jury who heard all the evidence and judged the people who gave it and were cross-examined in front of them.

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

    aw – yes very good jury. that guy who would sleep in the afternoons had it sussed. i believe a test of what the jury understood would have been revealing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Jinny, do we have an objective reason to believe that the computer note was intended to be longer?

    But if I humour the idea, if David had indeed come back Robin could have just popped him off too and then killed himself.

    But he didn’t, and he left a message, so (assuming he was the killer) Robin had some reason to think David was better than the rest of the family, who all had to be killed for some reason.

    Only David of the four children deserved to stay.

    I can’t think of a reason why a father would care of one child above his wife and other children and kill all of them including himself, sparing David.

    But it doesn’t seem incongruous to me that a killer could believe that he himself was worthy of living whereas those around him were not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Jinny says: “Elaycee (2,250) Rather a childish comment don’t you think Elaycee. Do you think there is only one person in New Zealand that disagrees with you? Do you find it really hard to accept that there are people who don’t think like you do (thank goodness)?”

    Not at all, Jinny. But clearly, you’ve missed the point.

    I find the cynical accusations against Robin Bain (by the entire Bain cheer squad), totally nauseating. I also think that the timing of the latest piece of fiction relating to the Bain murders and the subsequent attempt to portray Robin as a murderer, is no coincidence – and a slight on the murdered man’s name. It’s no coincidence either that Bain has suddenly emerged from behind a cloak of self imposed anonymity, to coincide with Justice Binnie’s evaluation whether he has proven his innocence (that would validate any claim for compensation). Karam has skin in the game (a share of any compensation) so he has every reason to try and paint Bain Jr as best he can. But not everyone is sucked in by the bullshit, the innuendo and the distortions. Thank goodness!

    Now you have suddenly emerged as a tag team to the person with poor comprehension skills and yet you use the exact terminology that has been trotted out already. So it’s not hard to believe that either this is an orchestrated campaign by the Bain cheer squad or that you are simply using notes from the same source.

    Either way, I think the timing of the orchestrated publicity campaign is appalling and I can but hope that Justice Binnie sees it the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostagia-NZ

    “Read Professor Mullen’s, Professor of forensic psychiatry services in Melbourne’s evidence, or the latter evidence of Brinden who professionally consulted Davie, and took the rare step in Forensics and said he believed David was innocent, be informed.”

    Ho hum. The opinions of psychological whores-for-hire, aka tea-leave readers, who usually flock around cases like this does not persuade me compared to the physical evidence. Yes, I mentioned McNeish’s psychological assessment – but he wrote that in response to the din from people like you who demanded to know what David’s motive was – something the Crown never had to prove!

    But if you are going to take your eyes off the undisputed physical evidence and go wandering after the state-of-mind of the protagonists, other than the fact “the patriarch usually does it” (as Alan Wilkinson noted above), McNeish did a better job on getting to the bottom of who David Bain is, than Joe Karam ever did with Robin Bain – IMHO. Yes, David Bain, on the evidence of Sunday night is a calm, reasonable, compelling individual. I’d believe him too – if it wasn’t for the overwhelming weight of bad luck coincidences that happened at the murder scene that for me, go way beyond reasonable doubt.

    @ Jinny

    “Many young men ignore emotions of family members, especially females during that stage of their lives (many men do it for their entire lives). Of course he ignored it, most do, however hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I’m sure now he can point to things that were wrong”.

    That wasn’t my point, Jinny, and a good example of the rhetorical sleight-of-hand that folks in the pro-David Bain camp have probably inadvertently picked up courtesy of Joe Karam’s special pleading. Yes, your initial premise that he may not have noticed something was wrong in the family (other than the fey “something terrible is going to happen” – Hah!) is reasonable enough. My point is that he has been able to learn nothing of psychology and pathology, and criminal behaviour to at least have a prism to peer back on his family through – during 13 years in prison, when he has every incentive to come up with some answers and explanations – not just to help with his freedom, but also to understand the tragedy that has taken away his family?!

    Instead, we get Mr Calm and Reasonable, offering answers with all the substance of a ball of candy-floss, in a puff-ball interview, yet again evading reasonable cross-examination of the one witness left alive who every day experienced the dynamics of a family that was brutally murdered by one of its members.

    But hey – I could almost buy that – IF it wasn’t for the cumulative weight of sheer bad luck that afflicted him that morning. Losing your family is one thing – but your old man inadvertently setting you up (e.g., washing up when he is going to put a bullet through his brain – “He prepared to meet his maker with clean hands” – Hah!)?!

    Forget “rationality of action” in a stressful situation as you argued to Say Goodbye to Hollywood. Yes, people react strangely. On its own anyone of David’s and Robin’s actions could be considered unusual, but not unreasonable. But stop looking at it atomistically as Karam and Reed, like the lawyers of the defendants in the Rodney King case wanted the jury to. Look at the cumulative effect…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ david@tokyo

    “Only David of the four children deserved to stay.

    I can’t think of a reason why a father would care of one child above his wife and other children and kill all of them including himself, sparing David.”

    More than that, why one of them, Stephen, had to die like a stuck pig with his scalp gushing blood all over the room, while he thrashed around gasping for air while being strangled with his own t-shirt – and then the killer likely went on to kill Arawa. But David desrved to stay – yeah, right!

    A meaningless vague murder-suicide confession, that, like what we saw on Sunday night, serves no purpose other than to direct attention away from David.

    And Robin was a teacher who like to type – rather than hand-write, which could be verified- spare me!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “David responded to a leading question by a police officer who said that it must have been Robin or David…As it turns out the police officer was right with his theory on choices, and we now know who the Jury thought it was – after carefully considering all the evidence and being directed in their duty by a High Court Judge”.

    And this is where your grasp of “facts”, including alleged physical evidence unfavourable to Robin troubles me, Nostalgia-NZ, when you can’t even distinguish basic legal principles.

    The jury may not have decided “Robin did it”, or even necessarily that “Robin probably did it”. All the David Bain defence team had to prove was that there was reasonable doubt that David didnt – and therefore, by implication maybe, just maybe Robin did – and the defence certainly argued that way!.

    They may have been 99% certain it was David – that was enough to acquit. Personally, I think they got it wrong. But good luck to Bain, and Reed, and especially Joe Karam who, 1. is a friend I’d like to have if I was ever in trouble, and 2. probably deserves a knighthood for his efforts – even though I think he is sadly very very wrong.

    But then the way you’ve phrased it, sounds mighty like the shell-game Joe Karam has continued to run re compensation. They used David’s rights to avoid going on the stand “because he has nothing left to say” (Oh, really? I think the prosecution, if they had the chance to cross-examine would have a different opinion!) – but they still want compensation because the jury clearly decided Robin did it?! Hah!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Bit thin skinned aye Allen? Heard all the evidence? Hahahaha….

    The comedy show is good from you Bainers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    I’m outta this article, now on page 2, where only the real troopers & the loud Bainer choir go.

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

    > a person that can kill their family and then themselves is hardly going to be acting and thinking rationally, are they?

    You’re deluding yourself if you think this was a murder suicide. The murderer switched on a computer and waited 40 seconds before it warmed up. Not thinking rationally? I think the murderer was thinking very rationally. An irrational murderer would have killed the entire family, but apparently this killer had the presence of mind to stop and think “I’ll let only one person – the one person who hates me – I shall let him live”. How can you believe such drivel?

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

    i believe alan may believe what he is saying, sadly. no, the jury did not hear all the evidence. … and the bainers refuse to hear anything that shows lovely david is simply a cold blooded killer who murdered his whole family. bainers can stick fingers in their ears and shout loudly to avoid hearing the truth, but he’s lucky to be out and should stop being such an ass.

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

    and this supposedly irrational killer also had the presence of mind to take off his bloodied clothes and throw them in the washing machine, before changing into track pants, t shirt, cardigan, and beanie so he could meet his maker in style. Christ, Jinny, you couldn’t make this stuff up. LMAO

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

    if they make a movie of joes scenario, they just have to label it COMEDY.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    Has anyone made a Highlander reference yet?

    There can be only one.

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

    ross69 don’t forget he had presence of mind to take his undies off. can’t meet god wearing dirty undies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “if they make a movie of joes scenario, they just have to label it COMEDY.”

    Yup.

    Or Crime Fiction. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    More familicides similar to Robin’s, perhaps these ones don’t yet have giggling cult followers.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16385417.

    There is an article about what makes them do it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17097802

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

    Nostalgia @ 6.01am

    The first link doesn’t say if the person finding the bodies waited 25 minutes before calling police. Or if the killer shot himself at a highly unusual angle. Or if he changed clothes before killing himself. Or if he got on a computer and left a message to explain why he didn’t kill others. Interesting, eh.

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

    As for your second link, the article refers to “family annihilations” where the killer murders the family before killing himself. Of course such a term cannot be used in the Bain case because the family wasn’t killed. For some strange reason one family member “deserved to stay”. Interesting eh

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

    Ross, I’m not sure where you get your information, but can you please explain the 25 minutes you say David waited.
    Firstly he arrived home at 6.45 am. He removed his shoes etc, turned on the jug, washed his hands, sorted, loaded and did the laundry. He then went to his room, turned on the light, and noticed the disorder, bullet cartridges etc. From there he went to his mothers room and found her dead. He recalled that day also finding his father dead and later using professional memory recovery techniques he was able to recall checking on his siblings, touching them to see if they were alive etc. All this time moving through a dim cold house he was not sure whether there was still a gunman in or not. Finally made his way to the phone and phoned the police.

    He was in no hurry to do the washing etc, as at that time he didn’t know anything was wrong.

    Please explain where the 25 mins are where he did nothing?

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

    In the US, there have been many cases of sons and daughters killing their parents.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/why-kids-kill-parents

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

    Jinny,

    I wasn’t aware you were at the scene. You seem to have been there. What you are stating are allegations, not facts. David allegedly heard his sister gurgling. Did he call for help immediately, hoping that she could be saved?

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

    Nos: very interesting link and relevant –

    “..that tragedies like this happen with “monotonous regularity”, with those involved feeling an overpowering need to stay in control at all cost.

    “They are men who have a lot invested in life. They have been able to achieve masculinity in positive ways.

    “They’ve been working, having a relationship, they’ve been fathers.”

    However, the breakdown of such relationships can lead to a tragic chain of events.

    “When the woman says she’s leaving, then the man is shattered. He feels he’s losing control over everything in his life.

    “There’s this notion that if they feel they can’t carry on in this world they’re not going to leave other people behind.”

    “But as a breadwinner, as someone who’s always felt responsible for the well-being of the children and spouse, he kills them all in order to reunite later on in a spiritual sense.”

    “If a man feels he has no place to turn, although you can’t be sure he is going to commit a family massacre, you can be sure he needs your help.”

    No wonder the friends and family fight so strongly against any thought that Robin was guilty of this dreadful tragedy. Despite the warning signs, none of them did anything to help. The knee jerk reaction is of course to say there was nothing wrong, everything was wonderful with Robin, but it wasn’t. If a nice guy like Robin Bain could snap and do this, what does that say about the rest of the nice loving parent’s out there? No, easier to blame the nerdy son, than perhaps look at our own reflection.

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

    Ross: Dr Dempster stated very clearly that Laniet’s body could have continued making noises for a long time after death, due tothe nature of where and how she was shot three times. He also said that the wounds to her head etc would make it obvious to any person that she was in fact dead. David remembers touching her, and knew their was no life.

    No I wasn’t there, were you? If not, then why are you allowed to comment, and I’m not?

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

    Ross: The percentage of son’s that kill their parents is very very small, compared to the other way round. Familicide and subsequent suicide by the father is almost 97% more likely. Familicide by son’s that have not then later killed themselves exists in only 3 cases worldwide.

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

    The white opera gloves which David owned are an interesting piece of evidence. This is what the Court of Appeal said about them:

    “The fact that the killer wore David’s gloves has a dual significance. First, the killer must have been intending not to leave fingerprints on the weapon or elsewhere. If Robin Bain were the killer it seems most unusual for him to have worn gloves, if he was intending to commit suicide. His leaving fingerprints would then be of no moment. Mr Withnall suggested that he decided to kill himself only at the last minute. That possibility must be borne in mind, although it seems rather unlikely. Secondly, if Robin was the murderer and had not intended to kill himself, it seems paradoxical that he would be of a mind to spare David and yet at the same time, seek to implicate him in the killings by using David’s rifle and ensuring, by wearing gloves, that his own fingerprints were not on it. Plainly the killer envisaged both that the rifle would be connected with the murders and that it should not bear any recent fingerprints associated with its murderous use. All in all the use by the killer of David’s gloves is not easy to reconcile with anyone other than David being the killer.”

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

    > No I wasn’t there, were you? If not, then why are you allowed to comment, and I’m not?

    I wasn’t aware you weren’t allowed to comment. I was simply hoping you would employ some common sense. What did David do after he heard Laniet gurgling? Did he call police? Maybe you are right, maybe he was too busy doing the washing…where apparently he didn’t notice any bloodied clothes. How long would it have reasonably taken him to put clothes in the washing machine?

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

    ROSS: the court of appeal decision was proven by the Privy Council to be inadequate and inefficient. I am really surprised you are resorting to using statements from something deemed to be so faulty by a higher authority.

    We don’t know why Robin wore clothes, they were the most handy as they were kept in the same room as the gun. Maybe his desire was not to get his own children’s blood on him, and not to protect from fingerprints. In face other men who have killed their children had done exactly that, protected themselves from the blood of their victims.

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

    I guess Robin was just lucky that David had organised for the whole family to be home that weekend.

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

    Ross: As Dr Dempster said, it would have been visually obvious that Laniet was dead. I don’t know what order David viewed his siblings in. But the washing and other ordinary things he did probably took about 10-15 mins. I might be fussier than him, but just sorting my washing and putting a load on, getting the powder etc takes me about 10, and that isn’t including taking shoes off, putting on the jug, going toilet, washing hands etc.

    From the time he went to his room and then found his mother, I should imagine from that point he was in a state of shock, and scared and moving slowly through the dark house. He may have even blacked out from shock. We know something made the dog bark at 7 am. At most there is probably about 5-7 minutes he couldn’t explain, but can you explain every minute that you have spent this morning, presuming of course your house isn’t covered in the blood splattered remains of your family and therefore you aren’t in shock?

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

    Short Shriveled: if you have read James McNeish’s book, you will know that for years the family always gathered on a sunday night for family meeting time. It was not unusual and family friends reported this happened both in PNG and back in New Zealand. It was not unordinary for David to want his sister to be part of those meetings again, when she had missed several of them.

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

    exactly! Laniet hadnt been there on a Sunday night for a long time. Lucky for Robin that David was keen to have her there that Sunday eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Keeping Stock (10,301 comments) says:

    I’m of a similar age to Robin Bain, when his life ended. When I awoke this morning, there was but one urgent priority; to drain my bladder; it was the same yesterday, and it’s the same every day. Yet the autopsy on Robin Bain suggested that he died with a FULL bladder.

    There is no way that Robin Bain could have done the things that the defense required him to have done in order for David to be cleared without having sprung a leak. And being a male of advanced middle age, Justice Binnie will understand that.

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

    Short Shriveled: Laniet also told people that she was going home that night to expose her father’s incestuous relationship with her. I would say it was very unlucky for Robin for her to have been there.

    As a mother, I often send my son to pass messages to his sisters, to pick them up, often when they don’t want to come home etc. I know many other parent’s that do exactly the same thing, and often the sisters aren’t too happy to bossed by their brothers in such circumstances. Given that the family regularly met, and they hadn’t seen Laniet for sometime, I think it’s highly probable David was acting on his mother’s wishes to see Laniet at home. We don’t and can’t know that for sure, but there is nothing unusual in him asking her to be there. There is also a witness that said Robin was thrilled to be having the entire family home for dinner that night, which indicates it was a family request, not just from David. Try a little commonsense.

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

    “Try a little commonsense.”
    Brilliant!!!!

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

    so we are pretty certain that Jinny is just Nostalgia?
    The language is the same
    both seem to be female
    one mostly disappears and the other happens to pop in after close to 200 comments

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

    Short Shrivelled: you are trying to make an ordinary family meeting into some sort of demand unusual situation by David. There was nothing unusual about it. What was unusual was what Laniet was about to say. Obvious Robin being thrilled to have her home, was not aware of her accusations.

    None of us know whether they were true or not. Only Robin and Laniet know that, but the mere idea that his daughter would say such things about him must have been very unsettling for the already unstable man. Some sort of discussion occured in that family at 11 pm that night with raised voice and which made Margaret leave the house with Laniet to get money from a money machine. You can push away all those facts and work on a brother asking his sister to attend the regular family meeting as unusual, but it’s not using commonsense to do that.

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

    I am not Nos. I may share the same opinion, but your argument is stupid and based on speculation, and the belief that no other person in NZ believes in David Bain’s innocence enough to argue for it.

    I think if you google nostalgia nz you will find his blog tells you he is a male. However, I accept your detection skills aren’t very well tuned, so I’m sure he’ll forgive you.

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

    “What was unusual was what Laniet was about to say. Obvious Robin being thrilled to have her home, was not aware of her accusations.

    None of us know whether they were true or not. Only Robin and Laniet know that, but the mere idea that his daughter would say such things about him must have been very unsettling for the already unstable man.”

    and then…..

    “but your argument is stupid and based on speculation….”

    you are comedy gold

    and you are Nostalgia …….to think we wouldnt know you are Nostalgia takes a special type of ignorance and belief of the superiority of your own intelligence over ours
    here’s a clue for ya… you are not as bright as you think

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

    LOL I am not Nostalgia, and it is you who isn’t very bright to think I am.

    I can assure you I am not ignorant, I am not resorting to using outdated information from the 1st trial, and Appeal Courts that have been since criticised by the legal profession as inadequate. I am actually very well informed about this case, and when dealing with people like you, it’s hard for me not to feel superior, especially given your latest argument regarding my identity. It is also not too difficult to presume my intelligence is greater than yours, when you are given to promoting the outdated material mentioned above to make an argument.

    You can continue to make a fool of yourself, and provide those who do know who I am with a great source of humour or you can take the intelligent approach, and accept your don’t know as much as you think you do. Somehow, given your display of intelligence here, you will continue to provide that humour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Jinny

    “Firstly he arrived home at 6.45 am. He removed his shoes etc, turned on the jug, washed his hands, sorted, loaded and did the laundry. He then went to his room, turned on the light, and noticed the disorder, bullet cartridges etc. From there he went to his mothers room and found her dead. He recalled that day also finding his father dead and later using professional memory recovery techniques he was able to recall checking on his siblings, touching them to see if they were alive etc. All this time moving through a dim cold house he was not sure whether there was still a gunman in or not. Finally made his way to the phone and phoned the police.

    He was in no hurry to do the washing etc, as at that time he didn’t know anything was wrong.

    Please explain where the 25 mins are where he did nothing?”

    And yet again, we have people unwilling to separate fact from alleged claims. David Bain claims he did those things – but we don’t know for sure. How come you are continuing to splurge with pro-David Bain propaganda and respond to the critique, when ross69 has picked you up, and called you out on the matter?

    “Dr Dempster stated very clearly that Laniet’s body could have continued making noises for a long time after death, due to the nature of where and how she was shot three times”.

    Yep, he did. Another “could have”, which on its own is unusual but possible – although why you wouldn’t rush to check if it was signs of life is beyond me (Silly me, I forgot – “People react differently in a crisis, blah, blah, blah). However, yet another one of those messy coincidences that is pointing the suspicion in only one direction…

    “I should imagine from that point he was in a state of shock”.

    Yes, and if I “imagine”, anything is possible. Stick to the known facts…

    “I think it’s highly probable David was acting on his mother’s wishes to see Laniet at home. We don’t and can’t know that for sure, but there is nothing unusual in him asking her to be there”.

    Unless she is one of a whole family (except one!) who is murdered the next day, and it is part of a cumulative series of coincidences pointing in one direction…

    “None of us know whether they were true or not. Only Robin and Laniet know that, but the mere idea that his daughter would say such things about him must have been very unsettling for the already unstable man. Some sort of discussion occured in that family at 11 pm that night with raised voice and which made Margaret leave the house with Laniet to get money from a money machine. You can push away all those facts and work on a brother asking his sister to attend the regular family meeting as unusual, but it’s not using commonsense to do that.”

    Whereas pushing it on the dad is?! “Must have been unsettling”?! Where did you get “must” from?! Laniet tells everyone the dad has been molesting her and instead of going to the police, they go to a money machine?! Sounds whatever went on that night in family discussion, it was a matter of finances for the kids (which were tight in the family – Robin was the only one with a regular job), which the cash machine visit was meant to address.

    A classic case of rationalising, and muddying the waters to distract from the sheer weight and one-way traffic of cumulative coincidences. The fact you have imbibed the thinking and framing processes that Joe Karam has foisted on the NZ public for years is no surprise. “Must” when it is an “unlikely maybe” with better and simpler explanations, speculations when the physical evidence is damning. Classic Bainiac-speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    So, Kimbo, if it was an open and shut case why did 12 jurors, having heard all the evidence and cross-examinations, unanimously acquit?

    I’m still waiting for that answer. And one of them having a nap doesn’t cut the mustard.

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

    Kimbo: The washing was done, and included the clothes of the killer. The family did not die before the paper run, therefore, if you use commonsense, David followed his normal routine of doing the laundry after he had done his paper run.

    David did check for signs of life and knew they were dead. That has been recorded in Court Transcripts etc. The noises described by David were consistent with the type of injury to Laniet’s body. You need to ask yourself, why would David mention such a noise when there was no benefit to him unless it actually did happen?

    If you are the sort of person that could arrive home to find your family’s blood splattered throughout the house, and not be in shock, then I think that says a lot about they type of person you are, or you are being unrealistic. Most people would accept such circumstances would put anyone into shock. Something that even the police and ambulance officers noted at the time.

    Most normal people ask one of their children to give messages to the others, again that you find this unusual, says more about you, than it does me or the Bain family.

    You picked up on the money machine part, and forgot the raised voices. Never mind, clearly you find an accusation of incest would not be disturbing, perhaps you are used to such things, most of us would be highly disturbed should someone accused us of that.

    You speak so bitterly about Karam, for standing up for something he believes in, and yet, you appear to be standing up for something you believe in, but that’s alright for you to do that, just not him?

    David Bain wasn’t home when the family was killed. He has provided evidence to prove that. It is substantial and beyond any doubt that he was not there when his family died. If he wasn’t there, he doesn’t know exactly what went wrong, and those that do know are dead. You are obviously very emotionally invested in this case, I think you need to prepare yourself for a big shock, because David Bain is innocent, and will get compensation, and all your dismissing of people’s comments and attempt to analyse them etc, are going to come back and bite you on the bum, you are going to look and feel very stupid. However, somehow, I think even with that absolute proof you will still continue to argue against David and Joe, just because you can, and you’re too bitter and twisted to see reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “So, Kimbo, if it was an open and shut case why did 12 jurors, having heard all the evidence and cross-examinations, unanimously acquit?

    I’m still waiting for that answer. And one of them having a nap doesn’t cut the mustard”.

    Because they got it wrong. Fallible people. We collectively make bad judgement decisions when it comes to voting, finances, and all manner of complex matters. Why should a jury be infallible in a complex matter of circumstantial evidence – especially when a clever operator like Joe Karam has had the opportunity to place into the NZ subconscious certain allegations (e.g., Robin’s incest) that the Crown could never match?

    But that is the system, so good luck to David Bain, et al.

    @ Jinny

    “You picked up on the money machine part, and forgot the raised voices. Never mind, clearly you find an accusation of incest would not be disturbing…”

    STOP playing rhetorical games. What I find disturbing is accusations on incest based on hearsay, when there is little credibility given Laniet’s track record, and the accussed is not around to defend himself.

    “You are obviously very emotionally invested in this case, I think you need to prepare yourself for a big shock, because David Bain is innocent, and will get compensation”.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    “The family did not die before the paper run, therefore, if you use commonsense…”

    “David did check for signs of life and knew they were dead…”

    “David Bain wasn’t home when the family was killed…”

    No more feed back to you, until you STOP making statements that are speculation, and are not established facts!

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

    Kimbo. they are established facts though. The family did not die before the paper run because if that was the case, Stephens body would have deteriorated at a faster rate that his mother’s and sisters, due to him wearing only underpants, and a t shirt which was round his neck. The others were all fully clothed or in bed under duvets etc. Pathologists have given testimony to state the fact that as the temperature was officially recorded as freezing point that morning, and that was supported by joint police statements who said the house was even colder inside than outside, that if Stephen’s body had been lying as it was for that length of time, in those conditions, the decline would have been significant and noticed by all who saw the bodies, or touched them. None of those people noticed any difference.

    Senior Ambulance officer Wombwell, who examined the bodies at 7.45 a.m. stated in his initial report and his witness statement, that the bodies of Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen were all the same warmth, and that Robin’s body was warmer. He believed they all died 1 1/2 hours prior to his inspection. He was a very experienced ambulance officer and had much experience in dealing with dead bodies.

    However, no body core temperature samples were taken because the police would not let Dr Dempster into the house early enough for that to be done. But the police also admitted they knew Robin was the last to die by his warmth, and not just that the weapon lay beside him.

    Now, all these people, including experienced pathologists state that Stephen’s body in particular had not been dead for the length of time for him to have died before the paper round, and if it had been, there would have been an obvious difference detectable by all. So are you going to continue arguing against the statements of experts, and calling them speculation or do you think you know better?

    I am sure I can survive without your feedback, in fact, I cherish the thought of not having to read your fixated obsession based on disproven and out of date material.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Jinny

    And yet again, you confuse opinion (even if it is from experts – much of it conflicting) with opinion.

    No more responses until you can distinguish that difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    …and even you are driving me batty with the shell game, Jinny!

    I obviously meant: And yet again, you confuse opinion (even if it is from experts – much of it conflicting) with facts!

    And after that clarification, the no-response clause remains in effect until you address it.

    Cheers,

    Kimbo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Kimbo: “We collectively make bad judgement decisions when it comes to voting, finances, and all manner of complex matters.”

    Hmm. But some of us don’t seem to recognise that possibility, no? And obviously the evidence is not actually open and shut at all but complex, conflicted and contested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “Hmm. But some of us don’t seem to recognise that possibility, no? And obviously the evidence is not actually open and shut at all but complex, conflicted and contested”.

    Yes – it was always a case based on circumstantial evidence.

    As I said, I personally think the jury got it wrong. However, I may be wrong also, but I don’t think so. However, they were the only 12 whose opinion mattered, so that is that. Like everyone else, whether they think David Bain did or didn’t do it, or are indifferent, we all live with the results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    ..and further to that, it is where you, I, others, and most importantly the jury decided where the line of reasonable doubt existed with that, “complex, conflicted and contested” evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    @Kimbo, I agree with that. I personally would not make a decision without a very detailed scrutiny of all the evidence including its provenance – and it is most unlikely that opportunity could present. So we must live with the result in a civilised manner whilst probably individually considering different facets important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    Yes, and I am mindful of the advise that unless you sat on the jury, hearing all the evidence, it is sometimes a fraught task in making assessments.

    However, in this matter, and as Sunday night was the latest gambit in the propganda campaign for compensation, as a taxpayer I’m prepared to wade into the debate…

    Plus while caution is always adviseable, it is only by ordinary folks like you and me keeping tabs that our justice system can hopefully function in the manner in which it was intended

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

    LOL so you did reply Kimbo. Good to see how you are a ‘man’ of your word.
    I am not sure how to feign disgust or disapointment that you will not answer this.

    You seemed to like to promote the discourse that something is opinion just because you lack the information that proves it to be fact. I cannot be blamed for you lack of knowledge, or that you have not been privy to the information now held by, I guess you could call ‘the inner circle’, regarding David’s compensation claim and the evidence, which is not opinion, but in fact solid undisputable proof from the Crown, that proves his innocence.

    My examples given above, have nothing to do with this evidence and are merely, as you say, supporting opinions, however, can’t be totally ignored, especially as they support the factual evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    if it was an open and shut case why did 12 jurors, having heard all the evidence and cross-examinations, unanimously acquit?

    Because your average lay jury is incapable of determining reasonable doubt given a well resourced and competent defense within the context of an adversarial trial. The ineptness of the police investigation didn’t help matters much either.

    Case in point: OJ Simpson. If the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit.

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

    Ordinary folks keeping tabs on the justice system, is fine. However, one should also remember that ordinary folks receive their information mostly from a biased media, who make their living by sensationalising certain aspects, and ignoring others.

    Even if one were to read through the trial transcripts and all published official reports on the case, they would still be devoid of the visual experiences of seeing the actual evidence presented, viewing body language, expression etc, and the aural evidence of hearing tone of voice.

    The public is also not privy to the records made on the day of the killings, nor the witness statements taken by police at the time, or the deposition hearing statements that were given. The public sees the watered down evidence of those bits both the defence and prosecution chose to display, to best present their argument.

    As we now know, in the first trial the prosecution included, altered and excluded evidence and statements they had collected. Their own forensic expert, Dr Dempster saw reason to write and complain about the manner he has been represented in court by the Crown, on certain issues. It is these things that allow a truely representative case to be presented, and it is on these things, that the ordinary folk are not privy too, that will decide the compensation case.

    To argue and say you are balancing and keeping tabs on a system when you only have some of the facts, makes you dangerous to concept of justice, and one of the reasons the justice system exists, because of the ability of the illinformed to persecute others based on miscomprehension and bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott: “Because your average lay jury is incapable of determining reasonable doubt given a well resourced and competent defense within the context of an adversarial trial. The ineptness of the police investigation didn’t help matters much either.”

    I agree with the second sentence, not so much with the first. However, jury selection could certainly be greatly improved by proper remuneration and empowering jurors to be more than passive observers. I also think it is way beyond time to allow the accused’s (and accuser’s) criminal history to be presented to the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    More familicides similar to Robin’s, perhaps these ones don’t yet have giggling cult followers.

    Most familicides are carried out by the family patriarch.

    Who had been displaced as family patriarch and banished from the house? Robin.

    Who called the meeting? The effective patriarch, David.

    Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Actually Keeping Stock makes a good point about Robin and his full bladder. I’m 47 and know the first thing in the morning it is a trip to the toilet.

    @Jinny
    I have to assume that when Bryan Bruce made his documentary he had access to all of the known facts and witness statements or is he just one of the biased media?

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/2890774/Father-says-I-love-you-as-son-shoots-him

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    However, jury selection could certainly be greatly improved by proper remuneration and empowering jurors to be more than passive observers.

    Are you aware of the recent law commission proposal to ditch juries in favour of a professional jury? Personally I favour a panel of judges with an inquisitorial format in an attempt to establish the facts of a matter rather than the winner of the contest.

    I also think it is way beyond time to allow the accused’s (and accuser’s) criminal history to be presented to the jury.

    I don’t believe anyone but a judge has sufficient expertise and training to consistently and objectively assess criminal history within the context of a trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    A Alan Wilkinson

    “I agree with the second sentence, not so much with the first. However, jury selection could certainly be greatly improved by proper remuneration and empowering jurors to be more than passive observers. I also think it is way beyond time to allow the accused’s (and accuser’s) criminal history to be presented to the jury”.

    Used to be a fan of “jury by your peers”.

    Then I had a mate, whose opinions and judgement capacities I respected tell me the general impression he had when he served as a jury foreman. He was so shaken by the experience, he was all in favour of licentiate jurors.

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

    hiphip,

    Interesting story about the young guy who slaughtered his family.I was taken by his comment:

    “I don’t know why I killed all my family today. Once I loaded that shotgun and shot Maritza I couldn’t stop and I did not stop until I had shot them all.”

    So he didn’t stop until he’d murdered them all, a little different from Robin Bain, stopping to turn on the computer, waiting for it warm up, writing an ambiguous message, changing his clothes, throwing them in the washing machine, before apparently killing himself. Of course if David did it, then he indeed shoot them all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. redeye (629 comments) says:

    Most familicides are carried out by the family patriarch.

    Who had been displaced as family patriarch and banished from the house? Robin.

    Who called the meeting? The effective patriarch, David.

    Simple really.

    The vast majority of those that commit familicides have a serious personality disorder.
    The vast majority of those that commit familicides kill themselves immediately afterwards.
    The vast majority of those that commit familicides do so because of partner loss.

    Simple really.

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

    > if it was an open and shut case why did 12 jurors, having heard all the evidence and cross-examinations, unanimously acquit

    You might ask the jurors in the Peter Ellis case the same question. It’s generally considered by most that they reached the wrong verdict. Jurors do sometimes get it wrong. As do judges. Nobody is infallible.

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

    > The vast majority of those that commit familicides kill themselves immediately afterwards.

    I suggest you read the article I linked to earlier, referring to the hundreds of cases where sons or daughters had murdered their parents. Suicide isn’t common in those cases. The case that hiphip linked about the young man slaughtering his family, he didn’t kill himself.

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

    > I think you need to prepare yourself for a big shock, because David Bain is innocent, and will get compensation.

    You see, Jinny, you give every indication you were there on that cold morning, watching the events unforld. Yet you’ve told us you weren’t there, so you have absolutely no way of knowing if David is innocent. And if Jutice Binnie says that Bain is probably guilty, how you will you react, about from being in denial and casting aspersions on Binnie’s parentage?

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

    Ross, but I do, because there is a piece of evidence that can’t be refuted, it isn’t based on opinion or subjective. It is solid evidence that the crown has that proves it wasn’t David that killed the family. I admit, it does not prove who did, other than showing the one person who didn’t.

    There is a way of knowing, just because you don’t know it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    Justice Binnie does not get to say whether he is probably guilty or not. He gets two choices, either David has proved his innocence on the balance of probabilities or he hasn’t proved his innocence on the balance of probabilities. He does not get to offer an opinion of who he thinks did it. He will not give a decision on whether it was Robin or not, or anything else connected with the case.

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

    Say Goodbye: No Bryan Bruce did not have access to those documents. They are only available to the Crown and the Defence. The public, including the media do not get to see them, and any publications that include aspects of them, must receive permission of the court to do so. To get hold of them through some other means and publish them, is contempt of court.

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

    Regarding the Bladder.

    Dr Dempster measured the urine from Robin’s bladder. He did not say whether it was a full bladder or not, and has gone on record to say that 400mls does not necessarily indicate a full bladder, or that there would have been an urge to pee, as everyone has different sizes and urge responses. Unless you were the same build, had the same lifestyle, took the medications and had the same medical condition as Robin, anyone’s guess on this, is exactly that, a guess. We do not know whether Robin had already urinated that morning, had more to drink, his prostate stopped him from feeling the urge, as it can do with some, we simply don’t know, so anything you offer is opinion and subjective, and not factual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    ross69: “You might ask the jurors in the Peter Ellis case the same question.” First and most important, they did not get to hear all relevant evidence and a good deal of what they were told was unreliable. Second, I am not claiming either case was open and shut.

    Re Peter Ellis, it happens we knew all the staff at the Civic Creche because Peter Ellis took my wife’s job there when we left Christchurch. We also knew the initial complainant and her child. We knew from the outset from knowing all the participants and the environment they worked in that the case was a total fabrication.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    1.13

    ‘Yes, and I am mindful of the advise that unless you sat on the jury, hearing all the evidence, it is sometimes a fraught task in making assessments.

    However, in this matter, and as Sunday night was the latest gambit in the propganda campaign for compensation, as a taxpayer I’m prepared to wade into the debate…

    Plus while caution is always adviseable, it is only by ordinary folks like you and me keeping tabs that our justice system can hopefully function in the manner in which it was intended’

    I can’t see how you can’t justify your comment about compensation. Compensation isn’t going to be decided by the public, we all know that, or I should say most of do. Probably most of us also know that David has been criticised for not speaking out. In fact many people are still unaware that he effectively gave evidence at both the mistrial and the retrial. There have been howls of protest that he should speak out, people beating their chest and saying ‘if it was me…etc.’

    Your comment about compensation can’t be justified, and the only reason I can see that you have made it is because you consider David will get compensation and the next call will be against Justice Binnie. Do you number yourself among those that blame the Privy Council, the Jury for the due process of Justice? And will you be among those that blame Binnie if he doesn’t make a decision of which you approve?

    On the question of David speaking, there are some on the boards here, that literally yelled out for him to speak and when they found out that he was due to speak in Aussie blasted the website until it was closed to them for comment. They took the same position on Karam’s book without even reading it, attacked Beattie’s book blog, on here attacked Don Mathias for expressing his view on the book and the case, beleaguered the 60 min website until a warning was issued. Any pattern emerging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    And so the orchestrated campaign by the david bain tag team / cheer squad continues…. a repeat of the same lies, distortions and innuendo over and over and over in the faint hope that people will somehow be converted to their fictional account of events.

    Thankfully, Justice Binnie has only one thing to evaluate – proof of innocence. And despite the best efforts of the orchestrated david bain cheer squad campaign, he will not be able to reach this conclusion – on the balance of ALL evidence.

    Is there any truth in the rumour that the Bryan Bruce programme exonerating Robin from the murders, is shortly to be shown again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott: “I don’t believe anyone but a judge has sufficient expertise and training to consistently and objectively assess criminal history within the context of a trial.”

    Why? I don’t think judges are so special. The main purpose is to deflate the “I don’t think this defendant is capable of such horrendous behaviour” misconception.

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

    hiphip, I did not say that no one else knows about this evidence, because I have also said that I know. What I am saying is clearly you don’t know it because unless you had some innate desire to make a prat of yourself, you would not be making the points you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Jinny, you seem to have dipped into name calling. That’s a shame.

    I’m still without any idea why David was the only one of the lovely children who deserved to stay, and if there were conclusive proof that David had not simply tried to use his paper round as an alibi (as had sprung to his mind in the past), I imagine that all of New Zealand would believe that he is innocent. My understanding is that there’s a lot of uncertainty around the precise timings.

    As it stands, I guess half of New Zealand thinks he is guilty, and will be gutted if their taxes go to paying off this guy for half getting away with 5 murders. If the David-is-innocent crowd think he is innocent they should set up a charity and “compensate” him that way, rather than enforce it on even people who think he is guilty. (I don’t pay taxes in NZ either way so no matter to me, but I do have strong doubts about his innocence.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    There was a story recently about a kid killing or injuring his mother because she wouldn’t let him play a video game, when I tried to search for it now I found a whole lot of stuff like that.
    Amazing that young immature people could kill over such a trivial thing.

    Those flies on the wall in the Bain house hold must have heard some really interesting things that previous night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, even if he admitted it, some would say he had been bought off, etc. Don’t expect it to happen, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    hiphip

    You might be surprised yourself one day about the comments you continue to make and which you think you are getting away with. Check out some internet law, and some cases currently before the Court, you may not be as invisible as you think. Pity you choose to use somebody’s else website to post your defamation, thinking that you can get away with it. Kim Jong eh? I’ve kept your posts and now I’m going to find out who you are and send it on for legal scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Scary stuff Nostalgia. Who do you think might sue? Do you really think such empty threats will have any effect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Legal threats because someone says they think David is guilty? Half of New Zealand thinks he is. Why’s it so hard to accept the controversy? Even David said on his TV slot that he doesn’t care about people who think he’s guilty (guilty or not) at least he has common sense to let people have their opinion about a controversial matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Good luck with that defamation case, you will have as much luck with that as you will proving David is innocent.

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

    Nostalgia you have an insane website where you accuse everyone you disagree with of being a “pedo”, I think if anyone’s going to get sued for demation, it’s going to be you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    I suspect that if anyone sued for defamation the defendant would have the full resources of the police to assist in proving the truth of the statement

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “ross69: “You might ask the jurors in the Peter Ellis case the same question.”…most important, they did not get to hear all relevant evidence and a good deal of what they were told was unreliable”.

    Like the interesting testimony (not hearsay as with the incest allegations) that David Bain had discussed how to commit a violent crime and get away with by using his paper run as an alibi?

    @ Nostagia-NZ

    “I can’t see how you can’t justify your comment about compensation. Compensation isn’t going to be decided by the public, we all know that, or I should say most of do.”

    I think I can justify it. No, compensation SHOULDN’T be decided by the public. Nevertheless they will be pressured, to in turn pressure the politicians. It is the way of the world, and how things operate. Watch this space…

    “Do you number yourself among those that blame the Privy Council, the Jury for the due process of Justice?”

    The Privy Council – no, because a. they were clear that the first jury did not get it wrong based on what was presented to them, and b. they never made a decision on whether David Bain was guilty or innocent, but instead that it was a decision for a jury

    Do I “blame” the jury in the second trial? Dunno if I’d use the word “blame”. As above, I think they got it wrong. However, as you are weaving the compensation into this, and as they were never asked to make a decision on the matter it is irrelevant. Which is a reminder to the Bainiacs, and the gullible and impressionable who are already being assaulted by Karam and Reed – just because David Bain was found “not guilty” in the 2nd trial, doesn’t mean he is entitled to compensation. Hopefully even Jinny, sitting on her secret stash of gnostic information can grasp that, although I have my doubts…

    I’ll hold judgement on Justice Binnie until he fronts with his findings.

    Any pattern emerging? Yeah – people don’t want their hard-earned taxes going to compensate a man they think is very lucky to be walking the streets a free man, when his family sits in the cold earth, and his dad, whom he fingered for it, and possibly convinced a jury Robin, maybe, just maybe did it, but he isn’t around to defend himself.

    “He (David Bain) effectively gave evidence at both the mistrial (sic – the Privy Council didn’t find it to ne a mistrial! For someone who seems to be arguing the inviolability of legal rulings and judicial decisions, you are being rather selective!) and the retrial”? – stop writing fantasy.

    Personally, I don’t care what people say whether David should “explain” or not. They are entitled to their opinion. What David Bain has to say is not really that important to me in reaching the opinion I have. In that sense Michael Reed was right when he said at the 2nd trial, “David has said all he needs to, there is nothing more to be added or gained by him taking the stand” (although cross-examination would have been interesting!).

    Put it this way – for all those who malign James McNeish’s book, and as I have written, it does have its faults, he nevertheless captured very well the David Bain I saw interviewed on TV lapping up puff-ball preset and vetted questions from a sympathetic interviewer – outwardly calm, reasonable, and yet strangely respectful but perplexed regarding his old man who murdered the rest of his family, and whose actions supposedly sentenced David to the injustice of 13 years imprisonment. Good old David, Mr Passive-Aggressive, still loading the gun for others, Karam, Reed, Jinny, Nostalgia-NZ et al to pull the trigger on his behalf.

    But as I repeated before – the key issue is not what Bain says happened – it is what the cumulative effect of the incredible and unlikely set of coincidences points to…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “You might be surprised yourself one day about the comments you continue to make and which you think you are getting away with. Check out some internet law…” blah blah blah…

    Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaa… Brilliant! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Elaycee

    Having wasted 5 minutes of my life which I can never recover, reading Nostagia-NZ’s website, I can at least take solace that I get your joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Kimbo: “Like the interesting testimony (not hearsay as with the incest allegations) that David Bain had discussed how to commit a violent crime and get away with by using his paper run as an alibi?”

    No, nothing like that at all. More like the child witnesses being interviewed making up provably impossible stories that the prosecution smorgasborg’d selected its evidence from. And witnesses presented as “objective experts” who were neither objective nor expert. There is a real problem with such expertise in court when it is not science-based but supposedly experience-based.

    Who has not fantasised about how to commit the perfect crime? That Bain evidence would need at least some indication of actual intent just as the prosecution are now struggling with in the Tuhoi case.

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

    Kimbo: David Bain did not discuss how to commit a violent crime. His fantasy which he discussed when a teenager some years before the killings, with his friends was to have sex with a female runner behind a tree, and when asked where he was, to say he was doing his paper round. The people with whom he had that conversation with have made it very clear the word rape was not mentioned and that the police inserted that, but that was not what they had heard or was implied by David. However, the media, when reporting it, particular one very biased Dunedin reporter, chose to ignore the clarifying statements made by the witnesses to that conversation. For obvious reasons, he relies on sensationalism, and the truth wasn’t nearly as exciting as using the word rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    hiphip

    You might be surprised yourself one day about the comments you continue to make and which you think you are getting away with. Check out some internet law, and some cases currently before the Court, you may not be as invisible as you think. Pity you choose to use somebody’s else website to post your defamation, thinking that you can get away with it. Kim Jong eh? I’ve kept your posts and now I’m going to find out who you are and send it on for legal scrutiny.

    It is Joe!! :D

    Is that twilight zone playing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Alan Wilkinson

    “No, nothing like that at all. More like the child witnesses being interviewed making up provably impossible stories that the prosecution smorgasborg’d selected its evidence from. And witnesses presented as “objective experts” who were neither objective nor expert. There is a real problem with such expertise in court when it is not science-based but supposedly experience-based”.

    Fair enough, and I didn’t mean to detract and minimise your point about the miscarriage of justice that I think took place in the case of Peter Ellis. Or at least having read Lunley Hood’s book, and applied the principle of common sense in determining facts, I have little doubt Ellis should not have been convicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo

    If you stand by your concession made earlier on this blog that Robin could have turned the computer on, it exculpates David because of the body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell, as to both the order of the deaths and the timing of those deaths. There is no doubt that Robin turned the computer on by other evidence and you arrive at the same point as the Jury’s decision. If you are as constructive as you claim to be with the evidence you’ve confirm Robin’s guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    No, nothing like that at all. More like the child witnesses being interviewed making up provably impossible stories that the prosecution smorgasborg’d selected its evidence from

    Hmm, I’d be more inclined to believe a child than believe a sex worker who appears to have latent anger issues with her own father.

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

    > There is no doubt that Robin turned the computer on

    So you and Jinny were at the scene? Must have been quite chaotic with all those bodies…

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

    ross: your logic is flawed. If no one is able to draw a conclusion from the evidence, then why do we bother with a police force, because as far as the evidence suggests so far, no police were present at most of the murders in NZ in the past 50 years or so either. With the possible exclusion being the Crewe murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Nostagia-NZ

    “If you stand by your concession made earlier on this blog that Robin could have turned the computer on, it exculpates David because of the body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell, as to both the order of the deaths and the timing of those deaths. There is no doubt that Robin turned the computer on by other evidence and you arrive at the same point as the Jury’s decision. If you are as constructive as you claim to be with the evidence you’ve confirm Robin’s guilt”.

    Nope. I gave a scenario previously where Robin wakes up, and, as per routine goes to the computer roon for his morning prayer, without disturbing the other family members as per usual routine, unaware they are all lying in their beds murdered while David is out on his paper run as an alibi. Robin turns on the (slow, old even by 1994 standards) computer, just like normal so it goes through its fire-up process, while he gets on with his usual prayer routine, intending to return to it later. David comes in, maybe mumbles something or just goes into the alcove without disturbing his father’s meditation, then uses the rifle which he has previously stored there on his father who is in the prayer posture. Then, unplanned, but seizing the opportunity, David notices the computer on, and types the message to deflect attention.

    And, no, it doesn’t have to have happened that way, and the Crown didn’t have to prove exactly how it was done. Just plausible scenarios which fit the evidence.

    And as you are having trouble, probably deliberately like Jinny, distinguishing fact (exact time of death, which is unknown) from disputed, albeit “expert” opinion (“body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell”), I will exercise the same no-response policy towards you from now on until you clean up your act. There is a fine line between valid passion, and trolling. Having seen your scurrilous disgrace of a website, I think you passed it long ago…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott: “I’d be more inclined to believe a child than believe a sex worker who appears to have latent anger issues with her own father.”

    If were Robin, I don’t think I’d want you leading my defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    The people with whom he had that conversation with have made it very clear the word rape was not mentioned

    Jinny, you miss the point. David didn’t rape his family, he murdered them.

    What that testimony shows is that he had fantasized about using his paper round as an alibi, for whatever purpose.

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

    > If no one is able to draw a conclusion from the evidence…

    Oh but we can draw conclusions…and I quoted the Court of Appeal which commented extensively on the blood-soaked opera gloves owned by David. I haven’t seen you comment on that. As the Court noted:

    “…if Robin was the murderer and had not intended to kill himself, it seems paradoxical that he would be of a mind to spare David and yet at the same time, seek to implicate him in the killings by using David’s rifle and ensuring, by wearing gloves, that his own fingerprints were not on it. Plainly the killer envisaged both that the rifle would be connected with the murders and that it should not bear any recent fingerprints associated with its murderous use. All in all the use by the killer of David’s gloves is not easy to reconcile with anyone other than David being the killer.”

    I think any reasonable person would deduce that Robin had no reason to wear the opera gloves. Indeed, Robin may have been unaware of the glove’s existence and/or whereabouts.

    Nostalgia said that “there is no doubt Robin turned the computer on.” In fact, there is quite a bit of doubt.

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

    Kimbo says: “And as you are having trouble, probably deliberately like Jinny, distinguishing fact (exact time of death, which is unknown) from disputed, albeit “expert” opinion (“body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell”), I will exercise the same no-response policy towards you from now on until you clean up your act. There is a fine line between valid passion, and trolling. Having seen your scurrilous disgrace of a website, I think you passed it long ago…”

    LoL ….In other words, you don’t have what it takes to discuss the case on anyone elses terms but your own. When you can’t bully someone into taking your side, you insult them and declare they aren’t worth talking too.

    I don’t believe anyone has stated the exact time of death other than noting from the words of forensic pathologists, and a degree of commonsense that Stephen Bain’s almost naked body could not have been in the freezing temperature of that morning, for four hours and still felt the same as his Mother’s, and sisters who were full dressed or in bed. Even the most dim brain wouldn’t have too much trouble understanding that.

    You just ignore us Kimbo, as I said, obviously you don’t have the answers that suit your scenario to give us, so refusing to answer helps you save face….. perhaps in your own opinion, certainly not in mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    If were Robin, I don’t think I’d want you leading my defence.

    I wouldn’t blame him. I’m not a lawyer. I was merely speculating as to why the sex worker would lie.

    Had I been leading the prosecution, I’d have wanted to ask her if she’d been sexually abused by her father, but no doubt that would have generated antipathy towards my cause with an emotional jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    Three Hundy! :-o

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

    > the truth wasn’t nearly as exciting as using the word rape

    Oh so if David had had sex with the female jogger against her will, that wouldn’t constitute rape? Interesting, Jinny. What is your definition of rape?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    kimbo
    12.31

    Typical that you don’t want to own what you wrote. The theory of the killings ‘before the paper round’ and ‘Robin after’ is long gone in part by Wombell who altered his evidence from ‘cool but not cold’ in the first trial to ‘still relatively warm’ that sunk the 4am killing spree and sunk you with your candid admission, and subsequent attempts at adjusting it, that Robin turned on the computer.

    I appreciate your frustration but it looks good on you along with your lack of ‘answers.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott, yes, it’s too easy to speculate about this case when so many basic facts are unknown and unknowable and the family itself was seriously strange and hard to understand. I’ll leave that to others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    Whether David fantasized about raping a woman or not is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that he had an idea to use his paper run as an alibi for a crime.

    And gee, just when did the murders happen to take place? Right at the time David happened to usually be on his paper run…

    Even the most ardent of David supporters has to concede that this is quite a remarkable, low probability “coincidence”, if that’s all it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Kimbo says: “Having wasted 5 minutes of my life which I can never recover, reading Nostagia-NZ’s website….,”

    You poor bugger… :)

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

    Ross: The statements taken from those involved in the discussion that occured some years previous, did not say it included ‘against her will” . The term sex was presumed by the police to mean rape when David said to have added when asked where he was, he would say he was on his paper round.

    Just one of the many assumptions the police made, and were later challenged over.

    It was because of the lack of definition that the judge wouldn’t allow it because it could be prejudicial without clarification of exactly what was meant or not meant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    David Bain’s alibi:

    The plan was to free up time for the offending by arriving at the usual time at houses where he would normally see witnesses (suggesting a normal delivery round) but delivering papers at other houses much earlier than usual.

    Evidence was given at the murder trials that at least two houses on Mr Bain’s round got their papers 10 minutes early.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    You really need to check your sources, what are they? You seem to be quoting the fruit from a ‘poisoned tree.’
    The early paper delivery scenario has long since been discounted, one witness saying his paper had never been delivered at a particular time before whilst also admitting that he’d never ‘checked’ previously anyway as to what time his paper arrived. But even with those hopeful distortions, it remains that Mrs Laney saw David going in the gate at 65 Every Street, paper bag over his shoulder at 6.45.

    You should now concern your search to the cross examination of Martin Kleinjes just to help you out with realising that David Bain wasn’t in the house when Robin started the computer, leaving the computer turn on time at 6.41 or earlier. That’s at least 4 minutes I think.

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

    Scott Chris: Evidence was given at the…… 10 mins early…. PROVE IT!

    You are wrong. Check your facts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Having read this thread I feel I must make the following observations:

    Jinny (45) Says: “ David Bain was submitted to all of those tests, the results which were negative. David Bain did not present with any evidence in all of the areas, including sociobiographical, for any of the five people that submitted him to examination and testing.
    Are you now trying to tell us that you, who have never examined David Bain or probably met him, are able to diagnose him from a distance, and find that he is? God save us from armchair experts.”

    Mmmmmm something is clearly wrong here. Karam was able to state Robin Bain was “clinically depressed” yet there is no known record of him ever being seen by any doctor in this capacity. I repeat your sentence. God save us from armchair experts!!

    Jinny again “Familicide by son’s that have not then later killed themselves exists in only 3 cases worldwide.”

    I think you will find it is now 4 cases when you include David Bain.

    Jinny again “Laniet also told people that she was going home that night to expose her father’s incestuous relationship with her”.

    Get real. Anyone who has been sexually abused by her father flees as soon as she can and certainly doesn’t move in to live with a flat mate in the same house as her abuser.

    Jinny again (my word she is prolific) “ I think if you google nostalgia nz you will find his blog tells you he is a male.”

    Oh dear I hope no-one does or they will be exposed to some of the most foul mouthed vitriol on the net.

    Jinny yet again. “ If he wasn’t there, he doesn’t know exactly what went wrong,”

    Then can you please explain his comment to the journalist outside the Court (and quickly shut down by Karam) “Only I know what happened in that house that morning”.

    Nostalgia NZ “I’ve kept your posts and now I’m going to find out who you are and send it on for legal scrutiny.”

    Tell tale tit, your tongue will split. To say nothing of internet stalking.

    Nostalgia NZ again “There is no doubt that Robin turned the computer on by other evidence and you arrive at the same point as the Jury’s decision. If you are as constructive as you claim to be with the evidence you’ve confirm Robin’s guilt.”

    Apart from the fact that the above makes no sense at all, it has never been confirmed who exactly turned the computer on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2493693/What-the-jury-didn-t-hear

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Would you like to explain why Mrs Laney did not see David going through the gate 10 mins early at 6.30? Do you think it was an optical illusion?

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

    It’s clear that both the witnesses of the rape plot didn’t think David wasn’t planning to win the jogger over willingly with his dubious charms…
    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    However, Laney said Karam had read too much into her evidence. He had wanted her to be a defence witness but she told him she did not know how fast the digital clock was, and she believed she was not late for her start time of 6.45am.

    When she saw Bain he was further up the street than normal and it caused her to worry that she was late.

    “I thought: ‘Oh God I’m running late’, but it was misinterpreted. I tried to get it across in the courtroom I was not late; every day was pretty much the same.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440698/Bain-witness-says-evidence-misinterpreted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Black hands of doubt are starting to come for Nostalgia and Jinny…..

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

    I have not read the new book yet, can someone tell me if Joe Karam decided whether David was his favourite child, and if so why that was so, or was he the least favourite one and thats why Robin Bain wore David’s gloves and did so many other things to make David look like he was the guilty one.

    I got confused reading Mr Karam’s other book, and even after following the second trial, don’t recall this being answered, he seemed to want to have a dollar both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “I have not read the new book yet…”

    Belinda, if you’re looking for good crime fiction, may I suggest you go for Lee Child or Michael Connelly – they both manage to create a credible plot and the reader is not confused by some fantasy version of real life events.

    Or, for real fantasy, try H G Wells. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    As I have already commented on in a previous post, if Robin committed the murders then he did a great job in framing David. As Belinda and others have pointed out, if Robin was the murderer why wear gloves to conceal your fingerprints when you were going to kill yourself? Why change your bloody clothes before killing yourself. There are too many inconsistencies to point to Robin as the murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Anybody that hasn’t read the book continues to use objections that have been answered. For lucid comment on the book go to Don Mathias blog, better still get the book yourself, be informed and make a decision based on the Crown case and the capitulation of their position on page #249. The ‘why would Robin’ questions are the work of fantasists that don’t understand the elements of familicide. I challenge anybody who reads and absorbs the contents of page 249, to raise an argue that Robin isn’t guilty having taken in the ‘new’ position of the prosecutor in his capitulation. Taking advice on evidence from people who haven’t read the book and fully absorbed the Crown’s case, because that is fundamentally what the book is about, is as mindless as much of the garble on here. But I bet that won’t stop the back slapping hysteria and jealousy, or the defamation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    How is that defamation case going Nostalgia? Still a work in progress?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    The next hearing against 2 defendants is in May, another is in negotiation toward a settlement. Beyond that I have no information. What has been recovered from here is yet to be considered, in the meantime nobody is disadvantaged by keeping the conversation to an acceptable standard, not making defamatory accusations that can’t be proved or which have already been disproved, or linking to sites already embroiled in litigation for their contents. The latter of those would be a simple matter of respecting the use of this site by not posting defamatory material here or linking to defamatory sites, or making allegations that a book is fiction when it clearly not, bearing in mind that such comments are directly linked to the commercial aspect of the publishers and distributors turning, as they are entitled, a profit. Anything else you’d like to know contact the parties directly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Actually Nostalgia, it was more in reference to the comments you made the other day towards hiphip. Pesonally I think you’re full it, but hey I could be wrong.

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

    In a recent radio interview a certain book was reviewed. To protect identities, some of this transcript has been censored. In this interview, Holmes talks with Paul Little. Little: The sort of book that when you finish you go and plant a tree. The damage that has been done to forests in the making of it, because it is a completely pointless book. [censored] has revisited every day in court that {censored] has ever had apparently and gone to tortuous lengths to reproduce the information and that’s all well and good but there was no need for it. What we might have been interested in is a book about {censored] himself and a sense of the guy and he’s just not here, he’s absent. It’s very strange. Did you even look at it? Holmes: Mm N’yes, I did. I looked through it and I have to say, and [censored], we’ve been very friendly over the years, but I have to say was incredibly disappointed because the first half of it really re-litigates everything that has happened in the first books that he wrote. It goes right back to the day of the murders. The point of the book that struck kind of comes me right at the end where [censored] points out that the Defence didn’t get {censored] acquitted, it was more the fact that all the Crown evidence fell apart. I would have thought that should be on page one. Little: I think that people are very and genuinely and reasonably curious about what {censored] is like as a person..Holmes: Yeah that’s right Little: opportunity made it possible to tell that story and it’s not told. Holmes: It’s a leaden thing isn’t it? Little: What is he doing now? How is he feeling? The book as it happens is now a year late. It was expected to come out at least 12 months ago. You know how ever many pages, I think its around 180,000 words and if somebody, without going too far dark a place, as somebody like yourself who has written a book, which kind of does in terms of absorbing a whole lot of technical information and reproducing it, it doesn’t come anywhere near the clarity that you need to get people to read this kind of stuff. Holmes: No I don’t know I. I don’t know I put it aside I hope I don’t run into [censored] and he asks me for the book. So anyway, [censored], the prosecutions of [censored] by [censored] is cover to cover quick flick or down the dunny Little: Down the dunny Holmes: The word that came to my mind was unreadable. I kind of wish that [censored] had got a better editor or got a writer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    You’d be right of course, pity you weren’t able to follow my last response to you, then you wouldn’t have had to ask the same question twice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    9.46 Comment directed Hollywood, or a bit a Hollywood anyway.

    hiphip
    9.43
    Very funny, pity you hadn’t used the same discretion earlier. Of course the Holmes ‘review’ speaks about the style, structure and timing of ‘Trial by Ambush’ and therefore unfortunately doesn’t advance you case of defaming Karam and Bain, much like your predecessors, or perhaps contemporaries as the fullness of time, will reveal.

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

    Anyone considering purchasing a crime related book may like to consider Sherlock Holmes. The cases are real whodunits, but reasonably believable, and the books get good reviews.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Joe was a fullback you know ay hiphip……everyone knows the real brains are in the front row.

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

    corrigenda: “Are you now trying to tell us that you, who have never examined David Bain or probably met him, are able to diagnose him from a distance, and find that he is? God save us from armchair experts.”

    That’s rather a stupid comment isn’t it? Where does meeting David Bain or not come into it? The comment was refering to the clinical reports of five professional and highly trained and experienced experts, all of whom are highly regarded in their fields of expertise. God is more required to save you from your ignorance.

    Corrigenda: “Mmmmmm something is clearly wrong here. Karam was able to state Robin Bain was “clinically depressed” yet there is no known record of him ever being seen by any doctor in this capacity”.

    Karam stated this because Robin had been described as such by a fully qualified psychologist who had a conversation with him only days before the killings. Robin was also taking prescribed medication for depression. It is unknown if he was officially clinically diagnosed by his own doctor who refused to breach Doctor Paitent confidentiality by discussing his medical records, however, she had prescribed anti-depressants, which is a pretty strong indication that he was ‘depressed’ – It’s a pity you need such basic things spelled out to you!

    Corrigenda: “I think you will find it is now 4 cases when you include David Bain”

    you’ve already demonstrated your thought processes above. David Bain was found not guilty of familicide, so your comment is unlikely to mean anything to anyone but yourself.

    Corrigenda: “Get real. Anyone who has been sexually abused by her father flees as soon as she can and certainly doesn’t move in to live with a flat mate in the same house as her abuser.”

    You are very ignorant on this subject aren’t you? It is a well known fact that children in sexual relationships with their parents do not run from them. Regardless of the sexual behaviour they still see their parent/s as the authority figures in their lives and will seek out their attention, advice etc. The longer the sexual behaviour has been occuring, the more likely the child is to regard it as normal and in many noted cases even instigate it themselves as a means of gaining attention from a parent. It is usually not until the child has matured that they recognise the wrongfulness of the relationship, and seek to end or as in Laniet’s case, expose the parent. I suggest you do some reading on this subject before you comment again. There is a vast difference between sexual abuse and ongoing parental sexual contact and incest. Both are often refered to as abuse, but have very different behaviours.

    corrigenda: “Then can you please explain his comment to the journalist outside the Court (and quickly shut down by Karam) “Only I know what happened in that house that morning”.

    I would have thought that comment was self-explanatory, but I guess comprehension isn’t your best subject. David is the only person that knows what happened in the house that morning – “from the time he arrived home”. You fail to provide the question that was asked, just the answer to it.

    Corrigenda: “Apart from the fact that the above makes no sense at all, it has never been confirmed who exactly turned the computer on”.

    It has been determined that the time the computer was turned on, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen were dead, and David was not home. Unless you have some evidence that the cat (remember the Dog wasn’t there either) was computer literate, then I think the only realistic conclusion you can draw, is that Robin turned on that computer.

    Regarding your comments about Nostalgia Nz and his blog. You seemed to have a strong opinion on this, so I can presume you have spent time reading it. Obviously his opinion differs from yours, so according to you, that abusive. That’s rather a personal way to take what someone writes in a blog unless he has written about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see couple of people still believe David Bain is innocent.Unbelievable,considering all the evidence against him.
    Now I might be a muggins,but I ain’t that big a muggins.No sirree.
    Just take those scratch marks and bruising on Bain’s upper body.Please explain to me ,nostalgia and co,how you think those bruises got there.And don’t tell me it was the hand of god.[I put a lower case g because I am a devout atheist,so help me god].
    And what about those bruises on Bain’s noggin?Don’t tell me,nostalgia and co,that you believe that rubbish that they got there when he was pulled over that carpet in his room.Was he lying face down when he was pulled over that carpet?.Anyway that doctor wallah who examined Bain that morning said he reckoned those bruises were at least 7 hours old,and Bain wasn’t pulled over that carpet until after 7.30,so he must have had them before that.
    And what about those glasses that were found in his room?That missing lens found in Stephen’s room has to link him to the murder of Stephen,at the very least.And let’s not forget what Bain told his aunt on the morning after the murders.He told her he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were in being repaired.They weren’t perfect,he said,but they got him by.They got him by,alright!
    And what about Bain having his brother’s blood on his clothing.How did that get there?Don’t tell me you believe that rubbish about Bain somehow putting his hand in Stephen’s blood and then grabbing hold of his crotch.Don’t tell me that you believe that the blood on his T-shirt might have been old blood.
    And what about that blood under Bain’s duvet cover?Don’t tell,me,nostalgia and co,that you believe the cat jumped up on the bed and placed it’s bloody? paw under that duvet cover.I mean the cat jumps up on the bed,right?It doesn’t leave any blood where it lands,right?But it manages to leave blood under the duvet cover.Gorblimey charlie.
    And what about him hearing Laniet gurgling.Surely you don’t believe ,nostalgia and co,that she was dead when he heard her gurgling.Surely you didn’t believe it was the washing machine he heard gurgling.Anyway,if he did her her gurgling when he arrived home he would have phoned the emergency services pdq,not waited for 20 minutes before he dialled 111.
    And what do you reckon about that piece of cardboard that was found in his room with five hand drawn targets on it?He said he used that target to sight the rifle in.So it took him 29 shots to sight the rifle in?Come off it,pull the other one.What’s more,he said his father had drawn rabbits ears on the target that was used to sight the rifle in.There were no rabbit’s ears drawn on that target that was found in his room.
    Am I getting the message across to you,nostalgia and co?Cos if I ain’t there is plenty more where that came from.

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

    Thankyou nostalgia-nz I’ll ask someone who has read the latest book to reveal what page 249 says.
    Hoping what I thought was such a simple question ie whether Robin loved David the most or hated him the most will be revealed.
    Does Joe Karam say what David’s opinion is on the question? he must spend a long time pondering on it, whether he was loved or hated the most.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    The person at 10.28

    A very revealing post, a signature post even – one that indicates a breached agreement if I’m not mistaken. But I’ll look into that and respond accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Gee Nostalgia, you’re regular Lionel Hutz aren’t you. More legal action on the way?

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

    Jinny said: “David Bain was found not guilty of familicide.”

    And Arthur Allan Thomas was twice found guilty of double murder. Would you care to discuss?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    @ Jinny.

    From your reply to me:

    corrigenda: “Are you now trying to tell us that you, who have never examined David Bain or probably met him, are able to diagnose him from a distance, and find that he is? God save us from armchair experts.”

    Jinny’s reply to that was “That’s rather a stupid comment isn’t it? Where does meeting David Bain or not come into it?”

    The comment I referred to was your own and yes I agree it was a rather stupid remark.

    There is a very big difference between someone taking anti depressants and someone who is clinically depressed. Robin was working full time right up until the time he was murdered. In fact his salary was the only income into the house. If he had been clinically depressed there is no way he could have carried on his usual routine and fully supported the whole family.

    As for the sexual abuse of children by their fathers, I can only comment on what I have witnessed myself and not what I learned through reading books.

    No exact time for the computer turn on has ever been established. All we have heard is that it could have been between certain times, then again that has been argued against and a different time band has been given. Personally, I don’t think the computer turn on time is really relevant to the case.

    Yes I looked at that blog site and saw that all who disagreed with nostalgia nz were labeled either a pedo or a pedo lover. If that is not foul mouthed vitriol then I don’t know what other label I can give it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Hullo,hullo,nostalgia is saying I have breached an agreement.I will be interested to find out what agreement I am supposed to have breached.But seeing as he has responded I will post another message.This time it is to do with the time that the computer was turned on.
    It seems to me that Bain is saying he couldn’t have committed the murders because he wasn’t there.I don’t know why he would have said that,unless he is referring to the computer turn-on time.But we don’t know for sure when the computer was turned on.One witness said it could have been turned on at 6.42,another witness,using improved technology,said it could have been turned on anywhere between 6.39 and 6.49.But let’s say ,for the sake of argument,that it was turned on at 6.42.
    When Bain was first asked as to what time he arrived home he said twenty to seven.I find this quite significant.Obviously he thought he arrived home closer to twenty to seven than quarter to seven,otherwise he would have said quarter to seven.
    Then later he was to say that he looked at his watch after he had just passed through Heath Street and his watch read 6.40 exactly.And this more or less ties in with a witness who said she saw Bain passing through Heath Street.She said she was at work at around 6.40/6.41,and she thought it might have taken her two minutes to get to work from where she saw Bain,so at the latest she would have seen Bain at around 6.39.
    When Bain was asked how long it would have taken him to get from where he looked at his watch to 65 Every Street he said between 2/3 minutes.A policeman was timed walking that distance and it took him 2m15s.I would suggest that Bain would have walked it quicker than that policeman,him being a very fit young man,and a marathon runner to boot.
    So that would mean Bain was home at 6.42.
    But then we have Denise Laney seeing him at the gate.She said she looked at her car clock and it said 6.50 and she thought it was about five minutes fast.But she has said since that one should not rely on her time.
    However,let’s say she did see Bain at around 6.45.Now we have all heard about Bain talking about using his paper round as an alibi.What was there to stop him turning the computer on when he arrived home,by his own guesstimate at 6.42,and then going back out to the sreet again?Some may ask why on earth would he do that?I would suggest that he wanted Mrs Laney to see him.She was a “regular”that went past every morning at much the same time.Bain hadn’t seen her that morning because he had arrived home earlier than usual,so he went back down to the gate hoping to see her drive past.And drive past she did.
    Denise Laney inadvertently did David Bain a big favour when she saw him at the gate that morning.
    She looked at her car clock.

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

    corrigenda: Ask yourself, why would a responsible and experienced doctor, like Robin’s prescribe, anti-depressents for a man that wasn’t depressed. Yes, Robin was working, and bringing in a income. He was however, not working very well, was way behind in his appointed tasks as a principal, was unable to get promotions which he desperately wanted, and not taking care of his personal hygiene or personal enviroment, ie he lived in a pig-stye in his caravan.

    Robin had also been noted by others to be not coping very well with his marriage relationship, including by his own brother, and colleagues had stated he had ‘lost touch of reality’.

    There are plenty of people who are clinically depressed who managed to maintain employment, so the fact he continued to work means nothing about his mental wellbeing.

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

    Robin had every reason to be a little down with a 22 year old son who hates him, had been unemployed for two years, refusing to move out from home and threatening the family with a rifle. But, Robin was no killer – he was gentle and kind. Can David say the same?

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see Jinny reckons that Robin Bain wasn’t working very well as a teacher.Robin Bain was only supposed to be relieving at Taieri Beach school while the incumbent took stress leave.But he was so well respected by both the parents and the Board that a petition was sent round asking that Robin Bain be kept on.No-one wanted the old teacher back.Robin was well liked by all the children.One parent has said her children were very upset when she had to tell them their friend[Robin]woudn’t be coming back.She said he was always tidely dressed and always wore a clean shirt.
    As for his caravan being a pigsty,I would have to say that is somewhat of an exaggeration.And that van he lived in at Taieri Beach,well he preferred to live in it.He was offered the schoolhouse ,but said it was more than he needed.Eventually he did take up the offer,probably so that there would be somewhere for Laniet to come to so as to get away from the bad enviroment that she was in.
    But I don’t know why Jinny wants to talk about Robin.He didn’t do anything.It was David that did the deed.According to a friend of Arawa’s she said that Arawa had told her that David kept the lounge locked and only allowed his father in for an hour each morning to use the computer.She said that one day when she was visiting the house Arawa wanted to get into the lounge.She told her friend she knew where David hid the key,and she went and got it.
    So Robin could not have gone into the lounge before David came home and unlocked it,unless ,of course,he knew where the key was which is most unlikely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is saying that Robin Bain was not working very well.I don’t know how she would know that.He was only employed at Taieri as a relieving teacher,but he was so well liked by both the Board and the parents that a petition was signed by the parents asking that Robin be kept on.And he was .One parent said he was the best teacher her children had ever had.He used to call the children his friends and she said her children were most upset when she had to tell them their friend wouldn’t be coming back.
    She said Robin Bain was always tidely dressed and always wore a clean shirt.
    As for him living in a pigsty of a caravan,that is an exaggeration.At least it didn’t have dog shit on the floor,like the house that David Bain was living in did.I would suggest that it was David who was living in a pigsty,not his father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    “Forget the forensics, the bullet fragments and the blood, let’s concentrate on personality.” If guilt or not was decided on personalities rather than forensics then why are scientists the world over spending so much money, time and effort refining forensics? Never mind, Mr Karam has the answers for you. It is all down to personality! No wonder we have such a travesty of justice now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia NZ: because of the body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell, as to both the order of the deaths and the timing of those deaths.

    Did Officer Wombwell actually take the temperatures using a thermometer or was it “back of hand” testing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    As for Laniet going home to spill the beans,well the guy who said that never fronted up.So he could never be cross-examined.
    But the Court did hear from three acqauintances of Laniet’s who met up with her on the Sunday afternoon prior to the Monday murders.One of those acqaintances that met up with Laniet on her way to work at the Museum cafe,I believe it was called,said that when the conversation tturned to family Laniet’s body language changed.She became quite tense.She said that Laniet had told her that David had called a family meeting for that evening and she said she didn’t wan’t to go to it.She said David had become freaky.But he had told her he would be taking her to that meeting “kicking and screaming”if he had to.
    On her way home from work she met up with another acquaintance who said that Laniet had told him she was hurrying home to her flat because David was going to pick her up to take her to a family meeting.
    So it would appear that Laniet wasn’t going home to “spill the beans”.She didn’t even want to go home.She had a job to go to on the Monday,and it would have been much easier for her to go to it from the flat than from home.
    And what gets me with that supposed “spill the beans ” statement,it doesn’t smell right.I mean Laniet’s parents knew she was living in town.They knew she wasn’t receiving the dole[until she turned 18].So where did they think she was getting the money from to afford a flat?Wouldn’t they have guessed she might have been earning money as a prostitute?
    And if her father had been molesting her,and only she has said that,it would appear that any molestion would have stopped years before.So why the sudden urge to tell her family about it?
    One further point.If it was common knowledge that Robin Bain had been molesting his daughter then why would he have any reason to kill her.If everybody knew about it,what was the point?
    I don’t believe she was going home to “spill the beans”.I believe she was going home,against her better judgement,because David had demanded that she attend a family meeting he had called.But why did David need Laniet to be home that night?
    Well I reckon that he needed her home because he couldn’t risk leaving her alive.The police would have questioned her for sure,and she would have told them that if anyone murdered the rest of her family[apart from David] it would have most likely have been David that did it and not her father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    @ corrigenda 4.38pm
    Is it not great, then, that the forensics, the bullet fragments and the blood all show that Robin committed suicide. No need for personality required for that.
    What we have to ask ourselves is did Robin find the rest of his family dead, type the note, then shoot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    The poster at 4.56 expect some correspondence next week, but if it isn’t you that signed an agreement you’ll have nothing to worry about, no link to this site, no credibility problems, no identical writing style and none of the same obsessions.

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

    Sleuth: You know as well as anybody that there were several people who Laniet told about the relationship between her and her father.

    You also know that the family had been meeting every Sunday evening for family meetings for years, and David wanting Laniet to be at a meeting was nothing out of the ordinary, because she had missed some. Robin told a friend that day he was delighted the children were all going to be home for a family dinner together. Maybe it was Robin who asked David to make sure Laniet was there? It’s about as good as guess as you are trying to promote.

    Regardless of whether the witness turned up for court or not, he signed a statement, and that statement was read in Court and clearly the jury understood it, just as Judge Binnie will do. You forgot to mention that witness who had evidence against Robin Bain was subjected to police harassment, of which he made several complaints about.

    Why on earth would someone presume the molestation had stopped years before. Does the fact it may have stopped, mean it was ok to happen in the first place? Do you actually approve of child molestation providing it stops early enough?

    There is every possibility that once Laniet matured, she, like many victims of incest, decided she was going to talk about it. She may have made out to her friends she didn’t want to go home, but as any parent of teenagers know, teenagers do not think its cool to say they are having dinner with their families.

    Nice to see you don’t have any respect for the law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “The poster at 4.56 expect some correspondence next week…. blah blah blah…”

    How pathetic. Because you’re unable to defend your own position by facts and logic, you try a legal muzzle.

    Clearly you just can’t handle inconvenient facts getting in the way of your own fictional version.

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

    Corrigenda: Karam has gone to great lengths to provide the crowns forensic evidence, as well as the defence evidence, so why you would make such a statement about personality alone, is rather weird.

    If you are meaning the summary of traits demonstrated by perpetrators of familicide, then you need to acknowledge that they are not just personality traits but a number of other contributory factors, including behavioural, sociol, familial and economical, etc.

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

    corrigenda: Wombwell was a senior ambulance officer with a great deal of experience in dealing with such deaths. He was charged with the responsibility of determining if the people were dead. I don’t know what movies you’ve been watching, but that is not done by placing the back on their hand on the person.

    He did not take core body temperatures. That is up to the pathologist, however the person in charge of the scene would not allow the pathologist into the scene quick enough for that to happen. Which incidently is against their manual.

    Forensic pathologists have given evidence that states there would have been an obvious difference in body temperature detectable by the touch of hand, if Stephen’s body, which was only 52kgs, dressed in underpants, with a tshirt round his neck, had been left that way for 4 hours since death. His mother and sisters body’s would have felt a different temperature to his.

    The fact he felt the same as them, but not as warm as his father was one of the indicators to the police that Robin was last to die.

    Do you think the police and the ambulance officer were lying?

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

    sleuth: I am sure Robin smartly dressed, even if he did stink, as many witnesses said. Do you know that Weatherston had more than 20 people willing to vouch for what a wonderful person he was, how loving he was to his family, how kind and understanding he was with his students, how smartly he dressed and how organised he was.

    It didn’t stop him hacking his ex-girlfriend to death.

    So, what was the point you were trying to make regarding what a nice person Robin was?
    Nice people can kill – history is peppered with examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Prompted by NNZ’s comment “expect some correspondence next week” I did a brief search and found this site that contains a lot of information relating to the Bain case – it also includes a piece on some legal action being taken by Karam.

    How interesting….

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Jinny why did you answer the question I posed to Nostalgia NZ? Is he not capable of answering for himself? Or are you his official spokesperson?
    Nostalgia NZ posted:- “because of the body temperatures confirmed by ambo Wombell, as to both the order of the deaths and the timing of those deaths.”
    My question was how did Officer Wombwell confirm the body temperatures? Did he actually take the temperatures using a thermometer or was it “back of hand” testing.
    I used this term as it is common knowledge that the back of the hand is more sensitive to temperature variations than the front of the hand.
    Please refrain from peppering your replies with denigrating personal remarks as it does not become you.

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

    corrigenda:

    I am sorry, I was of the opinion this was a blog that everyone could see and speak to any comment they wished to, didn’t see anything restricting replies.

    I am not here to win friends or influence people, so if you are offended by my manner of posting, don’t bother reading them especially if you are so sensitive to what people say, but don’t mind dishing it out. Sort of hypocritical of you I think, but it takes all sorts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Jinny, your apology is accepted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    So when the Crown capitulated and conceded that Robin could have turned the computer on, they were accepting he was the killer unless they were advancing the theory that Robin walked about the house with all the dead present before David returned. But they never advanced that theory because they would have looked sillier than they already did.

    That concession was that David had an alibi supported by his sighting at the gate and the computer turn on time up to 5 minutes earlier. What they were also conceding but, like Robin walking among the dead, never said as much was that the police had deliberated ‘persuaded’ witnesses to the idea that their papers had been delivered early, in other words that David had fabricated a false alibi of being earlier rather than on time. When the police thought of this extraordinary ‘false alibi’ with which to accuse David, it apparently never troubled them, the first Jury and presumably the lawyers in the first trial, was the fact of the papers in the box actually proved their delivery and if David needed a ‘false alibi’ it was to delay his return home rather than shorten his return time. That’s what happens in mojs, fantastic, nonsensical, scenarios are occupied to mislead the Court.

    The police were successful in this subterfuge in the 1st trial because they hid the information that officer Anderson’s watch was 2 minutes fast when he recorded Cox’s determination of the computer turn on time, when it was booted up, and additionally by hiding the fact that Denise Laney told the police that her car clock was five minutes fast and the police had confirmed that, so 7.40 at the gate was actually 7.45.

    In related evidence, Anderson said that if he had been asked he would have admitted that his watch was fast. While kleitjnes brought into bolster, or ‘cloud’ the true time of the computer turn on admitted that his opinion evidence, based on two time points which were bisected to give an estimated turn on time, relied on one extreme that was an impossibility, a bit like the whole case.

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

    Thankyou to the person who put up a link to the tribute for Robin Bain.
    He was just as I imagined he would be, after all I have read of him.
    A kind gentle person with a sense of humour who seemed to encourage all his pupils to find something they were good at it.
    Just like he and Margaret Bain did to find somewhere that David fitted in.
    I just can’t reconcile what I read of him as someone who would look his kids in the eye, specially when they were begging for their life and shoot them at almost point blank range.
    This new book is going to have to be good to convince me at this point.
    I pray Robin never knew what had happened to his other children and didn’t know how his own life ended.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Jinny,of course nice people can kill.Is David Bain a nice person,do you reckon?How many people reckoned he was a nice person,not capable of murdering his family?Ten,maybe twenty?

    And as for what time David Bain arrived home ,by his own reckoning he arrived home at around 6.42.As I have already explained the reason Denise Laney saw him at 6.45 was because he probably went down to the street again to wait for Denise Laney to drive past.All part of his alibi.Had Mrs Laney not looked at her car clock then Bain’s arrival home time would be the time that he said himself,6.42.
    And as for making out to those acqaintances that she didn’t want to say she was going home because it wasn’t cool to say that,boy,you are really clutching at straws.When asked about her family she became quite tense and emotional.She said David had called a family meeting that she didn’t want to go to.She said she was frightened of David ,he had become freaky.
    But he had insisted she go to that meeting,and said he would take her there kicking and screaming.
    And as for that poster at 5.23,I won’t be at all worried if I do receive some correspondence.A certain lawyer seems to have gone missing in action and I am sure that at least one bloke will be only too pleased that he has now reappeared ,because he has quite a large sum of money he wants refunded for legal aid.As a matter of interest ,I asked that lawyer to send me that agreement,but he never did,so I have no idea what the final agreement was.But I guess my lawyer will sort all that out with your lawyer.I daresay it could take quite a while,maybe even years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    That concession was that David had an alibi supported by his sighting at the gate

    Laney saw him at the gate some minutes before 6.45. I already presented you with the proof in the form of her own words which you have chosen to ignore. Care to explain?

    When she saw Bain he was further up the street than normal and it caused her to worry that she was late:

    “I thought: ‘Oh God I’m running late’, but it was misinterpreted. I tried to get it across in the courtroom I was not late; every day was pretty much the same.”

    The logical conclusion is clear:

    Fact: She started work at 06.45.

    Fact: She saw David on her way to work and she wasn’t late for work.

    Therefore: She saw David at the gate well before 06.45.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440698/Bain-witness-says-evidence-misinterpreted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Interesting that you have no idea what the final agreement is, even when you signed it. Previously, today in fact, claimed you didn’t know about it. Bit fiddly.
    We’ll see about the years, I said next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Look what I found. It is well worth a listen as it is hilarious.

    http://www.hauraki.co.nz/player/ondemand/Penis-Or-Genius-Mar-6

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    9.34 post directed to that at 9.17.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    9.31

    You almost made a point, except that Denise Laney worked right next door to the Bain property not 5 minutes away.

    corrigenda
    9.40

    Yes, I’m sure it’s hilarious for you. Perhaps you asked for it to played at the hearing next month, it will make a big point about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    Good work Scott Chris and muggins – you have more perseverance through the looking glass than I do.

    When it suits, ambulance officers are experts – “He was a very experienced ambulance officer and had much experience in dealing with dead bodies”…

    and to question their expertise draws the accusing question – “Do you think the police and the ambulance officer were lying?”.

    However, when their expertise doesn’t suit, such as, “the ambulance officers at the scene, highly experienced in dealing with people under stress believed he was faking”,…

    the expert testimony is either ignored,…

    or its overall thrust is flat-out misrepresented – “Most people would accept such circumstances would put anyone into shock. Something that even the police and ambulance officers noted at the time”.

    When it suits, people can issue demands to “PROVE IT!”.

    However, when it doesn’t, their posts are littered with dissembling and rationalising phrases such as, “Maybe it was Robin who asked David to make sure Laniet was there? It’s about as good as guess as you are trying to promote”.

    Push on the matter of the actual evidence for the incest allegation, and you will be told the incest was a fact, and your temerity to even question the veracity and strength of the allegation means you are condoning and encouraging the act – “Why on earth would someone presume the molestation had stopped years before. Does the fact it may have stopped, mean it was ok to happen in the first place? Do you actually approve of child molestation providing it stops early enough?”

    When it suits, people’s actions and demeanour indicate they are emotionally unstable – “Robin was in a mess, and depressed”,..

    and despite testimony and signs to the contrary, those signs will be dissembled away, and a false and unproven analogy immediately drawn with an undisputed violent murderer – “I am sure Robin smartly dressed, even if he did stink, as many witnesses said. Do you know that Weatherston had more than 20 people willing to vouch for what a wonderful person he was…”.

    However, when other people’s actions and demeanour indicate they are emotionally unstable – “Laniet had told her that David had called a family meeting for that evening and she said she didn’t wan’t to go to it.She said David had become freaky.But he had told her he would be taking her to that meeting “kicking and screaming”if he had to”,…

    it is of no account – “the family had been meeting every Sunday evening for family meetings for years, and David wanting Laniet to be at a meeting was nothing out of the ordinary, because she had missed some”.

    Indeed, the The fact that Laniet ended up dead, along with all her family members, except the one person who orchestrated her presence in the house that night will not register as “out of the ordinary”, compared to a bit of BO when you are forced to live in the back of a van during the week!

    In fact, if we forsake the demand to “PROVE IT!”, and just straight-out speculate we can actually make this highly incriminating piece of evidence apply to the other suspect, “Maybe it was Robin who asked David to make sure Laniet was there? It’s about as good as guess as you are trying to promote.”

    Good luck wrestling that tar baby!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “Interesting that you have no idea what the final agreement is, even when you signed it.”

    But muggins had first said: “I asked that lawyer to send me that agreement,but he never did,so I have no idea what the final agreement was.”

    Heh – a signed final agreement? And yet it wasn’t even received?

    Who’s telling porkies??? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    except that Denise Laney worked right next door to the Bain property not 5 minutes away.

    Nope, it’s two minutes away according to Michael Reid QC:

    “It’s an extra two minutes [from 6.45am] to get in there to get in to work,” Reed said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2356284/Bain-and-sister-seemed-like-couple

    Now let’s think about this. We know from her own words that she wasn’t late, but who gets to work dead on time? I was in a room with seventeen people this morning, none of whom were late, most of whom arrived at work between 10 and 2 minutes early.

    Now combine that with the vagueness of the exact time the computer was turned on, and you’d have to concede that it was possible for David to have turned on the computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Now this is just creepy:

    David Bain and his sister, Laniet, seemed like boyfriend and girlfriend, a former friend of Laniet has told the High Court in Christchurch.

    The friend, whose name is suppressed, said she had contact with Bain and Laniet in 1992 when they all performed in a Dunedin Opera Company production.

    “Originally, I thought they were girlfriend and boyfriend. I didn’t think they were sister and brother,” the witness said.

    She had seen Laniet regularly in 1993, and Laniet seemed to be troubled.

    “In regard to David, her attitude was very strange. She often referred to him as `my David’, ” the witness said.

    “She said David was very jealous of her relationships.”

    The women met in Dunedin for the last time about six months before the murders, and Laniet was agitated and shaking a lot.

    “She just said things were not so good. She mentioned David again and again and again during that conversation,” the witness said.

    “She was scared of upsetting him and worried about what he might think of different things she was doing. Everything related back to him.”

    Perhaps there was incest that needed covering up…..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2356284/Bain-and-sister-seemed-like-couple

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Scott Chris

    “Now combine that with the vagueness of the exact time the computer was turned on, and you’d have to concede that it was possible for David to have turned on the computer”.

    Yep. Just as it was possible for Robin to have turned it on, and David to have used it as an unplanned opportunity to write what is a really dumb note in a really dumb medium.

    The disputed timing of when the computer was turned on is not the sine qua non Karam has made it out to be, Yes, the police suggested an initial scenario that fitted the facts as their investigations showed them to be. But it did not have to be 100% accurate – just plausible, and fitting the facts, and beyond reasonable doubt when combined with all the other evidence (facts, and reasonable inferences drawn from them). It could have been a surprise shot from behind the alcove curtains while Robin was praying, or he could have been confronted and forced to kneel at gunpoint. Either is possible, neither mutually negates the other or diminishes the Crown’s case. They didn’t have to give an exact account of all events and scenarios.

    And, as you’ve clearly shown in response to the demand to “PROVE IT!”, the primary witness of the time David re-entered the house indicated it is at the earlier end of the time-envelope that could have seen David in a position to fire up the computer.

    There is no piece of undisputed evidence that was presented at either trial that exonerates David Bain. If there was, it was “game-over” on the spot. Instead, this is about probabilities, both on the individual pieces of evidence, and the inferences drawn from them, and the cumulative effect.

    I reread Martin van Beynen’s summary of the just some of the incredible coincidences and unlikely scenarios that have to have occurred for Robin Bain to be the killer. each on there own is possible, maybe odd, but then the murder of a family is a strange event.

    But not half as strange as what van Beynen describes. And the facts (although not the inferences drawn from those facts) are undisputed by all except the most implacable. So if you avoid the distraction of treating the evidence atomistically, and apply common sense.

    Honestly, I’ll try and play devil’s advocate on my belief that David did it, and when I do, about the only weaknesses I can think of are: –

    1. Even if Robin had hand-written a suicide-confession note, it wouldn’t have automatically exonerated David, as he may have been forced to write it at gunpoint before being shot. Not likely someone would cooperate with that, and as it didn’t happen, it is pointless speculating about it, other than noting a computer-written note, unable to be verified as written by Robin is very convenient for David.

    2. David took a risk leaving all his family who slept in the house dead, while he did his paper-round for an alibi, when presumably his dad could have walked into one of the rooms, instead of following his usual routine of morning prayer, and then departure for his long drive out to Tairei before everyone (but David) had arisen.

    But then whoever committed the murder took one hell of a risk going from room to room that morning, because if anyone of the other family members had heard and raised the alarm and fled out the door and into the dark street, especially the commotion that took place when things went wrong in Stephen’s room, the plan to wipe them all out would have been botched.

    Which is why, when you place that supposed difficulty in context alongside the other stuff pointing to David, it is not that unlikely a scenario…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Both sides of this argument seem to also forget time to time that the murderer was not really thinking in a way – rationally – as are those who are now trying to balance points of evidence.
    To murder in this way is not really rational, neither will be all your actions associated with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    kimbo

    Still grasping at straws. The computer turn on time was proven, that’s why the Crown conceded. Just like you have. That put Robin in a house full of bodies, how inconvenient for you and them. Van Beynan has yet to explain, the blood in the barrel, the blood smears on Robin’s hands, the bruising and cuts, the uninterrupted blood spatter spread, the spatter going in two directions on Robin’s trousers, spatter not from his own wound on his shoe, his bent leg. You waffle on about anything you can and avoid the forensic proof against Robin, yet concede the computer turn on time. The same concession that sunk an already weak case.

    elaycee
    11.33

    I’t be me telling porkies, about an agreement, that first of all wasn’t an agreement, then suddenly was again, but was unsigned or was never received but if you want to put money on it, say $5,000 then we’ll see who is hysterical and tell porkies. $5,000 grand motor mouth?

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

    Sofia (243) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 7:58 am
    Both sides of this argument seem to also forget time to time that the murderer was not really thinking in a way – rationally – as are those who are now trying to balance points of evidence.
    To murder in this way is not really rational, neither will be all your actions associated with it.”

    I agree Sofia, and have tried to make this point often, especially regarding the actions of the killer, and certain things he did that morning. I also point out that coming home to find your entire family dead and the house splattered with blood, would put even the strongest amongst us in shock. A rational and calm mind can state what they would do in ordinary circumstances, but these were hardly normal circumstances. None of us, unless we have been through similar have the slightest idea of what we would have done, or indeed, what was done.

    We are therefore left to but together the pieces of a puzzle, which unfortunately not only incomplete, but some of the pieces have been tampered with, destroyed, and at times, been ‘green’ when some expert told us they were ‘red’ (figuratively speaking).

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

    Kimbo, there is a piece of evidence that exonerates David. There are several in fact. But rather than repeat that lengthy discussion. Let’s take this back to the beginning, dealing with each victim at a time, as first shot, can you produce one piece of evidence that proves David Bain killed his mother and not Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Just as it was possible for Robin to have turned it on, and David to have used it as an unplanned opportunity to write what is a really dumb note in a really dumb medium.

    Kimbo, yes I agree, though from what I’d heard Robin habitually came into the house at 7.00am to pray, which of course David knew and had incorporated into his plan. Presumably the first thing he did upon returning to the house is turn on the computer and write his absurd note.

    But like you say, Robin may have got up early, not seen the bodies and turned on the computer though this is unlikely imo.

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

    Kimbo: Here are few more weaknesses for you –

    Why, if David was guilty, would he say only he knew where the key to the gun was? Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing for him to frame his father and say he held one, and David the other? Afterall, the other key was safely tucked away in David’s anorak.

    Why didn’t he say the targets in his room were used by him and Stephen for practise shots?

    Why didn’t David, when asked if there was anything going on in the family simply say yes, Laniet had revealed her secret the night before. That would have pointed squarely to Robin, and there were witness statements to support the accusations.

    Why didn’t David, if he wrote the suicide note simply add his own name and make it a lengthy explanation of how ‘life wasn’t worth living etc for Robin, it wasn’t like he didn’t have time to do that.

    Why didn’t David say the glasses, which everyone gets so excited about, were on his chair the day before, because him and Stephen were play fighting and they got broken then?

    Why didn’t David simply say he put the washing on the short cycle, and save any arguments over when it finished etc?

    Why didn’t he just just come up with a story of what he was doing when he got home, that filled in the time. He could have easily stated how he spent time with each person, to see if they were dead or whatever, even saying a prayer over them, etc. …. endless possibilities to remove the emphasis from himself.

    Why didn’t he lie and say he bought in the paper that morning, spent time playing with the cat or dog before he entered the house, etc etc.

    and on and on it goes. Almost all the points people argue about are things David could have made up lies for, and no one would have been able to prove him wrong. On one hand people promote what a clever pscyopath he was, and yet, when he had lots of opportunity, had he been guilty, to protect himself, he didn’t. Even now, he could say yes he saw the signs, his father was unstable or whatever, but does he? No, he tells us what a great father he was, and how he didn’t really notice anything wrong. The same thing he said right from that first day about him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    To murder in this way is not really rational, neither will be all your actions associated with it.

    Sofia, I disagree. The murders had been meticulously planned, exemplified by David Bain calling the family meeting and altering his established paper round route (2 witnesses testified that Bain had delivered papers 10 minutes early) in an attempt to use it as an alibi. (a scheme which he had divulged to at least 2 witnesses)

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

    Scott Chris, you heard wrong. If Robin had left it until 7 am to come in and pray and do all his other normal routines, he would have never got to school on time. Robins alarm was set to go off at 6.32 a.m. It went off that morning but no one turned it off. Robin may not have been in the caravan at the time to turn it off. One of the head detectives in the case indicated when he was standing in the lounge late in the morning there were still coals burning on the fire. Why? Did they burn all night and through half the day, or did someone add more fuel to the fire during the night, early morning, and if they did, who was it? And did they add more fuel to Robin’s fire at the same time, enough to make him explode?

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

    Kimbo’s 10:35pm March 9th needs an award!!!!

    I just love Jinny’s logic!
    8:33am
    ” A rational and calm mind can state what they would do in ordinary circumstances, but these were hardly normal circumstances. None of us, unless we have been through similar have the slightest idea of what we would have done, or indeed, what was done.”

    and then wham! at 8:56am breaks her own rules
    “Why didn’t David……
    Why didn’t David……
    Why didn’t David……”

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

    Scott Chris: David did not call the family meeting. McNeish and Karam both talk about the family meeting every Sunday night even in PNG. We know David was sent to get Laniet to attend the meetings and she told friends she didn’t want to, but he did NOT call them, they were an ongoing family tradition for many years, and family friends and witnesses attested to that.

    Those papers were NOT delivered 10 mins early. The witnesses concerned simply collected their own papers earlier than they normally did, nad because the papers were there, they presumed the papers had been early, not themselves. This was proven and accepted by the Crown when other witnesses in the same streets, who had actually sighted David, were able to give the time he was there. The witnesses you talk about never saw David at all.

    You are great at spreading lies despite having been informed many times that the evidence was disputed and then accepted as wrong by the Crown.

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

    Short Shriveled: it’s easy to take part of any comment and try and make it apply as you have above. Sadly for you the comments you refer to were made to demonstrate what David could have done, and were in replying to someone elses comment. I guess you failed comprehension at school and don’t understand the dynamics of converstion easily. I hope we don’t have to keep explaining simple things to you.

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

    Well it will be interesting what conclusion Justice Binnie comes up with after going through all the facts. My interpretation of the facts leads me to believe that Robin is innocent, and all the alleged evidence put up to incriminate him is just a smokescreen to try to obscure all the points of evidence that incriminate David. The only reason this case is so controversial is because certain parties keep trying to promote bullshit. While most people don’t care, there are some of us who find this offensive. Maybe Binnie can help us lay this farce to rest before he scoots off back to Canada. My conclusion is that, yes, he can.

    Karam’s charm offensive has gone too far. The latest book has been panned on all fronts. Paul Holmes has absolutely dissed it, saying “down the dunny it should go”: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/paul-holmes-review-of-trial-by-ambush-down-the-dunny-it-should-go and he was Karam’s #1 supporter ten years ago. The interview with David only raised more questions than it answered: http://newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/shows/breakfast/highlights/mikes-editorial-5mar2012 and by now people are beginning to realise it for what it is: bullshit. Never in the history of NZ Justice has so much dunny paper been generated by so few. Rather than reproduce all the points of evidence that still point to David, you can see them here at this link: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/trial-by-ambush-the-persecutions-of-robin-bain .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    8.40

    ‘But like you say, Robin may have got up early, not seen the bodies and turned on the computer though this is unlikely imo.’

    Yes, he may have turned on the computer, but he did wipe bloody hands on the laundry towel, leaving smears on his hands, I guess there’s an explanation for that as well other than clutching at straws.

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

    Nice try Jinny. You claim we can’t expect rational decisions from David as either the victim or perpetrator, and then just 20 minutes later ask why David wasn’t answering questions or making comments in which rational thought would have helped his cause. You are a hypocrite plain and simply (or an idiot…. choose one)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Yes it will be interesting to know what Justice Binnie concludes, though I suspect some that claim interest really mean ‘anxiety.’ Especially, those that have to defend sites that are being sued and don’t have the decency to stop crapping their links on boards they don’t own, the same activity that got TM sued I believe.

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

    KENT PARKER: As usual you promote your site which itself is full of bullshit.

    You have also picked out references to the book to support your unbalanced statements, and failed to provide the many reviews that say quite the opposite. The reviews you mentioned criticised the way the book was written, but didn’t critique or challenge the evidence that was in those books. In fact, no one but that whacky biased reporter from Dunedin has.

    Why don’t you own your own stuff Kent, and admit the links you have provided are to your own writting, and your own opinion on the subject, not to mention the comments of which you are currently being sued for, because rather than about the case, they were personal attacks on Joe Karam’s character and published with the intent to make others think less of him.

    It seems very strange to me, that someone with so much to lose, as you do Kent, and it appears, after having two of your attempts to offer a defence to the court, being thrown out – that you aren’t a particularly wise person, and really, are you capable of offering a balanced, and informed opinion on anything to do with this case, that isn’t affected by your immenses and obvious hatred for Joe Karam.

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

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (649) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 9:17 am
    Nice try Jinny. You claim we can’t expect rational decisions from David as either the victim or perpetrator, and then just 20 minutes later ask why David wasn’t answering questions or making comments in which rational thought would have helped his cause. You are a hypocrite plain and simply (or an idiot…. choose one)”

    You haven’t been keeping up with the comments then have you Shriveled? Some of the arguments presented on here by the poster I was answering were that David was calculated and a psychopath etc. The questions I asked regarding what he could have said, were in reference to those comments about him, that if he was so calculating, then lying would have helped him, and of course, and I can’t believe this has to be explained to you, but obviously you’re stupid, if he was a psychopath, then he wouldn’t have been affected by the deaths.

    I know, and have posted on here that David isn’t a psychopath, and is an ordinary person, and therefore make the statment, to yet another poster, regarding how we don’t know how we would act in those circumstances.

    You are trying to be clever, and relate two different kinds of arguments, one hypothetical, the other opinion, to the same statement. Surely you aren’t that stupid that I need to now explain the difference between those two types of comments to you?

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

    Spin away Jinny. It’s all there for everyone to read…….

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

    Herald on Sunday February 12, 2012

    The Case against Robin Bain

    It is the prosecution case that has never been placed before a jury. For the first time, the murder allegations against Robin Bain are laid out in Joe Karam’s painstaking new analysis of 18 years evidence. Geraldine Johns reports.

    Forget the forensics (much of which would later be discredited) for a moment. Park any references to blood, bullet fragments and fingerprints on the rifle. Let’s look instead at personality.

    Robin Bain, School Principal. Married father of two sons and two daughters. He was a man who was broken in almost every sense.

    Estranged from his wife, he lived in an advanced state of squalor. His career was stalled; he was no longer the respected leader he had once been. He looked, some would say, like a walking cadaver. He had undergone a monstrous personality change, prone now to fits of anger and frustration when he was once nothing but calm.

    This is a picture of a man removed from social normalcy, somebody who had lost his own sense of self and, in so doing, abandoned all responsibility to his charges. If he was already on the brink, the threatened revelation to their family by his prostitute daughter that he had been sexually abusing her for years was surely the denouement.

    Was all that sufficient motive for a multiple murder and suicide? Campaigner Joe Karam indicates that it’s certainly a major contributing factor.

    In his book Trial by Ambush: the Prosecutions of David Bain, Karam unequivocally fingers the Dunedin school principal for the murders of his wife and three of their children before shooting himself.

    That is no surprise: Karam has long championed sole survivior, son David Bain, as innocent of the five counts of murder for which he served 13 years in prison, before being found not guilty at retrial. But in this latest book on the murders, Karam articulates, in meticulous detail the case against the man who he sees as the true killer.

    To back his argument, he explores the prosecution testimony, much of which was later exposed as flawed, then reaches for an academic and psychological explanation.
    By many accounts, Robin Bain was ideally suited for committing murder/suicide. Not long before the wintry 1994 killings, he sought stress leave from his post as Taieri Beach School principal. His life was by then out of control. A true illustration of this lies in the photographic section of the book: a picture of the rusted Commer van, his weekday home at the school for three years. It is a portrait of decrepitude.

    Adjacent is a photo of the 20 bullet shells found in the caravan in which he camped at the weekends at the family home, the scene of the killings. Above is a picture of his bed in that caravan, on which is the reading material Death at the Dolphin and Agatha Cristie’s Death Comes at the End.

    Who knows what went on in his school – 9 year old pupils wrote graphic and inappropriate stories of violence and killings. The week before the Bain murders, some were printed in the school newsletter. To his colleagues: “Robin had lost touch with reality”.

    Consider, too, what fellow principal Malin Stone encountered when he went to Taieri Beach School to help out on the day after the killings. Robin’s classroom was “a shambles”.

    The pupils – 10 and 11 year olds – did not know where their reading or maths material was and their literacy level was below average.

    The scene was chaotic. Ditto Robin’s office: mess galore – piles and piles of it. Robin wasn’t paying much attention to his personal hygiene, either. But he did put some of his affairs in order in his final days.

    He tried to enlist the services of a relieving teacher (she was unable to help as she was contracted elsewhere). He sought a final reading on the electricity bill at the school house in his name. And he insisted on settling daughter Laniet’s account at the Dunedin dairy she frequented. This was wholly out of character.

    The second trial would hear that Laniet had resolved to reveal to her family that same weekend her prostitute lifestyle and alleged incestuous relationship with her father.

    Not everybody noticed Robin’s deterioration. Some Crown witnesses said he was a caring and diligent teacher, much like by parents and children.

    This is not disputed, Karam says. “However, it does not detract from the factual matters illustrating the dramatic degeneration of aspects of his life.”

    The Bain case looks like familicide-suicide, he indicates. “Although there are some extremely rare cases where such familicide is committed by the mother or some other member of the family, more than 95 per cent are committed by the father.”

    The profile of David, 22, does not appear to qualify him to be among the remaining 5 per cent. According to Karam; “Only about 1 per cent of cases of familicide are committed by a child of the family, and when they are committed by an adult son he almost always commits suicide, too.

    “In cases where sons killed both parents, the research indicates that the perpetrator is always either severely abuses, suffering from severe mental disorders (usually psychotic) or psychopathic. There are no identified cases where the son exhibits none of these pathologies and does not commit suicide.”

    Indeed, David’s psychological profile is presented as healthy. Psychiatrist Dr Philip Brinded, who visited David in jail repeatedly, told the retrial that he never saw any psychopathic tendencies or characteristics in him.

    IGNOMINY: That’s what Karam reckons was the final straw. “There is usually a specific event that is the final straw triggering the familicide, one that leads in the perpetrator’s mind to ignominy: a terminal public shame, mortification and self-disgust …. It is always one over which the perpetrator has little control, and is going to publicly expose his failure.”

    Will the debate over who did it ever end? Last week, in a special interview with the Herald on Sunday ahead of the book’s publication, Karam said he had not wanted to write it. He was moved to do so simply to “dispel the myths” that had emerged after the second trial.

    After the Privy Council quashed David’s original conviction, many commentators were adamant there should be a retrial on the bais that a jury verdict was needed to put the matter to rest once and for all.
    But when David was found not guilty, said Karam, some of those same commentators started to question the jury’s decision. It seemed they didn’t like that verdict either.

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

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (650) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 9:32 am
    Spin away Jinny. It’s all there for everyone to read…….

    Oh dear, so you are too stupid to understand the difference between hypothetical answers and an opinion. Does the Shriveled part refer to your brain?

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

    http://www.nzcriminallaw.blogspot.co.nz/ Another interesting review, by a well respected and influential member of the legal profession:

    Saturday, February 18, 2012
    Book review: “Trial by Ambush” by Joe Karam
    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. It is equally obvious that David Bain must receive compensation for his years of imprisonment which were a direct result of improprieties in the investigation and failures by the authorities including the judiciary to provide a timely remedy.

    It is the failings of the judiciary that are of most concern to readers of this site. Three appeal judges sat on what the Privy Council called the Third Court of Appeal in this case. Their single judgment contained, according to submissions to the Privy Council prepared by Karam and reproduced as Appendix B to his book, an astonishingly large list of errors of fact.

    One judge might well make the occasional slip in summarising the evidence in a case, but how can so many errors pass by three judges? This calls into question the soundness of a recent proposal by our Law Commission that factual issues should be decided by a small panel of judges. The Commission likens this to the practice in Belgium, but China would also be a relevant point of reference.

    Work done by committees tends to be distributed among members, whereas in trials it is brought home to jurors that they are individually responsible for their decision. The Court of Appeal is over-worked and under-resourced, and its judges – all of whom are of high quality by international standards – are encouraged to bring in unanimous decisions in criminal cases. That is hardly an environment that will promote accuracy.

    But the errors in the Bain case began much earlier, according to Karam’s book. The police decided too quickly to charge David. They then sought evidence against him rather than being open to the alternative that Robin was the murderer. They failed to preserve, record or have analysed evidence that might have supported David’s innocence, and at an astonishingly early stage after the first trial they destroyed evidence. Evidence that was disclosed to the defence before both trials was dumped on the defence in huge volume and in a disordered state, without indication of what was significant.

    This is the second aspect that is of interest here: how can the prosecution be required to exercise its disclosure obligations fairly? In the adversarial system, where the trial is a contest with a winner and a loser, procedural fairness can be sacrificed for the sake of egotistical stratagems. Trials and appeals become contests between counsel, and between counsel and the bench, to see who is cleverest.

    If you think Robin’s full bladder eliminated him as a suspect, you won’t think so after reading this book. Nor will you think that David turned on the computer. Nor that David put the washing on before going on his paper run. Nor that all victims except Robin were killed before David left on his paper run. You will be convinced that Robin left bloodstained footprints in the carpet as he shot the victims – David’s feet were too big to have made them. Blood on Robin’s hands (not available for analysis, but visible in tardily disclosed photographs) was consistent with coming partly from the bloody gloves he wore, and partly from splash-back from a victim as he held the rifle. Blood on Robin’s trousers and on his shoes was consistent with his position as he pulled the trigger committing suicide, as was blood on the curtain by the computer. Robin was the psychological mess, not David. Robin fitted the profile of men who kill their families, and David didn’t. The gurgling heard by David coming from one victim was of the kind that can occur after death, and the evidence of that possibility was stronger at the second trial than it had been at the first.

    According to this book, there is no reliable evidence that David was the murderer. At one stage I thought that Karam’s account of a green towel containing traces of Robin’s blood and found in the laundry left open the possibility that David put it there after killing Robin. But Robin had an injury to his hand that would have bled, and that was probably sustained in the course of a fight with his younger son who had not been killed by the first shot Robin fired at him. Robin probably wiped blood from that wound on to the towel and left it in the laundry with his other blood soaked clothes, for David to put in the wash after his paper route.

    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. It would have to be as incontrovertible as a freely given confession by David, or a reliable eyewitness to the killings, or a video recording of them. If evidence of that kind had been obtained the case would not be one of inferences, or probabilities, but one of certainties. As it is, the probabilities are so enormously in favour of David’s innocence that they amount to a certainty.

    The community must be thankful for people like Joe Karam. We all are entitled to know that if the State makes an error and wrongly punishes us, we will be properly compensated. Unfortunately it is not always the State’s own officials who can be relied on to provide that assurance.

    posted by Don Mathias at 3:37 PM

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

    Jinny, you and your mates appear to be getting more and more hysterical. After being banned from Trade Me are you trying to be banned from here too?

    Karam’s lawsuits are completely out of touch with reality. One has already been thrown out, there is another following closely, and the other two will be defended. The Bain case is public property and we can discuss it freely. Holmes considers Karam to be obsessed and that his latest book should go down the dunny, two comments which by Karam’s account are highly defamatory and derogatory. Does that mean that he hates Karam? The same applies with the Penis/Genius clip: http://www.hauraki.co.nz/player/ondemand/Penis-Or-Genius-Mar-6 . Does that mean that Matt hates Karam. I think not. This is the real world of politics where you get hard knocks from people and where people criticize what you do etc. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Karam has simply pushed this barrow too far. He got the not guilty verdict and he should have left it at that.

    I wouldn’t read too much into that Don Mathias blog, he is just playing with your mind. He considers the whole case to be a farce and just wants to play legal games.

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

    Kent Parker: I am not banned from Trademe I still post there regulary but not on the Bain case because people like you like to make complaints, although I believe you have been banned.

    Actually one wasn’t thrown out. It was settled out of Court, that is an entirely different concept. You have tried defending yours, however, your two attempts so far have been thrown out.

    Holmes was commenting on the quality of the writing and the book, that is his opinion of it and he’s entitled to voice it. It is a little difference to infering that someone was sleeping with a jury member, which is an out and out lie. Karam’s lawsuits are completely in touch with reality, more so than someone, who when asked to cease and desist continues to do so.

    You may think you operate under the freedom of speech catagory, and on most occassions you do, however, freedom of speech does not mean you can supercede the law of the Courts. You are entitled to an opinion and can voice that, but you cannot publish it as FACT, when it is not. You have repeatedly allowed people to comment on the sites you administer that David Bain is guilty. That is factually wrong, and you know that, but you allow it to remain. You have also made factual statements regarding Joe Karam, that were wrong, that makes you wrong. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the Bain Case being a public matter, and Joe Karam’s personal and private business.

    Karam has supported David and assisted him with the compensation claim, which David will get. There is more than sufficient evidence that proves David’s innocence. Your final comment is evidence of your own lack of reality and balance.

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

    Kent Parker: ” I wouldn’t read too much into that Don Mathias blog, he is just playing with your mind. He considers the whole case to be a farce and just wants to play legal games.”

    How much legal training do you have Kent? Is it more than Mr Mathias? Have you ever appeared as a Barrister in a court of law, especially during a Criminal hearing? What qualifications do you HONESTLY have, that allows you to think you know more than such a respected member of the legal profession. Don Mathias has posted a total of 5 different statements in various places regarding the book and the case in the last month or so, are you now saying he was lying in those statments? That’s rather brave of you, considering his vast experience and occupation – Karam not enough for you, you’re gunning for the big boys now, too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Kent Parker @ 9.38

    Says he, who himself has been banned from Trade Me, also warned about the facebook page of the Justice Conference, also from Sella.

    None of those cases have been “thrown out”.
    One was withdrawn, another is possibly in negotiation. The third is the fun one, it has so far had two defences thrown back as nonsense, and is about to hear about the third. It is telling that one of the defendants attempts to spread his poison even in places like this so he can say others do it too.
    As far as saying Mr Karam should have left it at the not guilty verdict, your campaign against him and David Bain was well advanced long before they announced any further action. Your campaign of persecution and hatred has nothing to do with anything other than attempting to advance the career of a many times failed man.

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

    Jinny “that David Bain is guilty” it is up to david bain to complain if he wishes, not others – and he made it clear on tv that it does not worry him what people think.

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

    hiphip (82) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 9:57 am
    Jinny “that David Bain is guilty” it is up to david bain to complain if he wishes, not others – and he made it clear on tv that it does not worry him what people think.

    Oh dear hiphip – rather a stupid statement don’t you think? No one is suing anyone, least of all Kent Paker for defamation for saying David Bain is guilty. If you knew anything about law, you would know that only the person concerned can do that, and as you have said, David doesn’t care what you think. Which is why much of what Kent Parker says is rubbish. Karam is not suing him because of statement’s he and others have made about David. That is legally impossible. Karam is suing because of personal statments made about him. – Which if K. Parker could see reality, he would be able to differentiate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (March 10th, 2012 at 9:03 am).

    Yeah, a whole series of inane questions about why David didn’t do this, and why didn’t he do that.

    Why didn’t he?

    A. Because like most murderers, especially with a carefully planned MO, he made mistakes, and

    B. Seeing he didn’t, it is pointlessly begging the question, and diverting attention from the actual physical evidence that is the primary issue in the play. Get those rocks in place, and continually keep them at the forefront where they deserve to be, rather than distracted by the shell game.

    I see Jinny is also continuing to play the flip-flop game, now demanding to know the one piece of evidence that proves David Bain was the murderer, overlooking the reality this was a case built on an accumulation of undisputed circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences and conclusions drawn from it leading to proof beyond reasonable doubt due to the sheer improbability and unlikely coincidences. Which is all the Crown ever argued, and was required to argue.

    So whenever you are invited to

    a. Give the exact and perfect scenario that accounts for all that evidence
    b. Provide David’s motive
    c. Provide the metaphorical “smoking gun” that fingers David,

    …realise you are being asked to play a game of moving goal posts.

    And what ever actual hard evidence – testimony, exhibits – you provide, it will automatically be ignored and dissembled away,

    e.g, “If you have read James McNeish’s book, you will know that for years the family always gathered on a sunday night for family meeting time. It was not unusual and family friends reported this happened both in PNG and back in New Zealand. It was not unordinary for David to want his sister to be part of those meetings again, when she had missed several of them”…

    thus ignoring the fact that

    a. David demanded Laniet should be at the meeting
    b. He was reportedly adamant and unusually emotional about it in such a way that
    c. Laniet was afraid

    but, yes, it would still have been usual if you ignore the big event that happened the next morning…

    d. Laniet and the rest of her family all ended up dead, with the exception of the one who orchestrated her presence there!

    My advice, Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left, is to save your wisdom for folks who genuinely think David Bain should have been found not guilty, and who are reasonable (and there some of them) as evidenced by their reasonable rhetorical framing, ability to distinguish facts from reasonable inferences from speculation, and who don’t continually change the rules of the game – rather than the likes of whom you are currently engaging.

    Then again, it has a certain amusement value – and we all have a right to be considering and discussing this in light of the compensation propaganda offensive for our taxpayer dollars that has already begun.

    Cheers,

    Kimbo

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

    Jinny, we are not being sued for saying that David Bain is guilty. Karam cannot sue for such matters. The comments for which we are being sued relate to the Bain case and not Karam’s personal or private business. He has three levels of defence to get through before he can even touch us and the primary defence is truth. Everything we have said is fundamentally true and we now have sufficient evidence to support it, including the statement that David is guilty, which the 60 Minutes interview now fairly well establishes, thanks to what was not in it: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/culture/television/6532769/Special-relationship-sets-the-next-scene (see further down the page).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    but he did wipe bloody hands on the laundry towel, leaving smears on his hands

    Nostalgia you are speculating, just as I would be speculating if I were to suggest that after killing Robin and re-positioning his body, David again had to wash his hands leaving some blood on the towel.

    Difference is, my speculation is consistent with the evidence, whereas yours is clearly irrelevant.

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

    Jinny – i got the “stupid statement” from your long winded rant. why did you mention it if it wasn’t relevant?

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

    Kent Parker:

    If you had stuck to commenting on the Case, and not attacking Karam personally his case wouldn’t have got past the first hurdle and you know it. He cannot sue you for what you say about the case, but he can sue you for what you say about him, his finances etc, which is exactly what he is doing.

    Regarding that article, I think you are really pushing that boundaries there. You are reading what you want to see into an ambiguous statement. If that is all you have to present with your third defence, you’re in big trouble. Apart from being ambiguous, and I and others I know who read it at the time didn’t see it how you obviously do, it is the opinion on one reporter. In short Kent, it says nothing, and certainly doesn’t give you any out for the 100 or more untrue comments you published, and continue to publish to make others think poorly about Mr Karam.

    You’re sunk Kent. You don’t stand a chance if that is all you have.

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

    Kimbo: So you can’t provide one piece of evidence that proves David Bain killed his mother. The other evidence you mention is disputed, was disputed and resulted in a not guilty verdict. The sum of all that evidence could not prove he did it. The sum of all that evidence will also prove his innocence to Judge Binnie. Far from Parker’s wishful thinking that the matter is dead, it is very much alive and I believe according to preliminary reports (which sadly you aren’t privy too), is doing very well.

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

    Jinny, against your level of hysteria, I have no argument really. I’ll leave you with your imaginary exoneration of David Bain and imaginary visions of my impending doom. All the best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    David did not call the family meeting.

    Jinny, you’re wrong. Again. Teacher Joanne Dryden’s testimony clearly establishes David as the whip:

    A family meeting had been called, and Laniet said David had told her that if she didn’t go, he would come and get her and drag her along “kicking and screaming”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10567763

    Note: It would be nice if you could include sources for your assertions like I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Thanks for your input on this debate Kimbo / Scott Chris, I’ve found it fascinating. It is also interesting to watch Bain’s cheerleaders running defense with threats of legal action. It must really irritate the shit out of these cheerleaders when people don’t buy into their argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Elaycee,
    Where did I say I had signed any agreement?I wonder if you have got the wrong bloke.I was waiting to see a final draft.I asked the lawyer to send it too me and he never did.
    BTW,what’s with this sending messages addressed to a time?Bit childish,isn’t it,even for a David Bain supporter.

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

    Scott Chris (3,880) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 10:50 am
    David did not call the family meeting.

    Jinny, you’re wrong. Again. Teacher Joanne Dryden’s testimony clearly establishes David as the whip:

    A family meeting had been called, and Laniet said David had told her that if she didn’t go, he would come and get her and drag her along “kicking and screaming”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10567763

    Note: It would be nice if you could include sources for your assertions like I do.

    The sources of my assertions were firstly from James McNeish’s book where he had interviewed Mrs Neasmith who had stayed with the family both in PNG and NZ and recalled how the family enjoyed gathered on Sunday evenings for special family meeting time each week.

    This information was also given on the stand and appears in both the first and second trial transcripts, which tend to be a little bit more reliable than the second hand condensed media reports.

    A family meeting had been called? Certainly as they were every sunday, doesn’t say by whom though.
    David would drag her alone kicking and screaming. Just I have threatened and many people threaten to do if some objects, doesn’t mean I have, or others ever have. It’s a well used phrase – I’m surprised you don’t know that.

    Where does your evidence say that David was not simply following his mother or father’s request to get Laniet to a family meeting, as she had missed so many? Robin’s own words to another witness were that he was thrilled to be having all the family home evening.

    Your evidence means nothing, does not imply murder, or even bullying. The term used is a common one and is used by many and not literally. The Court obviously saw it for what it was, because the jury didn’t seem to accept the evidence, which you talk of, as anything more than what it was. A big brother fetching his sister to a family meeting, which according to witnesses she didn’t want to go to, and to others she was willing to go to, because she had something to tell.

    None of which proves murder.

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

    Kent Parker (363) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 10:28 am
    Jinny, against your level of hysteria, I have no argument really. I’ll leave you with your imaginary exoneration of David Bain and imaginary visions of my impending doom. All the best

    Despite your assumation of my hysteria, I am not the one in court fighting very hard, but getting no where on 100’s of charges against me.
    The exoneration of David is not imagined, are you not aware of the result of the second trial. David’s status is innocent. Something even you cannot argue against. If your comment ‘exoneration of David’ is on some spiritual level, then I’m afraid you’re fighting a losing battle there to claim that is what my imagination is fighting for, because I have no belief in any greater power or God to do the exoneration. It appears Mr Parker, it is you that is fight for some perceived cause, that can never be achieved. One of your many causes that haven’t reached their targets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Lets call the following ‘the wrong bloke.’

    We have both signed this agreement.I now wish to have my suspension lifted.Should you wish to confirm this agreement has been made you can contact Mr ———————.His email address is ——————-and his phone no. is ——————-.
    I anticipate hearing from you within the next 12 hours or so that my suspension has been lifted.
    Regards,
    *****************

    Some details deleted from this letter above to TM’s solicitor, which was preceded in part by the following…
    *****************

    Dear ———–,

    We have received the following email from a member who is currently suspended from the Trade Me message boards. To assist us in reviewing this suspension, it would be helpful if you could please confirm whether this is an accurate record of the basis upon which the litigation between your client and Mr ———— was settled:
    *****************

    Of course it could be a forgery, along with the agreement with an apparent ‘forged’ signature, and the notice of discontinuance to the Court, along with the signed agreement might also be forgeries. So suddenly we have 2 documents that don’t exist, along with various drafts and letters that preceded them. There is only one place for that to be sorted out, and unlike last time no pleading and false pledges will curtail it.

    Why is it the Robin cult must lie. And when not lying congratulate themselves for being disconcerted by relatively minor details, this, despite being unable to resolve the forensic evidence showing suicide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Thanks ,Kent.
    The thing is,even if that wrong bloke is me,I could have been taking a bit of a punt.You see that wrong bloke might not have known that both parties had signed that agreement,because he might never have actually seen the final agreement that was signed by both parties.He might never have seen the other parties signature.
    And I note that message was sent to Trade Me.It has nothing to do with kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is still going on about that family meeting.The simple matter is that Laniet told those people she met up with that David had called a family meeting and she didn’t want to go to it because she was frightened of her freaky brother.

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

    > Why is it the Robin cult must lie

    Get a grip, NNZ. There’s only one cult and it sure isn’t about Robin.

    > David’s status is innocent.

    We’ll see if Justice Binnie shares your view. If he says that David probably murdered his family, no doubt you will take that on board, right? Nah didn’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Ah a handful of straws. Wouldn’t it be amazing that a letter sent somewhere that agreed that another document had been signed and apparently ‘settled’ would refer to some site other than the one the person was desperately trying to get back on? But it could be a defence, similar to one I read yesterday that Robin may have molested his daughter but it was years earlier, and therefore was not relevant. We’ll see, nothing surer than that.

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

    > Robin may have molested his daughter

    Why don’t we ask Robin? Oh that’s right, someone murdered him. LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Great cartoon in the Dompost this morning.It hasn’t appeared on Stuffco as yet otherwise I would link to it.Hopefully it will be there tomorrow.I don’t want to spoil things for those that havn’t seen it,so I won’t post all the wording.
    Suffice to say there is this large cartoon featuring David Bain [by Tom Scott],and the wording starts off with “Another question 60Minutes could have asked David Bain…….”.
    I would suggest that for those of you who are in the Dompost delivery area and who aren’t subscribers,go down to the nearest shop and see if you can buy a copy,if there are any left.You won’t be disappointed[unless,of couse,you are a David Bain supporter,in which case I suggest you keep well away.].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ muggins

    “I see Jinny is still going on about that family meeting.The simple matter is that Laniet told those people she met up with that David had called a family meeting and she didn’t want to go to it because she was frightened of her freaky brother”.

    Yes, muggins, but as per the response you got, “Where does your evidence say that David was not simply following his mother or father’s request to get Laniet to a family meeting, as she had missed so many? ” (Jinny, March 10th, 2012 at 11:48 am), people are apparently allowed to argue “facts” from silence when it suits.

    I’ll admit that the argument that Robin never left any finger prints on the gun (thus implying it is likely the killer wiped the gun, which, along with wearing gloves that aren’t your own when you have a pair yourself doesn’t make a lot of sense if you are going commit murder-suicide) is also an argument from silence. Which is why I’ve never considered the absence of Robin’s prints a particularly compelling argument either way, other than as a LOW-level unusual coincidence and occurrence in a string of HIGH-level unusual coincidences and occurrences.

    But when there is an absence of self-applied cognitive quality-control by arguing back and forth from the general to the particular, the deductive to the inductive, and facts to speculation, you know you are not in dialogue with people with a capacity for self-examination, honesty, or an ability to recognise self-deceit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. misspw (32 comments) says:

    How liberating it must be for you jinny and nostalgia_nz to belong to the rising from the primordial slime view of life. Moral relativists, atheists, people who make up and live by their own morality and answer to nobody. If you can’t see it then it doesn’t exist even when logic and common sense says it does. Playing the cynic is easy. A cynic is a parasite. A parasite simply breeds off the beliefs of others. There IS such a thing as good and evil, absolutely not relatively. Murder is absolutely wrong and not relatively wrong. and unless a person believes this and admits it they won’t need help to destroy their own soul they will do this all by themselves. Anyone to encourages another to not face what they have done so they can begin again, forgiven by others and by God do NOT want the best for this person at all. They are people who want them to continue to deceive themselves and others. For what purpose? Because they live lives of hate and deceit themselves and admitting their own guilt is more than they have either the courage or character to face.

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

    Sleuth: What you don’t seem to understand is, it isn’t a numbers game. It doesn’t matter if the only person in the New Zealand population that thinks David Bain didn’t murder his family, is him. The evidence presented to Justice Binnie is what decides the compensation. The government have a prescribed procedure they must follow. Regardless of whether you or the entire members of parliament support you, they must still pay compensation if Binnie finds that David Bain was innocent based on the balance of probabilities. You have to accept there is information that he has access to, that you don’t.

    I think you would be quite surprised with how many people support David getting compensation. I have no idea what the percentages are, but you shouldn’t be too smug about the media supposing to take sides, let’s not forget they are there to sell papers and when they post something controversial like that, idiots go around suggesting everyone should buy a copy, so they do very well.

    Again it means nothing, and won’t affect the test of compensation.

    Perhaps you could answer the question I asked, starting with the first killed.

    Provide one piece of evidence that proves David Bain killed Margaret Bain, his mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    David Bain is no Mr Nice Guy,as some of his supporters would have you believe.
    At the retrial his aunt gave evidence about David Bain having a conversation with her about his mother’s glasses.I think he may have referred to them as Margaret’s glasses.They weren’t perfect he said,but they got him by.
    Now David’s lawyer tried to discredit his aunt,sort of implying she might be lying to protect the monies she would have received from the estate.Nothing wrong with that,it is what defence lawyers are paid to do.David’s aunt was pretty annoyed at his line of questioning,as she would be.
    But surely David Bain would have known his lawyer was going to ask those questions?Surely he would have requested,nay demanded,that those questions not be put to his favourite aunt.He knew that she was telling the truth.But he just sat there in silence.That is reprehensible behaviour,by anybody’s standards.

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

    > I think you would be quite surprised with how many people support David getting compensation

    Tens of thousands of people watch Coronation St, so nothing would suprise me, Jinny. There are no doubt plenty of Karamilites. And no doubt they will remain Karamilites irrespective of what Binnie says.

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

    Kimbo: In the very large majority of suicides and familicide, there are no fingerprints on the weapon. In fact, investigators are thrilled when they find them in any circumstances. The only way they are left on a weapon is via something like skin moisture or blood, however, if there is excess of any kind of fluid/moisture, then they are usually undetectable, i.e. to smudged to supply an accurate reading of the ridges. Stephen’s fingerprint was only detectable because it was on the silencer, one of two areas on the gun that was not smeared in blood.

    Again your assumption means nothing and does not prove murder. David Bain’s fingerprints were not in blood on that blood covered gun, nor were they on the silencer. That also means nothing and doesn’t say either way whether he was involved or not. The point is a moot one. It can’t prove who was responsible, or who wasn’t. The absence of fingerprints on the weapon don’t absolve either Robin or David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    1.20

    ‘for self-examination, honesty, or an ability to recognise self-deceit.’

    Yes honesty such as I never ‘signed it’ having already written elsewhere that you had ‘signed it’. ‘self deceit’ such as purposefully doing everything possible, including 1000s of words and rehashes – all of which avoid the terror of facing the forensic evidence of the suicide. Not one cultist with enough backbone to accept the challenge of disproving the suicide.

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

    > The evidence presented to Justice Binnie is what decides the compensation.

    Absolutely right. Binnie has also been given various reports, including one by retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp. Sir Thomas is a pretty smart guy. In 1999, he expressed some concerns with the conviction of Peter Ellis. Why don’t you tell us what Thorp thought of Bain’s conviction?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    One thing is for sure, if David is the murderer ( and I have no doubt he is) then karma can be a real bitch.

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

    > Not one cultist with enough backbone to accept the challenge of disproving the suicide.

    Ah, there you go again, wanting someone to prove a negative. I suggest you go first – prove there is no God. Take as much time as you like.

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

    Ross: the same applies in reverse, will you be prepared to accept that David Bain is innocent if he is awared compensation, or will you still say they got it wrong? You do notice, that other than a few members of the population and the occassional press article, the rest of New Zealand isn’t in here arguing these points, don’t you?

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

    > karma can be a real bitch

    Karma or Karam? :)

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

    ross69 (97) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    > Not one cultist with enough backbone to accept the challenge of disproving the suicide.

    Ah, there you go again, wanting someone to prove a negative. I suggest you go first – prove there is no God. Take as much time as you like.

    Then Ross, take my challenge, provide the evidence that proves David Bain killed his mother.

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

    Would be happy to oblige, Jinny, after you’ve proved there is no God.

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

    ross69 (98) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    > The evidence presented to Justice Binnie is what decides the compensation.

    Absolutely right. Binnie has also been given various reports, including one by retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp. Sir Thomas is a pretty smart guy. In 1999, he expressed some concerns with the conviction of Peter Ellis. Why don’t you tell us what Thorp thought of Bain’s conviction?

    There you go again. Are you suggesting that Judge Binnie will be influenced by a friend’s opinion and not the evidence he is given? You are suggesting that a judge of Binnie’s experience and standing would not be honest and provide a balanced report to the evidence he examines? That comes very close to contempt of court making statements like that Ross, are you sure you’re willing to stand by it? .

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

    > will you be prepared to accept that David Bain is innocent if he is awared compensation,

    But he’s not going to be awarded compensation…unless he can answer some pretty important questions. He could’ve provided some answers on TV3 the other night but TV3 weren’t allowed to ask him any hard questions. Why do you think that was? Surely an innocent person would be only too happy to see the record straight.

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

    ross69 (99) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Would be happy to oblige, Jinny, after you’ve proved there is no God.

    But mine is not a negative question Ross, it’s a positive one. I’m not asking you to prove Robin didn’t commit suicide, I’m asking you to provide the proof that David killed his mother. In short what you are saying, as it has been tried for thousands of years for people to prove god exists and they’ve failed, is that you CAN’T prove David killed his mother.

    Ok.

    Well, can you provide proof that David killed Arawa then?

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

    > That comes very close to contempt of court making statements like that Ross, are you sure you’re willing to stand by it?

    Haha you really are pathetic….you lose an argument and have to resort to threats. Tell us what Sir Thomas thought of Bain’s conviction…I presume you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ, when are you going to provide the supporting documentation for your allegations made against me over a year ago. So far you documents make an interesting fairy tale but fall well short of constituting harassment of any type but as any one reading here can readily see you have only one method of responding to counter opinion and that is to abuse and defame. Fraid old chap it is against my character to settle and if it is to be decided by a District Court Judge so be it, your writting here is music to my ears as evidence of your manner of debate. and is on record.

    Shame that you have more or less admitted you have hinted you have no evidence. LSA will be rubbing its collective hands together at the thought of all that money coming back. Time is running out very fast.

    when you see the ‘learned’ lowyer kill two birds with one soggy tissue paper and drop all your actions would be cheaper in the long run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    ross69 (100) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Would be happy to oblige, Jinny, after you’ve proved there is no God.

    The laborious retreat and avoidance.

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

    And when you’re done with giving us Thorp’s learned opinion, tell us what Harry Glass, the Australian expert, thought about the chances that Robin killed himself? I presume you are happy to share his views with Kiwiblog readers. Beariing in mind that Joe Karam sought Glass’s opinion.

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

    ross69 (100) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    > will you be prepared to accept that David Bain is innocent if he is awared compensation,

    But he’s not going to be awarded compensation…unless he can answer some pretty important questions. He could’ve provided some answers on TV3 the other night but TV3 weren’t allowed to ask him any hard questions. Why do you think that was? Surely an innocent person would be only too happy to see the record straight

    Have you any proof that TV3 was told they weren’t allowed to ask any hard questions or are you basing this part of your argument on speculation with no proof?

    David has put the record straight. He was found not guilty at the second trial.
    He was also asked whether he killed his family, and he said no, he wasn’t there.
    Now, what sort of questions would you have liked to have asked over that?

    what sort of questions are important over that?

    And, even if you had asked him whatever you liked, would you have believed him if he had given you an answer that didn’t suit you belief?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    [correction second last para of post at March 10th, 2012 at 1:52 pm] more ore less hinted you have no evidence

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

    And when you’re done with giving us Thorp’s learned opinion, tell us what Harry Glass, the Australian expert, thought about the chances that Robin killed himself? I presume you are happy to share his views with Kiwiblog readers. Beariing in mind that Joe Karam sought Glass’s opinion.

    Actually I don’t know. I might have read it but can’t remember if I have or not. But you see, I’ve read thousands of statements that both support and deny David’s claim. They mean nothing.

    It appears you are on some point scoring exercise like Kent Parker. You can produce the names and numbers of everyone that thinks this or that or whatever. But what does that matter? Will it make any difference to the evidence given to Binnie? One expert says Robin couldn’t have committed suicide, five said he did. It means nothing to Binnie. Binnie has to decide on what he sees, and the summation of all the material he has.

    And I wasn’t threatening you with Contempt of Court, if you knew anything about the legal system you’d know I, a private citizen, cannot do that. But if Judge Binne were to take exception to you saying he was likely to take his friends opinion and be dishonest in his report, I’m sure he wouldn’t hesitate, but then again, I believe he’s had some pretty wild correspondence from a certain group and is aware of the limits of their sensibilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Jinny,
    I could ask you to provide one piece of evidence that proves Robin Ban killed his wife.And then we would just keep going round in circles.And in case you havn’t noticed[mind you it doesn't surprise me that you havn't noticed],my pseudonym is muggins,not sleuth.
    But don’t you find it rather strange that when David Bain saw his mother he said her eyes were open,because he asked her a question.Yet when the police arrived they said her eyes were closed.In fact it was esablished that her eyes would have closed very quickly after she was shot just above one of them.
    But look,you asked me to provide one piece of evidence to prove that David Bain shot his mother.
    What I will do is provide you with plenty of evidence that David Bain shot his brother.I’m surprised you didn’t ask me that question.
    [1]The lens from those glasses that he had been wearing was found in Stephen’s room.
    [2]He had Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    [3]His gloves,covered in blood,were found in Stephen’s room.
    [4]He had three seperate bruises on his head that the doctor who examined him estimated were at least seven hours old.He said they couldn’t have been four hours old.David Ban supposedly fainted less than four hours before that doctor examined him.The doctor asked Bain if he had received a “whack’.David said he had but didn’t know how.
    Those injuries were consistent with David having recently been in some form of fight or struggle.
    [5]A prison officer who strip-searched David Bain saw scratch marks and bruising on Bain’s upper body.He said they appeared conistent with clawing or grappling through clothing.He asked Bain how he got them but received no reply.
    Bain showed those same scratches/bruises to a female companion on the Wednesday after the murders.He said he didn’t know how he got them,but alluded to that [missing] 20 minutes between him arriving home and phoning 111.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    The issue of fingerprints is a bit of a red herring, and wouldn’t gather evidence against either man because they both had handled the rifle so I doubt that it will figure in the final analysis, Robin’s hands and spatter and so forth will tell highly on the final aspects of his guilt or innocence.

    When I first entered Bain debates I was told by some of those here, or who watch here, that Robin’s hands had no blood on them, and were not damaged. That of course would have been very telling as to his involvement in the killings. However, as par for the course, the cultist were lying and even now are unable to recognise that which they falsely held out as proof of Robin’s innocence should have the same ‘fair’ application against David who had no injury to his hands or blood on them. But that would be too logical and would overlook some distant irrelevancy like prove there is a god, who might have called a meeting and so on into never land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Kimbo (913 comments) says:

    @ ross69

    I see you are good at detecting the machinations of shell game, but for amusement of others, someone needs to deconstruct this a bit further, and provide the Murray Mexted commentary so we can all keep up with the play: –

    “But mine is not a negative question Ross, it’s a positive one”…

    which ignores the previous rhetorical strategy: –

    “Where does your evidence say that David was not simply following his mother or father’s request to get Laniet to a family meeting, as she had missed so many?”.

    Also: –

    “I’m not asking you to prove Robin didn’t commit suicide, I’m asking you to provide the proof that David killed his mother”…

    which leads to the atomising-of-the-evidence strategy: –

    “Well, can you provide proof that David killed Arawa then?”…

    when it was always the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence regarded as a whole, and the unlikely coincidences that “proves” (if one is so persuaded) beyond a reasonable doubt that David Bain murdered Margaret, Laniet, Stephen, Arawa, and Robin Bain.

    Even when one concedes the point that not all of that cumulative evidence was particularly compelling or significant –

    “I’ll admit that the argument that Robin never left any finger prints on the gun…is also an argument from silence. Which is why I’ve never considered the absence of Robin’s prints a particularly compelling argument either way…”,…

    you’ll still get a rhetorical Tourette’s response echoing essentially the same conclusion –

    “It can’t prove who was responsible, or who wasn’t. The absence of fingerprints on the weapon don’t absolve either Robin or David”,…

    but in such a way that the cumulative effect of the occurrence in relation to other occurrences is negated by the atomising strategy.

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

    Sleuth:

    I’m sorry, but I asked first. Are you trying to jump in here. When my questions, and I think that’s two of them now are answered, then we’ll get to you. Until then, wait your turn, didn’t you get taught any manners?

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

    Kimbo trying to be clever, and spent ages typing a post that means nothing. Where is your answer regarding proof Kimbo, or are you too busy playing with words/semantics to actually provide an answer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Hey Jinny,
    You said I have got to remember it isn’t a numbers game.Would you like to expand on that?I can’t recall referring to anything that could be called a numbers game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Jinny,you speak in riddles.Asked what first?

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

    muggins (11) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    …….

    So what you are saying Sleuth, is that you can’t provide any proof that David killed his mother then?

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

    muggins (13) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Jinny,you speak in riddles.Asked what first?

    I asked first for proof that David killed his mother, then for proof that he killed Arawa.. No one seems to be able to provide that proof. You keep raving on about the same things you’ve always raved on about, despite them being disproven long ago. I thought you might like to change the record and discuss the other victims, but you don’t seem to be able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    And the bull-crappers go for it at length touching down everywhere except on dear Robin’s hands.
    On the subject of manners, I’ll be teaching somebody some manners next week.

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

    Muggins:
    “Just take those scratch marks and bruising on Bain’s upper body.Please explain to me ,nostalgia and co,how you think those bruises got there.And don’t tell me it was the hand of god.[I put a lower case g because I am a devout atheist,so help me god]“.

    There is no significance of the scratches on David’s torso to the killings. They were not there on the day of the killings.

    They were not seen or noted by the three people (doctor and two police) that saw him during a full body search that day.
    The full body search required the person to note on a diagram all marks, bruises, etc to the entire body area.

    The same examination required the doctor to take intimate body samples, including penile etc.

    All David’s clothes were removed before this examination in the presence of a forensic specialist so any possible evidence on them could be protected and tested. This was the same reason Weir instructed him to be removed from the house on a chair, to protect whatever evidence he may have on his person and prevent it from being contaminated.

    After having all his clothes removed by the doctor, he was required to put on a complete new set of clean clothing, and was accompanied by the three people mentioned above at all times during these procedures.

    None of them saw any scratches on his chest.

    The scratch marks were seen by two people days after the killings. One described them as downward scratches and the other as going across.

    One described them as being on the left of the chest, the other on the right.

    One had another person present at the time he said he saw them, who didn’t see any scratches. This person did not report the scratches for some years after the first trial.

    Fact, the scratches had nothing to do with the killings and are not relevant to an exploration of them.

    The first people that saw him that day did not note the bruises on David’s face.

    They were initially described by the Doctor that saw him later, as being recent. David Bain fainted or blacked out and fell backwards between the bed and the wall that morning. At the first trial a diagram was presented in court that encouraged the jury to believe there was nothing David could have hurt his head on, however, a subsequent photo was obtained from crown evidence and presented in the second trial that showed there was a set of drawers and other objects that could have caused the bruising.

    The bruising was also on the right side of the forehead, and not in a position or of the kind that could have been sustained from having glasses forcibly removed from the face. The Crown theory that this is how they were obtained also doesn’t account for the large differences in height between David and his brother, the difference in strength, with Stephen having on one hand to use as the other was incapacitated by a bullet wound, and that Stephens was bleeding profusely from a head wound at the time, it also fails to account for why David would need glasses in a dimly lit house when his previous use of glasses was required for distance viewing.

    David’s optician reported his vision would start to blur after 30 cm, not that he would lose the ability to see or recognise objects and people beyond that range. According to witnesses David had spent the entire weekend in the public arena prior without wearing the glasses, despite taking part in several social events including practise of an opera he was going to take part in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “I’t be me telling porkies, about an agreement, that first of all wasn’t an agreement, then suddenly was again, but was unsigned or was never received but if you want to put money on it, say $5,000 then we’ll see who is hysterical and tell porkies. $5,000 grand motor mouth?”

    Whaaaat? So the muppet who threatens everyone who disagrees with him with a lawsuit, now wants to take a bet? For the sum of $5000 grand? Thats actually $5 million NNZ – I doubt you could afford it.

    Pfffttt…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Hi Kimbo.
    Yes,I am aware I am not in dialogue with people with a capacity for self-examination,honesty,or an ability to recognise self-deceit.Hence my pseudonym.
    But I live in hope that other people will read all the posts on this topic and decide for themselves which group approaches the debate in a logical,commonsense manner,and which does not.
    Refer the above post as a classic example.

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

    Muggins:
    ” And what about those glasses that were found in his room?That missing lens found in Stephen’s room has to link him to the murder of Stephen,at the very least.And let’s not forget what Bain told his aunt on the morning after the murders.He told her he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were in being repaired.They weren’t perfect,he said,but they got him by.They got him by,alright!”

    1. David’s aunt did not give testimony regarding David stating his wore his mother’s glasses until five years after the first trial.
    2. David’s aunt was not able to confirm which pair of his mother’s glasses he was talking about.
    3. There were no witnesses that saw David wearing any glasses in the weekend concern, despite his being out and about, and practicing for an opera etc.
    4. David was asked on the stand if he was wearing the broken glasses that weekend. He said no.
    5. David had previous told his lawyer he had been wearing his mother’s glasses. He did not say which pair he had been wearing.
    6. Margaret’s optician had provided her with at least two pairs of glasses since her return from PNG, neither were the pair found broken.
    7. There was no DNA, blood or fingerprints found on the broken frame or lens to indicate they had been involved in the murder of Stephen.
    8. David stated they weren’t in his room the night before the killings. They may have been and he hadn’t seen them in the untidy house.
    9. The optician stated the lens in the glasses were too dirty/dusty to have been used recently for viewing.
    10. There are many reasons why Stephen could have had a single lens in his room. There were objects belonging to other family members found in every room of the house. As there was nothing on the glasses that tied to them to his murder, they mean nothing more than any other item in that house. For some reason people desperate to prove a case they have no other proof for, try to cling desperately to these glasses. .

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

    Muggins: “And what about Bain having his brother’s blood on his clothing.How did that get there?Don’t tell me you believe that rubbish about Bain somehow putting his hand in Stephen’s blood and then grabbing hold of his crotch.Don’t tell me that you believe that the blood on his T-shirt might have been old blood.”

    David did have a small amount of Stephen’s smudge blood on his clothing. The Crown’s own witness stated the small amount of blood on the back of his t-shirt was NOT consistent with having seeped through another garment (thus excluding David from wearing the blood soaked green jersey) She stated the lines and nature indicated it was consistent with having brushed up against some blood, probably that which was on several door jambs in the house.
    The very small smudge of blood on his bike shorts was also stated as being transferred blood and could have got there by his picking up the cat or some other object.

    The very small amount of blood is more of an indication that he wasn’t responsible than tying him to the killings. It would be extremely suspicious if David did not have some blood on him after his walking through the house, which had blood in many places.

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

    Muggins: “And what about that blood under Bain’s duvet cover?Don’t tell,me,nostalgia and co,that you believe the cat jumped up on the bed and placed it’s bloody? paw under that duvet cover.I mean the cat jumps up on the bed,right?It doesn’t leave any blood where it lands,right?But it manages to leave blood under the duvet cover.Gorblimey charlie.”

    You haven’t checked your facts and how that blood was discovered and when. When you do, you will know how stupid your statement above is.
    Not worth the time to answer it.

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

    Muggins: “And what about him hearing Laniet gurgling.Surely you don’t believe ,nostalgia and co,that she was dead when he heard her gurgling.Surely you didn’t believe it was the washing machine he heard gurgling.Anyway,if he did her her gurgling when he arrived home he would have phoned the emergency services pdq,not waited for 20 minutes before he dialled 111”.

    As you well know, there is a letter from Dr Dempster to the Crown telling them it was highly possible for Laniet’s body to have continued making noises for some time after she died.

    With assistance David was able to recover memories where he checked on his little sister. The injuries to her head and simply touching her would have been indication she was dead.

    What proof do you have that he waited 20 minutes from the time he saw Laniet to phoning the police. He was at the gate of the house at 6.45 am. From there he did a number of things that would have taken time, including sorting washing, loading it into the machine etc. Once he discovered his mother dead, he no doubt, as anyone would be, moved very slowly through the house, not sure that anyone else was there or not, but out of concern for the family, wanting to check and make sure they were all there. At 7 am the dog started barking so loud, and in an unusual manner for her, that the neighbour noticed it. David reported he blacked out at one point. Do you have any proof of how long he was blacked out for, or how long is was between the time he saw Laniet and him making his way to the phone and taking it into his room?

    Sometimes you seem to agree with what David has said and other times you don’t. Selective cheerie picking.

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

    Muggins: “And what do you reckon about that piece of cardboard that was found in his room with five hand drawn targets on it?He said he used that target to sight the rifle in.So it took him 29 shots to sight the rifle in?Come off it,pull the other one.What’s more,he said his father had drawn rabbits ears on the target that was used to sight the rifle in.There were no rabbit’s ears drawn on that target that was found in his room.”

    He had five targets, so what? Were they connected to the murders in anyway? What evidence do you have that the shots in those targets were made by David? What about the empty cartridges in Robin’s caravan, and the target he had?

    What significance does five targets all attached have, apart from the number, to the deaths of five different people, in five separate positions? You are getting desperate to tie something so insignificant, especially as it was already well known that David and his father shared the love of using the rifle and it was his father who helped him sight it etc.

    The message is certainly getting across to me. You are desperate to try and piece something to make your old worn out theory using the disputed and defunct trial one transcripts.

    So again I ask – Let’s take this one step at a time, dealing with each individual victim.

    Provide ONE piece of evidence that proves David Bain killed his mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    muggins says: “Where did I say I had signed any agreement?I wonder if you have got the wrong bloke.I was waiting to see a final draft.I asked the lawyer to send it too me and he never did. BTW,what’s with this sending messages addressed to a time?Bit childish,isn’t it,even for a David Bain supporter.”

    Er, for the record, you didn’t say you had signed any agreement – thats exactly what I pointed out to the muppet who claimed you did.

    And the only one who has sent a message addressed to a time was Nostalgia-NZ (March 9th, 2012 at 5:23 pm) when he said: “The poster at 4.56 expect some correspondence next week…” and I quoted him: “Elaycee (2,269) Says: March 9th, 2012 at 6:09 pm “The poster at 4.56 expect some correspondence next week…. blah blah blah…” because it was a pathetic attempt by NNZ to muzzle comments made earlier.

    Sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    2.43

    ‘We have both signed this agreement.I now wish to have my suspension lifted.Should you wish to confirm this agreement has been made you can contact Mr ———————.His email address is ——————-and his phone no. is ——————-.
    I anticipate hearing from you within the next 12 hours or so that my suspension has been lifted.
    Regards,’

    Hard to follow much? A good way of proving you didn’t sign an agreement by writing elsewhere and saying that you did.
    Haha, the bet still stands if you’ve got any gonads. Put your money where your enormous trap is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. big bruv (13,728 comments) says:

    Just imagine how pissed off Jinny and NNS are going to be when David Bain is refused any tax payer money (I refuse to call it compensation)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, you’re so tough and menacing. A/S/L

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    The suicide as portrayed (which incidentally took TWO people to demonstrate) in the comedy act showed one hand on the silencer as a guide. Why then is there only Stephen’s fingerprints on the silencer and not any of Robin’s?

    Nostalgis NZ: “but he did wipe bloody hands on the laundry towel, leaving smears on his hands, I guess there’s an explanation for that as well.”

    I understood it was Robin’s own blood and was a result of his injuries incurred during spouting repair.

    Jinny You are entitled to an opinion and can voice that, but you cannot publish it as FACT, when it is not.

    Peculiar how so many “facts” have evolved out of opinions during the retrial.

    Jinny: “Karam has supported David and assisted him with the compensation claim, which David will get.”

    Does that mean David will renege on the signed agreement he made with Mr Karam all those years ago to share 50/50 in any proceeds?

    Jinny: “There is more than sufficient evidence that proves David’s innocence.”

    For evidence please substitute hearsay.

    Jinny: “I believe according to preliminary reports (which sadly you aren’t privy too), is doing very well.”

    Are you suggesting that Justice Binnie is consulting with you?

    Jinny: “The government have a prescribed procedure they must follow. Regardless of whether you or the entire members of parliament support you, they must still pay compensation if Binnie finds that David Bain was innocent based on the balance of probabilities”

    Oh no they don’t. They have discretion.

    The Crown has discretion to consider “extraordinary circumstances” claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines where it is in the interests of justice to do so. The discretion is exercised very rarely.
    Being able to establish innocence on the balance of probabilities is a minimum requirement, consistent with the Cabinet guidelines. There are stricter criteria for claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines, which include an applicant being able to establish their unequivocal innocence (i.e. innocence proved to the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
    The same test applies to David Bain’s application for compensation. Mr Bain’s application is being considered under Cabinet’s residual discretion as his case falls outside the Cabinet guidelines.

    Jinny: “David’s aunt did not give testimony regarding David stating his wore his mother’s glasses until five years after the first trial.”

    David had already told his solicitor and the Crown solicitor that he would testify at the first trial to wearing the glasses so it was obviously not necessary to have the same testimony repeated. It was only because he changed his story (ie lied on the stand) that it became necessary in the retrial.

    Jinny: “David had previous told his lawyer he had been wearing his mother’s glasses. He did not say which pair he had been wearing.”

    Splitting hairs again are we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (520) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    And the bull-crappers go for it at length touching down everywhere except on dear Robin’s hands.
    Robins right hand had pooled blood on it which would account for much of the red dish colouration, where pressure may cause a slight whitening of the skin surface which closely resembles smear at times. As regards bagging the hands it may sound good but is not essential as (1) David had washed his hands, which is I understand not in dispute. GSR gases very quickly reform into the compound they were before the fire arm is discharged. I would have been concerned about bagging had David not washed his hands, that rendered the test useless as even if David had held his hands near the muzzle. A pointless red herring in fact a large school of red herrings.

    On the subject of manners, I’ll be teaching somebody some manners next week.
    That sounds suspiciously like a threat, not something some one with you history should be doing I would have thought.

    Jinny (89) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Muggins:
    “Just take those scratch marks and bruising on Bain’s upper body.Please explain to me ,nostalgia and co,how you think those bruises got there.And don’t tell me it was the hand of god.[I put a lower case g because I am a devout atheist,so help me god]“.

    There is no significance of the scratches on David’s torso to the killings. They were not there on the day of the killings.

    They were not seen or noted by the three people (doctor and two police) that saw him during a full body search that day.
    The full body search required the person to note on a diagram all marks, bruises, etc to the entire body area.

    The same examination required the doctor to take intimate body samples, including penile etc.

    That the a doctor and two police officers did not see marks on the body of David Bain has a much simpler and more logical explanation;

    There was no strip search both officers gave evidence but were never asked if a strip search took place by the defence as Lawyer only ask questions they know the answers to could it be the question was not asked as it was known the answer would be “no”

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

    corrigenda: bottom first.

    No it is not splitting hairs. They argument given by counterspinners is that there was only one possible pair of glasses, therefore when David said he was wearing a pair of his mothers glasses, it must have been the pair that were broken.
    This was again inferred by the questions put to the Aunt, but the truth is, there were more than two pairs of Margaret’s glasses in that house.

    David was asked on the stand was he wearing the pair that were broken that weekend, – he said no. This does not mean he lied to his aunty, he could have been wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses, but those questions were not asked. He was not asked was he wearing any glasses that weekend, just was he wearing THOSE glasses that weakend. Mrs Clark did not ask David for clarification of which pair he was wearing.

    Just as David told his lawyer he would admit to wearing a pair of his mothers glasses that weekend. He was not asked which pair, just whether he did wear her glasses that weekend. What you need is something where David Bain said he was wearing the same pair of glasses that were produced for evidence, and you don’t have that. Instead you have evidence that says that broken pair of glasses wouldn’t be any use to anyone if they had worn them that weekend.

    The reasons for a retrial were not based on the glasses evidence alone as you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    corrijenda

    You tripped yourself at the beginning, it took somebody to feed the rifle onto the skull cap Dempster made. The comedy act is yourself for failing to appreciate even the most basic evidence, the display showed the ease of Robin’s suicide who of course didn’t need to feed the barrel onto a 600mm rod that showed the trajectory. Wake up.

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

    Jinny: “The government have a prescribed procedure they must follow. Regardless of whether you or the entire members of parliament support you, they must still pay compensation if Binnie finds that David Bain was innocent based on the balance of probabilities”

    Oh no they don’t. They have discretion.

    The Crown has discretion to consider “extraordinary circumstances” claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines where it is in the interests of justice to do so. The discretion is exercised very rarely.
    Being able to establish innocence on the balance of probabilities is a minimum requirement, consistent with the Cabinet guidelines. There are stricter criteria for claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines, which include an applicant being able to establish their unequivocal innocence (i.e. innocence proved to the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
    The same test applies to David Bain’s application for compensation. Mr Bain’s application is being considered under Cabinet’s residual discretion as his case falls outside the Cabinet guidelines.

    The Cabinet has appointed Judge Binnie to investigate and make the recommendation to Cabinet. If they do not accept his recommendation and, for example say that the balance of opinion rests with the community, then they have deviated from the prescribed process. The process does not allow for public opinion to have any influence on the decision. If Cabinet were to be influenced by it, and make their decision based on public opinion, then they leave themselves open to legal challenge and in the end, paying even more for compensation.

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

    Jinny: “Karam has supported David and assisted him with the compensation claim, which David will get.”

    Does that mean David will renege on the signed agreement he made with Mr Karam all those years ago to share 50/50 in any proceeds?

    You misrepresent that agreement. The agreement is concerning any books or other things PRODUCED by Mr Karam, of which he could keep the entire profits himself, however has an agreement to give 50% to David. The agreement does not work the other way round. David has no agreement to give Mr Karam 50% of anything he makes. The information you’ve stated above is a lie, promoted by Kent Parker and Counterspin.

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

    Jinny: “I believe according to preliminary reports (which sadly you aren’t privy too), is doing very well.”

    Are you suggesting that Justice Binnie is consulting with you?

    No, but someone has shared details with me.

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

    Jinny: “There is more than sufficient evidence that proves David’s innocence.”

    For evidence please substitute hearsay.

    In your dreams Corrigenda. Sadly your dreams like much of what you promote, are fantasy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Once they have the recommendation of Justice Binnie any compensation payout is at the discretion of Cabinet. It is not a given.

    Nostalgia NZ, Are you suggesting that Robin could have held the rifle to his head with only one hand? Surely if you were going to suicide in that manner, a guiding hand would have been necessary otherwise who knows where the shot would have ended up?

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

    It’s amazing how Corrigenda likes to pull people’s posts apart but doesn’t actually offer any information or any valid argument.

    Corrigenda: Provide one piece of evidence that proves David Bain killed his mother?

    Don’t suppose they’ll answer that one either, instead they’ll find something semantic to criticise. In typical counterspin fashion, they don’t actually have any arguments, just the same old disproven evidence from the first trial that was thrown out by the Privy council and the second trial. They’ve really taken that rejection to heart, and been sore losers ever since.

    Sit back, here they come with more vitriol for anyone that dares to disagree with them…….. off you go corrigenda, your turn *smile*

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

    corrigenda (9) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    Once they have the recommendation of Justice Binnie any compensation payout is at the discretion of Cabinet. It is not a given.

    The Cabinet must explain it’s actions. If they deviate from what the recommendation is, then they leave themselves open to challenge. Their instructions to Binnie are very specific, have you seen them, and no, they are not what you typed above? The Cabinet (representing the Crown) would never make their decision based on what the public wanted due to the doorway that they would then open. I believe the decision will be made well before the next general election so you’ll have time to get over your hissy fit, and still vote for them.

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

    corrigenda (9) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Nostalgia NZ, Are you suggesting that Robin could have held the rifle to his head with only one hand? Surely if you were going to suicide in that manner, a guiding hand would have been necessary otherwise who knows where the shot would have ended up?

    Duh! Not needed if you have it against your forhead which holds it steady.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Bain talked about his sister Laniet today in an address to the International Justice Conference in Perth organised by Justicewa (freeing victims of injustice).

    One of the most painful things in his family’s murder was knowing his sister had sought his help before she was killed, David Bain has told a Perth audience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6555274/David-Bain-reveals-painful-family-moment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    David Bain is innocent

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Duh, he was not shot through the forehead.

    Ryan: “He was referring to finding out in later years his sister Laniet, 18, had come to find him at university shortly before she was killed to seek his help.”

    How did he know she was seeking his help? I thought he was not at uni at the time he shot his family but unemployed having previously turned down a job.

    Jinny can you show me one piece of evidence that shows Robin killed his wife?

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

    Ryan well he would know. “please don’t do it [censored]. please stop” she cried and gurgled. It is Robin who is innocent IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    I am glad he admitted he was going to tell them a “story”. There is hope yet.

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

    corrigenda: I asked first, answering a question with a question seems something someone who makes out they are the boards grammer teacher, shouldn’t do.

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

    corrigenda (11) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
    Duh, he was not shot through the forehead.

    Ryan: “He was referring to finding out in later years his sister Laniet, 18, had come to find him at university shortly before she was killed to seek his help.”

    How did he know she was seeking his help? I thought he was not at uni at the time he shot his family but unemployed having previously turned down a job.

    Jinny can you show me one piece of evidence that shows Robin killed his wife?

    – like many of your thoughts, you were wrong. David had returned to university to take a different course that he was doing very well at. His professor and lectures reported he was settled, class rep and seemed to be enjoying his varsity life.

    I would suggest to you, that if David made the claim at a public conference he would have been sure he could prove what he said.

    I didn’t say he shot himself though the forehead. I said he could have steadied the gun with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Message on the computer before David home, Robin shot the family then himself in way the gun fired to ricochet in such a way to count him out and ultimately putting blame on David unfortunately

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

    corrigenda (11) Says:

    March 10th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
    I am glad he admitted he was going to tell them a “story”. There is hope yet.

    sto·ry 1 (stôr, str)
    n. pl. sto·ries
    1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as:
    a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events: The witness changed her story under questioning.
    b. An anecdote: came back from the trip with some good stories.
    c. A lie: told us a story about the dog eating the cookies.
    2.
    a. A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader; a tale.
    b. A short story.
    3. The plot of a narrative or dramatic work.
    4. A news article or broadcast.
    5. Something viewed as or providing material for a literary or journalistic treatment: “He was colorful, he was charismatic, he was controversial, he was a good story” (Terry Ann Knopf).
    6. The background information regarding something: What’s the story on these unpaid bills?
    7. Romantic legend or tradition: a hero known to us in story.
    tr.v. sto·ried, sto·ry·ing, sto·ries
    1. To decorate with scenes representing historical or legendary events.
    2. Archaic To tell as a story.

    Have a nice time trying to make your ‘story’ fit Corrigenda. The word Story has a number of definitions, although we know which one you’ll try to stick on it. Pity it’s up to the narrater to define it’s meaning.

    David is innocent. smile!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    corrigenda
    4.08

    Even with smaller posts you trip yourself up. I’m not suggesting that Robin held the rifle with one hand, he certainly steadied it with one hand, the butt on the chair along with his right foot, leg bent, the leg which had spatter going in 2 directions. Grow some gonads and explain that spatter. Or the spatter on his right shoe that didn’t come from his own wound, man up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    an innocent man deserves millions in compensation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Jinny: “I didn’t say he shot himself though the forehead. I said he could have steadied the gun with it.”

    Huh? Let me try and get my head around this one. Am I reading you correctly? He steadied the gun on his forehead but managed to shoot himself in the temple? Are you sure your name is Jinny and not someone else who makes “facts” evolve to fit a theory?

    Mmmmmm it’s not me giving people lessons in grammar. Guess who it is?

    Nostalgis NZ: “Even with smaller posts you trip yourself up.”

    So educate me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Ryan: “an innocent man deserves millions in compensation”

    Agree with you there but this ain’t an innocent man. You will have to listen to Billy Joel for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    corrigenda were you at the scene? my Dad lived across the street from the Bains around this time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (562 comments) says:

    corrigenda were you at the scene? my Dad lived across the street from the Bains around this time

    Shit, I’m convinced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Nostalgia NZ: “I’m not suggesting that Robin held the rifle with one hand, he certainly steadied it with one hand, the butt on the chair along with his right foot, leg bent, the leg which had spatter going in 2 directions.”

    Right, then if he steadied it with one hand and had the other on the trigger, where are the fingerprints from where he steadied it? According to one of the demonstrations in court the steadying hand was on the silencer holding it in place next to his temple. Only Stephen’s prints were found on the silencer.

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

    I’m confused now, what does david bain mean when he said the most upsetting thing was finding out years later that laniet had gone to university to ask him for help?
    I thought he picked up Laniet the day before the killings and spent the evening with her. Did she not ask for help that night, if not does that mean she was over it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – speaking of gonads, if you have any at all, then fill in the gaps in your statement at 12.20pm.

    Put up, or STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Haha – so the david bain cheer squad continue to play tag in the hope that, sooner or later people will tire of their fantasy version of events and somehow think it’s plausible.

    Perhaps they’d also like to buy a bridge….

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

    Elaycee – LOL and I suppose your ‘tag team’ act is different because ?????? Get real, it’s a message board, people come and go. Sadly for you, what you call our ‘fantasy version’ has been proven in court, whilst your fantasy version remains just that and was thrown out by the privy council after being declared a miscarriage of justice. !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Jinny: I didn’t say he shot himself though the forehead. I said he could have steadied the gun with it.

    You still haven’t been able to explain how Robin steadied the gun with his forehead but managed to shoot himself in the temple.

    My main doubt about Robin Bain committing murder then suicide revolves around the way in which he is supposed to have performed this final act. Being the owner of several long barrelled firearms including a similar .22, it beats me how he managed, as a right handed man, to shoot himself in the left temple with a rifle that had a silencer attached. It is just so improbable it defies belief and as such, I don’t believe it. And before Jinny starts bombarding and quoting statistics at me, can she supply statistics whereby a father murdered all of his family except one who “deserved to stay”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    David didn’t do it a miscarriage of justice…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    Jinny

    No version was “proven” in Court. What happened was that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did not return findings of fact on the issues that you advance as proof of innocence. The jury’s finding could have been anywhere on a continuum between “innocent” and “more than likely guilty but not quite over the requisite threshold for guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    I should also add that the Privy Council did not throw out any version – fanciful or otherwise. It simply advised that evidence that was either unavailable or otherwise not heard should, in fact, have been heard. PC expressly refused to comment on guilt or otherwise. It stated that such issues were the sole responsibility for a jury.

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

    corrigenda (15) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    Jinny: I didn’t say he shot himself though the forehead. I said he could have steadied the gun with it.

    You still haven’t been able to explain how Robin steadied the gun with his forehead but managed to shoot himself in the temple.

    My main doubt about Robin Bain committing murder then suicide revolves around the way in which he is supposed to have performed this final act. Being the owner of several long barrelled firearms including a similar .22, it beats me how he managed, as a right handed man, to shoot himself in the left temple with a rifle that had a silencer attached. It is just so improbable it defies belief and as such, I don’t believe it. And before Jinny starts bombarding and quoting statistics at me, can she supply statistics whereby a father murdered all of his family except one who “deserved to stay”?

    – and yet Dr Dempster agreed on the stand that the positions shown by the defence were accepted as possible suicide positions and DID NOT require unusual contortion of the body. I have a very close friend who is a duck shooter. He is right handed, but uses the left hand for the trigger, as does his brother and apparently his father taught them that way, because he believed a better aim was achieved that way. Of course I’m sure committing suicide is a lot different to shooting ducks so it really doesn’t tell us anything.

    I don’t know how many men have killed families and then commited suicide and left one alive, that isn’t a statistic I’ve looked for before. I can give you all the other statistic for familicide and subsequent suicide, but you’ve had the before and choose not to accept them.

    Casually I can think of one example in NZ and that is the Schaffer family where the grand daughter was left alive and other family members who were not home at the time, were not ‘waited for’ before the father shot himself. Incidently, he was consider a lovely man by many people to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    @Nookin – thanks for pointing that out. You beat me to it.

    And now I see the david bain cheer squad’s orchestrated media campaign continues at pace – this time in the form a story about his prepared speech to a Perth conference.

    Jesus wept. I can but hope that Justice Binnie can see through this cynically timed, orchestrated, media blitz attempt to rewrite history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  505. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    Where did this mob come from? Have they been banned from trademe?

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

    The press conference was a total PR disaster.
    Why did Joe Karam interject everytime David Bain was asked a question.
    If I was david Bain I’d be so angry to think Joe Karam didn’t trust me to answer the press’s questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  507. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    You have to remember that Mr Karam knows all the answers and poor David must have lost his voice again after he told his “story”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  508. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    One judge might well make the occasional slip in summarising the evidence in a case, but how can so many errors pass by three judges? This calls into question the soundness of a recent proposal by our Law Commission that factual issues should be decided by a small panel of judges. The Commission likens this to the practice in Belgium, but China would also be a relevant point of reference.
    Work done by committees tends to be distributed among members, whereas in trials it is brought home to jurors that they are individually responsible for their decision. The Court of Appeal is over-worked and under-resourced, and its judges – all of whom are of high quality by international standards – are encouraged to bring in unanimous decisions in criminal cases. That is hardly an environment that will promote accuracy …

    – Jinny … Another interesting review, by a well respected and influential member of the legal profession [Don Mathias]

    “It is the failings of the judiciary that are of most concern to readers of this site.”
    Not entirely unbiased himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  509. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    “Where did this mob come from? Have they been banned from trademe?”

    No idea, Nookin. Even trademe has standards, so it’s quite possible.

    But they’re a collective of zealots who, at the very instant they have to consider something that dispels their fantasies and counters their spin, put fingers in their ears and shout “Na na na na na – I can’t hear you.”

    It’s almost like a religion. That’s it – they’re a cult! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  510. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    5.46

    Haha. Put your money up if you’re not full of it, otherwise keep up your hysterical bleating. I’ll put it up in a lawyer’s office you bring your 5 grand along. Look on the bright side you’ll even be able to tell me to shut up.

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

    Joe interjected once, it didn’t show him interjecting multiple times, so lets stop the hysterical exaggeration.

    He interjected because he was angry and rightly so. Van Beynen was lying. What David said was – “I will never forgive him for what he has done”.

    He referred to, “if he had done it”.

    There was not one witness at any trial or in any witness statement that said David had stated he hated his father. Perhaps Van Beynen should start practising the question “would you like fries with that’ as he appears to have lost his edge on reality as a journalist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  512. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – you could prove your version of events in relation to this supposed ‘agreement’ by simply putting names to the gaps. You brought up the mere suggestion of an ‘agreement’ in the first place so now it’s time to either put up, or to STFU.

    No? I thought not. No surprises.

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

    What a stupid question Elaycee. Even the most idiotic person would know that details of legal agreements between parties are best not published on the internet. That’s like asking me to tell you my phone number, something best not done on an internet. Challenges such as yours are pathetic and childish under such conditions because no one in their right mind would take them up, however, considering the JFRB group, I guess you’re used to talking to members who are ‘not in their right minds’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  514. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Jinny – or is that Nostalgia? It wasn’t a question – it was a request. Comprehension not flash in your household, huh?

    Bwahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Elaycee

    Keep evading the bet, it suits you. Just because some other dick breaks an agreement I’m not going to, I’ll enforce the breach though, and put 5 grand on it.

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

    Elaycee, or is that …..

    I’m not nostaligia and you should know that. Actually, I’m not any of the people you have accused me of being in the last couple of weeks. You seem to have forgotten your Nemesis, or don’t you remember when I got you banned from Trademe, obvious too long ago for you short memory.

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

    Jinny did you watch TV3 or TV one?
    I saw Karam interject at least 3 times. It was quite bizarre. I thought he was goingto say david had lost his voice again.
    Even before TV 1 crossed to the press conference, they said it didn’t go well. KI imagine it willo be up there on demand soon and you can confirm it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  518. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Jinny – you talk shit. I’ve never posted on trademe and therefore I have never been banned. I don’t trade either. Never have.

    Yet again you demonstrate your mastery of the inaccuracy.

    Next?

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

    Belinda (8) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
    Jinny did you watch TV3 or TV one?
    I saw Karam interject at least 3 times. It was quite bizarre. I thought he was goingto say david had lost his voice again.
    Even before TV 1 crossed to the press conference, they said it didn’t go well. KI imagine it willo be up there on demand soon and you can confirm it.

    I watched TV3, and I do agree, Joe needs to let David speak more for himself, he is capable, however, the fact remains, Martin Van Beynen was lying. The Clarks never said David told them he hated his father, that statement was a complete lie and Van Beynen knows it. David never said anything like that. He said he would never forgive him if he had killed the family, which is understandable but doesn’t translate to hate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  520. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    From TV3 NEWS this evening –
    Karam said, as his case is being considered for compensation, Bain couldn’t comment on the evidence.

    But Karam can, and write his latest book on it while acting for David for compensation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  521. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    i wil be reading this report from the perth conference in the herald on sunday

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

    Elaycee (2,277) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
    Jinny – you talk shit. I’ve never posted on trademe and therefore I have never been banned. I don’t trade either. Never have.

    Yet again you demonstrate your mastery of the inaccuracy.

    Next?

    Yeah right………… tui anyone…
    You be who ever you want to be, your secrets ok with me. After all we can be whoever we like on the internet – Just call me Lady Di.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  523. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    He spoke warmly of his parents and his siblings saying he was so busy with his fantastic life at the time (1994) he was unaware of the malevolent undercurrent in his home life. 
 
”This could have been the one thing that could have changed the outcome,” he said.
 
He was referring to finding out in later years his sister Laniet, 18, had come to find him at university shortly before she was killed to seek his help.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6555274/David-Bain-reveals-painful-family-moment

    Did not David talk with Laniet to ensure she would be at home that night?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  524. Elaycee (4,377 comments) says:

    Jinny – I repeat, you talk shit. And to help you with your comprehension, the term “I’ve never posted…” means exactly that – ‘I’ have never posted at trademe. Not under any name. Nor under any pseudonym. Now I know you’re slow on the uptake so perhaps someone else can explain to you what it actually means.

    Now, foxtrot oscar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  525. RF (1,380 comments) says:

    A very popular thread. My opinion based on what I have been told and read.. 100% GUILTY.

    I am sure the hand wringers will disagree.

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

    Sofia (246) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Did not David talk with Laniet to ensure she would be at home that night?

    – Yes he did, but he only found out she had been looking for him years after the deaths. He wouldn’t have known to ask her what she wanted. No one knows what she wanted to talk about, maybe she wanted to borrow some money, or tell some dreadful secret. Who knows and I don’t think anyone can objectively read anything into that comment, other than David, who obviously regrets not being there for his sister. Like so much to do with this case, it doesn’t mean much, except that Laniet can’t have been too scared of him, if she sought out his company.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  527. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Some of this is getting a bit silly. If you don’t want to take the bet Elaycee that’s fine with me.

    As to more news coming out of the International Justice Conference was that David spoke well, but that Joe did not. Probably pure emotion for Joe and I couldn’t blame him for that. Apparently some of other interesting stuff has been from some of the police who’ve spoken from the other sides of , Miscarriages of Justice – very little thought given to that in NZ.

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

    Elaycee (2,278) Says:
    March 10th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
    Jinny – I repeat, you talk shit. And to help you with your comprehension, the term “I’ve never posted…” means exactly that – ‘I’ have never posted at trademe. Not under any name. Nor under any pseudonym. Now I know you’re slow on the uptake so perhaps someone else can explain to you what it actually means.

    Now, foxtrot oscar.

    If I was wrong, I’m sorry, but there was a person that typed statements almost word for word that you do, perhaps a twin sister? At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who anyone is, who people are on here or any site really is of no consequence unless they make their identity known for some reason. Again apologies, accusations in the heat o fthe moment, I am passionate about this subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Did not David talk with Laniet to ensure she would be at home that night?

    – Yes he did, but he only found out she had been looking for him years after the deaths. He wouldn’t have known to ask her what she wanted.

    So you accept Laniet was seeking David out specially at university [as he learns – important enough that it is noted years later] but she would not have said anything on that occasion when spoke he to her, just before she was killed.

    Elsewhere is the suggestion she was going home to confront Robin but didn’t apparently tell david of that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  530. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Fact: The trigger lock with the spare key still in it was found on the floor of David’s room with some live rounds.

    Fact: David stated on two occasions that he was the only one who knew where the spare key was kept.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bain-testified-that-he-was-the-only-person-who-knew-the-location-of-the-trigger-lock-keys

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  531. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Reed to Dempster re the spatter on Robin’s index finger on his left hand.

    Q Has it ever occurred to you, Doctor, that the direction it is coming from indicates that it might have come from someone else?
    A It certainly could have.
    Q And if it has come from somebody else, obviously all your surmising and theorizing about the position when someone’s holding the gun just falls to the ground, doesn’t it.
    A That’s right.
    Q In fact it would just be a waste of time that evidence.
    A Yes.

    Of course there was also the spatter on Robin’s shoe that can’t possibly have come from Robin’s wound, accordingly then, from one of the other dead? Dempster expressed a clear opinion, that based on the evidence the 2nd trial shouldn’t have gone ahead, in a emailed letter before the trial, but perhaps his message was to subtle for those that had something at stake. Of course Dempster was the Crown Pathologist. If someone had listened to him 10 million or more would have been saved.

    If you look at the photo of that spatter on Robin’s left index finger it could have arrived there when firing from an orthodox position, left hand upright, head shot, after of course he removed the gloves which he left in Stephen’s room. Highly possible arriving when he went back to finish off Laniet. All the Crown forensic people and those of the defence agreed that the blood smears on Robin’s hands was consistent with heavy staining, rinsed off but not scrubbed. Robin’s blood was on the towel in the laundry. This could be why nobody wants to talk about the suicide – of course Binnie will have no aversion to studying the forensic proof in detail, that’s his job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  532. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ, I would say you are right about Justice Binnie, can I add that his verdict will be the cause of much gnashing of teeth? I can hear them starting now.

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

    Jinny in case you missed the Press Conference on TV1. I don’t understand why they had one if Joe karam wasn’t going to let David answer anything. It was all very strange.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bain-recounts-pacific-paradise-childhood-4770234/video

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  534. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Not as strange as Robin having other peoples blood spatter on him, Belinda. Very, very, awkward trying to show he wasn’t the killer when he had other peoples spatter on him, and his own spatter inside the barrel of the rifle. What’s your opinion on that Belinda?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  535. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    If he wasn’t going to answer questions why bother to hold a press conference or did it have something to do with the $3,500 price tag that was quoted for an interview. Was that per person attending or for the whole lot??

    Did you kill your family? and he had to look at Mr Karam for an answer.

    He can’t even say why he still speaks favorably about his father without Mr Karam interjecting and taking over. Then Mr Karam says it can’t be commented on because of the upcoming compo claim. BUT we have had Mr Karam’s book, all Mr Karam’s interviews, David’s interview on 60 Minutes, David’s speech as well as Mr Karam’s speech at this conference, then this carefully censored press conference. One rule for all is obviously not the norm here.

    Then Mr Karam says David doesn’t know the trial evidence. Doesn’t he? Who was that sitting through the trial and the retrial then. Better send out a search party to find the real David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  536. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Look corrigenda has come back with an answer on that blood spatter on Robin’s trouser leg, how exciting.
    Sorry, no corrigenda hasn’t. Corrigenda is on about a tv show.
    Why not show some courage corrigenda, deal with the forensic evidence against daddy no 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  537. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Of course there was also the spatter on Robin’s shoe that can’t possibly have come from Robin’s wound

    Have a look at this photo and use your imagination. David lurking behind the curtain, Robin either in the bean bag or tying his shoe laces……

    Warning: This is a photo of the dead Robin Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  538. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Nostalgia NZ: “Very, very, awkward trying to show he wasn’t the killer when he had other peoples spatter on him, and his own spatter inside the barrel of the rifle.”

    Ummmm. I thought that the blood spots on Robin were tested and found to be all Robin’s blood. The only thing DNA found inside the barrel proves is that Robin was the last one shot and it was a fairly close shot. Nothing there to show who pulled the trigger. Funnily enough the only reference about it is the last day of summing up by the defence. I can’t find this claim being subject to any cross examination by The Crown or the Defence expert witnesses no matter where I search.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  539. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Interesting isn’t it Scott. Shows Robin’s right leg still bent in a way consistent with his suicide and the reason why spatter was going in 2 directions on the right trouser leg, you can also see his right shoe where spatter was going the wrong way as to have come from his wound, same as his left index finger, that spatter found there should have been going in the opposite direction if it was from Robin, that is, in a direction away from the thumb and across the nail. Good photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  540. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Very interesting Scott. It shows a very carefully stage managed scene. There is no way a low velocity rifle like a .22 would throw an adult body that far from the rifle. Any extra spatter would have been caused when the body was shifted into position to look like suicide. Also isn’t it weird how the shell case managed to fly itself through that tiny gap in the curtain, turn at a right angle and end up under a chair in the corner of the computer alcove??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  541. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    corrigenda
    9.26

    Ah, no. It’s not what we’re talking about. Spots are not spatter sunshine. Also wrong about the blood in barrel, known to the police from the outset, before the first trial, in Hentschels notes, but only known to the defence late in the retrial. Maybe you need to stops searching for information in disneyland. That could help out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  542. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (344 comments) says:

    David Bain has spoken lovingly about his murdered family at an international justice conference in Perth.

    Is it true that a booklet published by Joe Karam in 2001 called Innocent: Seven Critical Flaws in the Wrongful Conviction of David Bain. quotes David – “I find this state of limbo depressing and often hard to live with [referring to being in prison], but it is eminently easier than being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear.” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  543. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Never read it ‘puzzled’ but if you’ve read it yourself you’d surely know, then you could tell the children how come Robin’s hands had heavy stains before he rinsed, but did not scrub them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  544. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    Also isn’t it weird how the shell case managed to fly itself through that tiny gap in the curtain, turn at a right angle and end up under a chair in the corner of the computer alcove??

    Yup Corrigender, as is clearly illustrated in this diagram.

    It shows a very carefully stage managed scene.

    Yup. The body had been moved:

    When police examined the murder scene they found blood and brain matter from Robin Bain’s head wound on the curtains while his body was found lying 2-3 meters away from the curtain alcove.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/robin-bains-body-appeared-to-have-been-moved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  545. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Thanks Scott, that explains a lot.

    Not much on tv now that the Highlanders had another win, though I did wonder for a while which side Colin Slade was playing for, so might change my strides and go visit the casino for a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  546. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Old counterspin, the defamatory site spreading its crap again, Scott Chris and Corribender agreeing – how touching. Or is that corriegender, bender, or agenda Scottie?

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

    > But if Judge Binne were to take exception to you saying he was likely to take his friends opinion and be dishonest in his report…

    Hmmm I didn’t say anything of the sort. It’s a shame you have to make shit up. I am surprised, however, you know nothing about Sir Thomas Thorp’s report into the case. He looked at much of the evidence, so his opinion should be respected. And remember he went against the flow and expressed concerns with the conviction of Peter Ellis. He also wrote a book about possible miscarriages of justice in NZ. He’s also crticised the Justice Ministry for opposing a Criminal Cases Review Commission, which he supports. He is hardly a cheer leader for the establishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  548. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    If i found bodies in the house i would shake them to see if they are alive of course getting blood on me in the process, then police come and alter the scene so one can be assumed guilty because of a report taken after events happened

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  549. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Sunday June 19t 1994, the family sat together watched a movie, ate fish and chips.Estranged sister Laniet was staying for the weekend.David was awaken during the night by loud arguments and thinks his mother left for a time but then came back. David did his paper run the next morning. He came back and saw Mums light on thought she was awake. David went upstairs and found a open packet of bullets in his room and his rifle gone.David went to his mothers room and saw her propped up on pillows. Then he pulled the curtains and saw blood streaming down her face and realised she was dead. After that he said he had blacked out ( i would to in shock) and had marginal recall seeing Stephen curled up on the floor.One of the sisters was bent in a unusual position. There was blood all over Stephens room. He felt confused, he was blacking out, couldn’t focus and having random thoughts such as ” i need to hang the washing out” and ” i need to do my university essay” The next few days cut him “to the core”.He had to undergo a full medical strip search. Bains sadness turned into anger when he discussed the way he was treated during the first trial.”They systematically destroyed my family’s and my reputation.Everything i said fell on deaf ears.” He raised his voice saying “the system had failed me,it betrayed me” and described the justice system as a “creature without compassion”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  550. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    A very good read to be had here.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10791262

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

    Put it away (2,465) Says:

    March 4th, 2012 at 11:54 am
    “Is there no depth of bullshit this man won’t sink to?”

    does this answer your question?………..
    “This could have been the one thing that could have changed the outcome,” he said.
 
He was referring to finding out in later years his sister Laniet, 18, had come to find him at university shortly before she was killed to seek his help.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  552. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is still trying to say David Bain wasn’t wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses on the weekend prior to the murders,or that if he was they were a different pair from the pair found in his room.
    This from the Ministry of Justice Report.
    According to written and oral submissions made by both Mr Guest[Bain's lawyer]and Mr Wright[the Crown prosecutor]Mr Guest told Mr Wright that the glasses were Mrs Bain’s but the petitioner[Bain,just in case Jinny tries to make out it was some other petitioner]the petitioner would admit to wearing them during the weekend prior to the murders.And Bain was going to admit to wearing those glasses that were found in his room,just in case Jinny tries to make out he was going to admit to wearing another pair.
    In his evidence-in-chief at trial,however,the petitioner denied he had been wearing the spectacles,either in the weekend prior to the murders or for a year previously.
    The petitioner’s evidence came as a surprise to both parties.It was the subject of some discussion between the lawyers concerned.
    And of course we have Bain’s aunts evidence.So what if she only came forward five years later?She was at the trial,she would have heard David Bain lying about those glasses.No doubt she discussed it with her husband that very night.We would have never heard from her had it not been for the Court of Appeal hearings.
    So no-one alive saw Bain wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.So what?He himself said he only wore them for watching TV or going to lectures.He watched a video on the Sunday night.No doubt he wore those glasses then.But the people who would have seen him wearing those glasses while watching that video are all dead.
    And as for the suggestion that he could have been wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses,and not that pair that were found in his room,how absolutely ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  553. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    muggins, you seem to be well informed about the evidence in this case. Would you mind if I asked you some questions that have puzzled me, and would you answer them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  554. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Oh, I have to go out. Perhaps later this afternoon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  555. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see a letter sent to Trade Me has been published.What puzzles me is why the bloke or blokess sent that letter.Why didn’t he/she just send a copy of the agreement?Perhaps it was because the lawyer involved only told him that agreement was going to be signed by the other party.Perhaps he told that person that he was going to send him/her a copy of that agreement,but he never did.One wonders if the other party ever signed that agreement.One wonders if that is perhaps the reason why that lawyer didn’t send a copy of that agreement to that person,if in fact he didn’t.Because the other party never signed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  556. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Ok.Kanz,only too happy to oblige.I will be popping in from time to time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  557. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    One wonders why some dick would write to TM telling them he’d signed an agreement if he or she hadn’t. But one won’t be wondering for long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  558. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see that bloke/blokess says “We have signed an agreement”.But it is pretty obvious he/she had never seen that agreement,otherwise he/she would have sent a copy of it to Trade Me,one would have thought.I would suggest to that person that he/she contacts that other parties lawyer and ask him why he/she was never sent a copy of that agreement,if he/she happens to be posting here on kiwiblog and reads my message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  559. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Well of course the person with a bee in the bonnet is not, by what they have said earlier, the person that first signed an agreement, nor sent a letter to TM confirming it, – so they have nothing to worry about, presumably. Far, far better to let the Courts sort it out, particularly where there are also accusations against a member of the Bar and an undeniable perseverance to the agreement until said bloke or blokette chose to disguise themselves in order to break the agreement and not be caught. Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  560. Scott Chris (6,063 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is still trying to say David Bain wasn’t wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses on the weekend prior to the murders

    Well that begs the question: Whose glasses was David wearing that weekend?

    1) David’s own glasses were away being repaired that weekend. He didn’t have a spare pair.

    2) David suffered from severe astigmatism, so that anything more than a foot away from his eyes was heavily blurred.

    3) An optometrist testified to the fact that his mothers old glasses (which David had admitted wearing in the past) would give him 90% normal vision.

    4) One lens of his mother’s old glasses was found in Stephen’s room, the remaining lens and frames were on a chair in David’s room.

    5) A police officer sent into David’s room was asked by David to “hand me my glasses”, the officer observed that the remains of David’s mother’s glasses were the only glasses in the room but declined giving them to David.

    Clear evidence connecting David to the death of Stephen, and by extension, the rest of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  561. Nostalgia-NZ (5,120 comments) says:

    Scptt Chris

    That hat