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.

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

  1. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    pia
    10.05

    Haha

    You want the page numbers now dimwit? How much can you put in a mouth that big?

    Do you need pages and pages to fill that fly trap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimbo (6,414 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “I was saying that I believed him to be guilty, because of all the things I have read, on here and some other websites that seem to have a lot of information. The speech made me wonder if that was correct, that is all”.

    In an attempt to keep sensible dialogue going with someone who is prepared to consider with an open mind David Bain’s guilt or innocence, I won’t belabour the two responses I’ve given previously on this matter, Kanz.

    However, I’ll throw the question back to you, by asking, what did you expect? Am not being flippant or facetious.

    Put it this way – David Bain has ALWAYS had the capacity to convince people of his innocence, and they are so convinced of that fact they will go to extraordinary lengths to support him – his friends in Dunedin, Joe Karam who basically devoted his life to the crusade, even a couple of folks around this site who have bought-in wholesale to his supposed innocence…

    That wouldn’t have been possible except for a very compelling ability to convince others.

    Which, unlikely and as unpalatable as it sounds, is why psychopaths are psychopaths.

    I’m not trying to flip it over and say, “because he is convincing he is a psychopath”. But it is a possibility to bear in mind, to be provisionally assumed if other factors allow. Human personality is a pretty murky and inexact science. Which is why, when even I was close to tears watching that link, I like to keep quality-control in place by focusing on the key question: “Are that many unlikely coincidences regarding the cumulative effect of the physical evidence still within the realm of reasonable doubt?”

    My answer is “No”. But ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick, and as a result of your clear and obvious transparency to satisfy yourself on the basis of facts and not emotion, or prejudice, I won’t criticise you for whatever position you take.

    Cheers,

    Kimbo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “You want the page numbers now dimwit? How much can you put in a mouth that big? Do you need pages and pages to fill that fly trap?”

    Oh…. nice touch. All class. More ‘erudite’ comments from the david bain cheer squad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Kimbo (42) Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Sorry, but that doesn’t sit well with me.
    Psychopaths enjoy the limelight, and having been found not guilty, I think David would have taken every opportunity to ‘tell his story’ and be in that limelight. I am just as sure that he would have been offered that chance many times before now. He didn’t even appear to enjoy being interviewed on 60 minutes even though, I understand, there was a pre-interview agreement about the type of questions to be put to him. He actually seemed to be more uncomfortable than anything on both occasions, to me at least.

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

    Nostalgia NZ (640) – Why has no-one asked David Bain the question about the new house that he and his mother were planning together to build at Every St? Why has no-one asked David why Robin Bain was not included in the plans – why there was no bedroom in the house plans for Robin? Doesn’t seem to fit your logic in your statement – “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.”
    Is not including Robin in the house plans showing love for your father or hope of reconciliation? I do not think so! Unfortunately the other members of the Bain family are not here today to tell us what is true and what is false and what is made up and what actually did happen the night before and on the morning of the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lesley (3) Says:
    March 13th, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    I believe Robin had also talked of the plans for the new house, so he must have been included in the initial stages, anyway.
    Before asking David these questions, I would first ask if you had seen these plans, and if not, on what basis you would be asking the questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Kanz, it is not psychopaths who necessarily enjoy the limelight it is narcissists who do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    I notice Morris Minor has siimply done a hit and run, somewhat a signature kalnovitch performance like the individual who rang a lawyer yesterday in order to mitigate his behaviour on here. Time will tell on those matters.

    Onto the personality of David Bain, frankly I don’t care. I have my own opinion of him which has nothing to do with the reason I support him. I support him because it is clear that he’s a victim of an injustice. The evidence (along with other evidence) I posted last night to respond to the howls from Elaycee, pia and others is what confirms without doubt his innocence and the guilt of his father. I could do a hate-site trick, of which there are many, and use lies or twist things, but there is no need because the evidence of suicide is straight forward to the point that the Crown itself became quasi the defendant in the 2nd trial. Whilst much is made of suppressed evidence, some of had is suppression lifted, was to improve ‘the look. of the Crown in this case. What in fact happened however that it gave fuel to the hate-siters who grab anything they can reach and distort it beyond reason. There is other suppressed evidence of course, still under suppression order that the Crown do not want released. The argument remains on the suicide for those that can be bothered trying to disprove reality and the preparation is toward the Compensation decision.

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

    misspw (12) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 12:05 am
    Kanz, it is not psychopaths who necessarily enjoy the limelight it is narcissists who do that.

    ————————————

    I totally agree, and have always maintained that is the reason the failed politician, musician, psychologist, web developer, took on the lead role in JFRB – the perfect narcissistic role for him, leading to his next failure ………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “Kanz, it is not psychopaths who necessarily enjoy the limelight it is narcissists who do that.”

    Correct. Just like someone who comments over 200 times on the same topic. Pffttt….

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

    Lesley (3) Says:

    March 13th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
    Nostalgia NZ (640) – Why has no-one asked David Bain the question about the new house that he and his mother were planning together to build at Every St? Why has no-one asked David why Robin Bain was not included in the plans – why there was no bedroom in the house plans for Robin? Doesn’t seem to fit your logic in your statement – “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.”

    Is not including Robin in the house plans showing love for your father or hope of reconciliation? I do not think so! Unfortunately the other members of the Bain family are not here today to tell us what is true and what is false and what is made up and what actually did happen the night before and on the morning of the murders.

    —————————————————————–

    You clearly haven’t seen the transcripts.

    David was asked about why his father was excluded. It was simple, and well known – his parent’s were estranged, Margaret did not want him living with her and the children, which is perfectly acceptable considering she had told a friend years before hand, she feared ‘Robin would grab a gun and kill them all’.

    The other members of the family may not be here to talk, but Margaret’s diary was able to provide insight into the way she felt about Robin, and how she had no intention of sharing the future living arrangements with him. She was excited about the new house, saw it as a means of moving forward and separating herself from Robin in a spiritual as well as physical sense.

    It is perfectly normal when married people separate for one to make plans, including new houses etc, without the other. Most children of separated or divorced children want to see their parent’s reunited, but most, when adults, also realise that decision is not theirs to make. It was between Robin and Margaret, and Margaret was clear, especially in her diaries, she did not want to share her life with Robin anymore.

    David, and the other children all took part in the designing of the house. The plans were on a board in the room were Laniet slept.

    David did not hate his father. The day before he attended a polar swim with him, and he and his father worked on the house guttering during that weekend. People who hate each other avoid not spend time together. They argued like all parent’s and children over small things, but the evidence and the witness testimony who saw them that weekend, reported a normal relationship between the two.

    You are looking for issues to pin on to David, where there was nothing but martial disharmony between the parents.
    It is lovely to see the JFRBers being so desperate, like that pathetic journo, having to now dig as deep as they can to find anything they can twist to discredit, because they know the evidence cannot support their cause. The metamorphosis is funny to observe.

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

    Elaycee (2,290) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 7:26 am
    “Kanz, it is not psychopaths who necessarily enjoy the limelight it is narcissists who do that.”

    Correct. Just like someone who comments over 200 times on the same topic. Pffttt….

    —————————————-

    Sorry, that is where you fail. A narcissist always requires recognition, and does not use ‘false id’s’ etc. They use their own name to make sure everyone knows and sees them. So that they are out there – being seen – being heard. Just like the leader of JFRB does. He wants people to know exactly who he is, he wants to be seen, not just a voice with a message, he wants to be that voice, the person they all look to, and he doesn’t want anyone else to get the credit, it has to be HIM, – his own name in lights!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (228) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Sorry, that is where you fail. A narcissist always requires recognition, and does not use ‘false id’s’ etc. They use their own name to make sure everyone knows and sees them. So that they are out there – being seen – being heard. He wants people to know exactly who he is, he wants to be seen, not just a voice with a message, he wants to be that voice, the person they all look to, and he doesn’t want anyone else to get the credit, it has to be HIM, – his own name in lights!

    I see. You mean like Joe Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    The day before he attended a polar swim with him, and he and his father worked on the house guttering during that weekend.

    Jinny, does this strike you as the typical behaviour of a man who is so depressed and disillusioned that he’d blow away his entire family? Why would he bother?

    Having known a severely depressed relative, I can tell you that fixing the guttering and going for polar swims would be the last thing he’d be doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. misspw (32 comments) says:

    ‘University of Canterbury criminologist Greg Newbold, who has met many two-time killers, either in a research capacity or as fellow prison inmates, says there is no clear pattern other than most are “male and have had histories [of crime]“. Some of the double killers were, according to Newbold, criminals who “never liked to lose a fight”, which led them to kill. They included Stone, Graeme Burton, Brian Ronald McDonald and John Sadaraka.’
    Yes and here one of them demonstrates this exactly. It isn’t about the facts it is just about winning. Threatening, suing, lying, insults, intimidation, defamation in fact anything that he can to dominate discussion and stop people from talking at all. A psychopathic narcissist who gets it wrong everytime because he feels nothing himself and has no remorse for the lives he has taken so why should David feel any.

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

    misspw (13) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 8:14 am
    Jinny (228) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Sorry, that is where you fail. A narcissist always requires recognition, and does not use ‘false id’s’ etc. They use their own name to make sure everyone knows and sees them. So that they are out there – being seen – being heard. He wants people to know exactly who he is, he wants to be seen, not just a voice with a message, he wants to be that voice, the person they all look to, and he doesn’t want anyone else to get the credit, it has to be HIM, – his own name in lights!

    I see. You mean like Joe Karam.

    —————————————————————-

    And I see you are a dishonest person who likes to change people’s wording and misrepresent it. A great demonstration of your lack of ethics and rather stupid considering my original words above are clear for anyone to see above.

    I have the greatest respect for Joe Karam, who has deserved the fame he has through success, not through constant failure as demonstrated by the leader of JFRB.

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

    misspw – you’ve aptly named and described all your conditions. Time to get help, you’re sounding a wee bit too obsessed!

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

    misspw (14) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 8:31 am
    ‘University of Canterbury criminologist Greg Newbold, who has met many two-time killers, either in a research capacity or as fellow prison inmates, says there is no clear pattern other than most are “male and have had histories [of crime]“. Some of the double killers were, according to Newbold, criminals who “never liked to lose a fight”, which led them to kill. They included Stone, Graeme Burton, Brian Ronald McDonald and John Sadaraka.’
    Yes and here one of them demonstrates this exactly. It isn’t about the facts it is just about winning. Threatening, suing, lying, insults, intimidation, defamation in fact anything that he can to dominate discussion and stop people from talking at all. A psychopathic narcissist who gets it wrong everytime because he feels nothing himself and has no remorse for the lives he has taken so why should David feel any.

    ———————————————————–

    You truely are pathetic aren’t you? You can’t win an argument for your cause on the evidence, because it doesn’t support you defending a sick, incestuous man, so instead you resort to the lowest form of abuse you can find by stalking the people who speak in support of David Bain. But alas, you can only find junk on one of them, so you pick non-stop on him, hoping that will detract people from the fact, you can’t prove the cause you stand for.

    What a sad lonely person you must be, stuck on the losers side. Have you forgotten the people you work with are also facing court action for their wrong doings? Do you think they will one day rise above it, and get on with their lives, being sucessful in what they do, fighting for justice for another person, and being an upstanding and responsible member of their community, and a sucessful business man, or will they wallow, like you, in self-pity, hating the world because it appears to hate them?

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

    misspw – geez imagine getting such a hater for a teacher. Poor kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Nostalgia this would be a good time to clear this up. Are you brian ronald mcdonald the double murderer? They’re all fairly common names, so I can imagine there’s more than one brian ronald mcdonald.

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

    @Jinny (230) – We must not forget the forensics. Please let Joe Karam know that. My family met Robin Bain 3 weeks before he died. I have photographs of Robin Bain and video of him talking 3 weeks before he died. Robin Bain was NOTHING like what Joe Karam and the defence team have painted him to be. David Bain is right about his father’s character. He knew him. Joe Karam did not know Robin Bain. Joe Karam never met Robin Bain. Joe Karam is controlling David Bain. So obvious at that Perth press conference. I actually found myself feeling sorry for David Bain when I saw how Joe Karam reacted to “difficult” questions. It must be hard for David to talk about his family – only the truth will set him free.

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

    morrisminor n misspew – what a sight, 2 fat wobbly butts perched on a broomstick… freakin hilarious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Jinny stop being so desperate. She didn’t change one word of your comment, she quoted it verbatim and added her response underneath. Everybody understood that except you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Why did David Bain change his story when he took the stand as to who that green jersey belonged to?.
    When first asked about that jersey he said it was Arawa’s.He confirmed that statement later.
    Yet when he took the stand,he changed his story.He said it was his father’s jersey.He even went as far to say his father had been wearing that jersey on the weekend prior to the murders.When shown a photo montage of his father wearing jerseys,he pointed out three photos showing his father wearing the jersey that he was wearing that weekend.Trouble is,it was not the green jersey the killer wore.
    I believe that David Bain was well aware that the police had evidence that proved that green jersey was worn by the killer,so he wanted to put his father in the frame by saying that jersey belonged to his father,and also saying his father was wearing it that weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    At the first trial David’s aunt was recounting a conversation she had with David on the 22 June 1994.She said David had said that he hated his father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    > If Robin ran out of time and was aware of David’s imminent arrival, in his confused state he hurried and as the demonstration proved, there was no need to remove it, it worked just fine with it on.

    He didn’t need to hurry…if he turned on the computer he had 40 seconds in which to remove it. And why turn on a computer and wait 40 seconds if you’re in a hurry? If he was in such a hurry, why change his clothes when he didn’t “need” to? How much time would it have taken Robin to change his clothes? The fact remains that he didn’t need to have the silencer on the gun because nobody was aroung to hear the gun! Just as he didn’t need to wear David’s opera gloves. But according to the Karamilites, that’s exactly what Robin did. How bizarre.

    Your desperate support for David seems to have blinded you to a reasonable explanation of events.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain murdered his wife and three of his children?
    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain was anywhere near his wife and his three youngest children on the morning of the murders?
    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain was in the house when his wife and his three youngest children were killed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is still rabbiting on about that cuppa.
    Jinny,David Bain said he saw his mother’s light on and he thought he would make her a cup of tea while he was downstairs.Makes sense to me,seeing as the kitchen was next to the laundry.
    What I want to know is why he didn’t make that cup of tea.
    And how did he know his mother hadn’t already been up and made a cup of tea for herself and then gone back to bed?
    You would have thought,would you not,that he would have asked his mother if she would like a cup of tea before going downstairs.I mean she may have replied “No thankyou,David ,I have already made one for myself”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I see David Bain said in that speech that a detective said to him “Congratulations,David,you are now a criminal”.
    I must say I am surprised David hasn’t mentioned this before.Did he tell Karam that a detective said that to him?
    Surely we would have heard about that statement before now.

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

    Lesley (4) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 9:22 am
    @Jinny (230) – We must not forget the forensics. Please let Joe Karam know that. My family met Robin Bain 3 weeks before he died. I have photographs of Robin Bain and video of him talking 3 weeks before he died. Robin Bain was NOTHING like what Joe Karam and the defence team have painted him to be. David Bain is right about his father’s character. He knew him. Joe Karam did not know Robin Bain. Joe Karam never met Robin Bain. Joe Karam is controlling David Bain. So obvious at that Perth press conference. I actually found myself feeling sorry for David Bain when I saw how Joe Karam reacted to “difficult” questions. It must be hard for David to talk about his family – only the truth will set him free.

    ————————————————————

    You know Lesley, you are the 17th person I have had say to me they knew Robin Bain before he died.
    Regardless of what Joe Karam thinks or says, the photos, the unfinished work, the piles of filth and rubbish, the body odor all give a picture. This is man that let his brother know, discretely that all was not right in his world.

    If I’d known Robin Bain before he died, I wouldn’t be advertising it. I’d be too ashamed that I’d let this wonderful man who was obviously struggling, continue without any support.

    You may have met Robin but have you ever met Joe and David? It seems to me you are drawing your opinion from something you are telling others not to do. From unoriginal sources.

    I may believe Robin killed his family and himself, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect him, or appreciate the wonderful talented person he was.

    I will say to you what I’ve said to others. Mr and Mrs Weatherston knew their son well, as did his students and colleagues, many who saw him the day his killed his ex-girlfriend. They gave evidence in Court that he was lovely, charming, and there was nothing wrong with him on the days before or the day he decided to hack his girlfriend to death.

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

    Put it away (2,532) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 10:09 am
    Jinny stop being so desperate. She didn’t change one word of your comment, she quoted it verbatim and added her response underneath. Everybody understood that except you.

    ————————————————-

    Here is my comment – that is above for all to see

    “Sorry, that is where you fail. A narcissist always requires recognition, and does not use ‘false id’s’ etc. They use their own name to make sure everyone knows and sees them. So that they are out there – being seen – being heard. Just like the leader of JFRB does. He wants people to know exactly who he is, he wants to be seen, not just a voice with a message, he wants to be that voice, the person they all look to, and he doesn’t want anyone else to get the credit, it has to be HIM, – his own name in lights!”

    —————– Notice how mine has “Just like the leader of JFRB does” ——— but hers doesn’t. Still going to insist she didn’t alter it?

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

    muggins (49) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 10:47 am
    Why did David Bain change his story when he took the stand as to who that green jersey belonged to?.
    When first asked about that jersey he said it was Arawa’s.He confirmed that statement later.
    Yet when he took the stand,he changed his story.He said it was his father’s jersey.He even went as far to say his father had been wearing that jersey on the weekend prior to the murders.When shown a photo montage of his father wearing jerseys,he pointed out three photos showing his father wearing the jersey that he was wearing that weekend.Trouble is,it was not the green jersey the killer wore.
    I believe that David Bain was well aware that the police had evidence that proved that green jersey was worn by the killer,so he wanted to put his father in the frame by saying that jersey belonged to his father,and also saying his father was wearing it that weekend.

    ———————————————

    So he wasn’t a dedicated follower of fashion like you obviously are. However your statement is wasted, as you know the jersey the killer is thought to have worn didn’t fit David. And that wasn’t because it had shrunk, when analysed it was proven that even without shrinking it was still too small for David, by quite some inches.

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

    muggins (49) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 10:58 am
    At the first trial David’s aunt was recounting a conversation she had with David on the 22 June 1994.She said David had said that he hated his father.

    —————————————

    David Bain did not tell her he hated his father, nor did Mrs Clark report that he said that. The comment was in reference to the killings and if Robin had been responsible how he would feel about him. It was NOT regarding past feelings about his father, nor did once he saw the evidence against his father, has David ever said he ‘hated’ his father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    So are you saying,Jinny,that David Bain is not similar to Clayton Weatherston.Are you saying he doesn’t appear to be quite charming.Of course we do know something was wrong with Bain in the weeks leading up to the murders.Black hands and all that.

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

    muggins (49) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 11:06 am
    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain murdered his wife and three of his children?
    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain was anywhere near his wife and his three youngest children on the morning of the murders?
    Is there one single person that can prove to me that Robin Bain was in the house when his wife and his three youngest children were killed?

    ———————————————-

    No sorry, there is not one single person that could do that for you, because it would require you to have intelligence, a good sense of perception and an open mind. As you have none of those, nothing, even the ghost of Robin Bain would convince you, sorry.

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

    muggins (50) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 11:56 am
    I see David Bain said in that speech that a detective said to him “Congratulations,David,you are now a criminal”.
    I must say I am surprised David hasn’t mentioned this before.Did he tell Karam that a detective said that to him?
    Surely we would have heard about that statement before now.

    ————————————————————-

    David has mentioned it before, he just hasn’t mentioned it to you or any members of your group. Like me, he probably thinks he doesn’t owe you an explanation for anything.

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

    muggins (50) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    So are you saying,Jinny,that David Bain is not similar to Clayton Weatherston.Are you saying he doesn’t appear to be quite charming.Of course we do know something was wrong with Bain in the weeks leading up to the murders.Black hands and all that.

    ———————————————-

    Clayton Weatherston has been diagnosed with psychopathic tendancies, David Bain’s diagnosis cleared him of any such tendancies.

    I was referring to Robin. Stop twisting it and trying to be clever, you aren’t. The black hands were a means of describing a dark/blackening around the aura of David’s vision. In the second trial evidence was given that the same effect is well documented and common for young people by a fully qualified practitioner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,it wasn’t Mrs Clark who said David told her he hated his father,it was another aunt.Bain also told that aunt that his father had become sneaky.He was ‘so sneaky’.He’d have nothing to do with him.
    And so what if that jersey was to small for David?It could well have been Arawa’s ,as he first said.David Bain may have been worried about blood spatter,so for that reason he didn’t wear his own jersey.Maybe he wanted to wear a tight fitting jersey so it wouldn’t get tangled up with the rifle.Maybe it was an old jersey of his that he wore when he was younger.

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

    muggins (50) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 11:31 am
    I see Jinny is still rabbiting on about that cuppa.
    Jinny,David Bain said he saw his mother’s light on and he thought he would make her a cup of tea while he was downstairs.Makes sense to me,seeing as the kitchen was next to the laundry.
    What I want to know is why he didn’t make that cup of tea.
    And how did he know his mother hadn’t already been up and made a cup of tea for herself and then gone back to bed?
    You would have thought,would you not,that he would have asked his mother if she would like a cup of tea before going downstairs.I mean she may have replied “No thankyou,David ,I have already made one for myself”.

    ——————————————————

    David thought he’d make his mother a cup of tea, he never told her he was going to.

    Have you never taken a person a cup of tea in bed, without them asking for it? I do it all the time with guests and family. Many people have done it with me.

    You will have to ask David whether he ended up making it or not. Why don’t you give him a ring an ask him? You might like to point out to him how this isssue is so important it proves murder.

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

    muggins (51) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Jinny,it wasn’t Mrs Clark who said David told her he hated his father,it was another aunt.Bain also told that aunt that his father had become sneaky.He was ‘so sneaky’.He’d have nothing to do with him.
    And so what if that jersey was to small for David?It could well have been Arawa’s ,as he first said.David Bain may have been worried about blood spatter,so for that reason he didn’t wear his own jersey.Maybe he wanted to wear a tight fitting jersey so it wouldn’t get tangled up with the rifle.Maybe it was an old jersey of his that he wore when he was younger.

    —————————————————–
    That’s not what the transcripts show

    Really getting desperate now aren’t you? I know Kent has said to discredit anything you can. The jersey just ‘didn’t fit’ David, he couldn’t even get it on him properly.
    There were witnesses who gave evidence that Robin was wearing that jersey, not just David.

    “Maybe he wanted to wear a tight fitting jersey so it wouldn’t get tangled up with the rifle” – Grow up, what a stupid statement. David wasn’t home when his family was shot and his father killed himself. Why don’t you prove he was, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself and the goof who is giving you your instructions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I wonder if Dr Dempster was aware that Bain had changed his story when he said on the stand that he heard Laniet gurgling.I wonder if he would have changed his opinion had he known that Bain first said that he heard his sister making groaning type noises muffled by what sounded like water.I wonder if Dr Dempster has ever heard a dead person groaning?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    The day before he attended a polar swim with him, and he and his father worked on the house guttering during that weekend.

    Jinny, does this strike you as the typical behaviour of a man who is so depressed and disillusioned that he’d blow away his entire family? Why would he bother?

    Having known a severely depressed relative, I can tell you that fixing the guttering and going for polar swims would be the last thing he’d be doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Unlike David Bain’s supporters I am not in the habit of calling people liars,but Jinny ,you are lying through your teeth when you say there were witnesses who gave evidence that Robin was wearing that jersey.No witness said that.One witness said he wore similar jerseys.Think about it,Jinny.There were a number of green jerseys in the Bain household similar to the one the killer wore.So how could anybody positively identify that particular jersey?
    And David Bain was most certainly home when his father was shot because he shot him.You prove to me that he didn’t.
    And Jinny,you are showing desperation when you say that Kent has said to discredit anything I can.Let me tell you that Kent knows me well enough not to try and tell me to do anything.
    If anyone is getting instructions,it is you.And if anyone is a goof,it is you.And if if anyone is making a fool of themselves it is you.
    Comprende?

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

    Scott Chris (3,936) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    The day before he attended a polar swim with him, and he and his father worked on the house guttering during that weekend.

    Jinny, does this strike you as the typical behaviour of a man who is so depressed and disillusioned that he’d blow away his entire family? Why would he bother?

    Having known a severely depressed relative, I can tell you that fixing the guttering and going for polar swims would be the last thing he’d be doing.

    ——————————————————–

    No it doesn’t sound like how most ordinary people view depressed people. However if you look into studies of depression you will find it takes many forms. Some are able to hide it from employers, others from their families, some from most people.
    As Robin was on anti-depressants, you could reasonably say that he shouldn’t have been showing any signs of depression and that he wasn’t depressed at all on 20 June 1994, we will never know.

    There is always a twist though, and sadly this may have contributed, however it has never been proven or probably even explored. During the 1990’s there was a number of new anti-depressants on the market. Many that took them felt great, they reduced depression, but in those who took these medications there was rapid rise in suicidal identation and suicides, so much so that most came with warnings.

    Who knows what was going on for Robin, but the fact remains, even despite the polar swim there were many aspects of his life that were out of balance. His marriage, his control over his finances, his lack of promotion, his administration as a principal, his living arrangements and his personal hygiene. None of which can be discounted.

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

    muggins (53) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    Unlike David Bain’s supporters I am not in the habit of calling people liars,but Jinny ,you are lying through your teeth when you say there were witnesses who gave evidence that Robin was wearing that jersey.No witness said that.One witness said he wore similar jerseys.Think about it,Jinny.There were a number of green jerseys in the Bain household similar to the one the killer wore.So how could anybody positively identify that particular jersey?
    And David Bain was most certainly home when his father was shot because he shot him.You prove to me that he didn’t.
    And Jinny,you are showing desperation when you say that Kent has said to discredit anything I can.Let me tell you that Kent knows me well enough not to try and tell me to do anything.
    If anyone is getting instructions,it is you.And if anyone is a goof,it is you.And if if anyone is making a fool of themselves it is you.
    Comprende?
    ————————————————

    WOW losing your cool there old boy!!

    Check the second trial transcripts before you call people liars.

    David wasn’t home, and it’s been proved – take a chill pill and see your doctor before you blow your foofoovalve!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nookin (4,546 comments) says:

    Jinny. If it was proven that David was not home at the time (and this is a very simple issue – just one single fact) the jury would have been out for 10 minutes, would it not?

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

    i have seen no evidence david was not home at the time of the murders, and plenty of evidence david prepared an alibi and framed a victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I believe Jinny is trying to trap me into saying I have a copy of the transcript.Well,I ain’t going to fall in that trap.
    Jinny,I repeat,you are lying when you say a witness identified Robin Bain wearing that jersey.Hell’s teeth,if one had,that would have made headlines.”Witness saw Robin Bain wearing the green jersey that was worn by the killer”.
    And if you keep repeating that falsehood then I will keep calling you a liar.
    And for the umpteenth time,it has never been proved what time David Bain arrived home.By his own reckoning he was home at around 6.42,and who would know better than him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Jinny (241) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Scott Chris (3,936) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    The day before he attended a polar swim with him, and he and his father worked on the house guttering during that weekend.

    Jinny, does this strike you as the typical behaviour of a man who is so depressed and disillusioned that he’d blow away his entire family? Why would he bother?

    Having known a severely depressed relative, I can tell you that fixing the guttering and going for polar swims would be the last thing he’d be doing.

    ——————————————————–

    No it doesn’t sound like how most ordinary people view depressed people. However if you look into studies of depression you will find it takes many forms. Some are able to hide it from employers, others from their families, some from most people.
    As Robin was on anti-depressants, you could reasonably say that he shouldn’t have been showing any signs of depression and that he wasn’t depressed at all on 20 June 1994, we will never know.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Cite the evidence that Robin was taking Ant – Depressants please, for some one with your sources of information the should be a simple task. Without that Citation and prescribing medical practitioner I believe I am entitled to disregard your statement and in fact say you are lying in your teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,how do you know I am an old boy?.I might be a young buck!And I never lose my cool.And I don’t know what a foofoovalve is .I guess you must have one,could you desribe it for me please,that’s if you have still got it and havn’t blown it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Scott Chris It would be closer to say Robin was repairing the spouting [ a neighbour had been complaining about the rain water off the roof flowing into his section], it would appear neither of the sons were a lot of help. Had I found my biological father repairing spouting I may had been tempted to…, but my foster Dad would not have been allowed to climb the ladder, at age 22 I would have been ashamed to allow him to do that kind of work while I stood back and watched, Steven I can understand not ascending the ladder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (241) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 8:41 am
    ‘What a sad lonely person you must be, stuck on the losers side.’
    We are fighting to stop a murderer from being compensated for his crime and that judgement has yet to be made. The result is a forgone conclusion really and it is you that will find themselves on the losing side.
    ‘Have you forgotten the people you work with are also facing court action for their wrong doings?’
    For speaking out in a free country for what they believe in is why they are facing charges. Does that equate to your friend who has killed two people and has not the slightest shred of remorse for it?
    ‘Do you think they will one day rise above it, and get on with their lives, being sucessful in what they do, fighting for justice for another person, and being an upstanding and responsible member of their community, and a sucessful business man?’
    I wonder if the families of the people he killed in cold blood and without remorse have ‘risen above it’ yet.
    ‘or will they wallow, like you, in self-pity, hating the world because it appears to hate them?’
    Where do you get that from? Because I hold the same view as thousands of others and one that is diametrically opposed to yours apparently.

    And nostalgia_nz your latest change of pseudonym to ‘knockoutguy’ fools nobody. Is that because you could no longer ignore or face being exposed here? So much for your ‘successful, upstanding and responsible’ new life. Thank you for proving my point. Your misogyny
    Is a dead give away of course. I know your wife is a large woman and I think it is insulting to her that you continually refer to women and ridicule their size. If it bothers you so much buy her a gym subscription rather than litter these boards with insults that obviously implicate her but are directed towards people you have never seen in your life.
    I’m sure you would like to ‘knock out’ all opposition to your views, probably permanently but in this democratic society you are just going to have to get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    muggins it has become obvious the only exercise Jinny gets is jumping to conclusions and being dyslexic jumps any which way. [with profound apologies to genuine sufferers of dyslexia

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I see Jinny reckons she takes guests cups of tea when they are in bed.But she misses the point I was making.Why am I not surprised.Jinny,you know your guests havn’t been up and gotten themselves a cup of tea.David Bain didnt know that his mother hadn’t been up.[Actually he did know she hadn’t been up,but let’s go along with his story].So how did he know she would have wanted a cup of tea?
    And you are saying that David Bain has previously mentioned that remark he said about that detective calling him a criminal?Well,all I can say that I am surprised a certain person didn’t try to make an issue of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    It’s all rather predictable that the david bain cheer squad reverts to type and resorts to name calling / innuendo / bluster / bullshit / introduction of opinion being portrayed as fact / threats of ‘letters being received next week’ etc, when their fantasy version of events crumbles under the weight of fact and logic.

    Personal attacks have been a common theme throughout the increasingly shrill posts by the dbcs – especially their orchestrated campaign against Robin Bain. But one unswerving fact is that Robin Bain is unable to defend himself against these allegations.

    Because Robin Bain was also murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nookin (4,546 comments) says:

    Elaycee

    I often wonder whether there is any psychological significance in the fact that David’s supporters (at least the more strident ones) appear completely intolerant of contrary views and if one dares to express them, tend to resort to abusive personal attacks. Does like attract like? Just pondering?

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

    misspew – hahaha poor spewie. Don’t you remember our last fleeting encounter on sella before you got the boot. Hope your latest ‘condition’ isn’t contagious. Wouldn’t want the kids to catch anything.

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

    Elaycee (2,291) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    It’s all rather predictable that the david bain cheer squad reverts to type and resorts to name calling / innuendo / bluster / bullshit / introduction of opinion being portrayed as fact / threats of ‘letters being received next week’ etc, when their fantasy version of events crumbles under the weight of fact and logic.

    Personal attacks have been a common theme throughout the increasingly shrill posts by the dbcs – especially their orchestrated campaign against Robin Bain. But one unswerving fact is that Robin Bain is unable to defend himself against these allegations.

    Because Robin Bain was also murdered.

    ———————————————

    Open the other eye, both sides abuse, just because you try to disguise your words in fancy way, doesn’t mean it’s nice

    Have you seen me threaten anyone on here? Abuse yes, threaten no, and yet one of your side threatened me yesterday, so I suggest instead of making such wide sweeping statements, you actually have a look at what some of your contempories are doing and saying.

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

    muggins (56) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
    I see Jinny reckons she takes guests cups of tea when they are in bed.But she misses the point I was making.Why am I not surprised.Jinny,you know your guests havn’t been up and gotten themselves a cup of tea.David Bain didnt know that his mother hadn’t been up

    ——————————————-

    No, I don’t know that. We have sleep out with facilities where visiting friends and family sleep. They may have got themselves a cup of tea already, but I take them one anyway as a good hostess. I’ve told you before Muggins, you can’t make assumptions about my life, based on what you would do. You can make a ‘best guess’, that is all.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (13) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    Cite the evidence that Robin was taking Ant – Depressants please, for some one with your sources of information the should be a simple task. Without that Citation and prescribing medical practitioner I believe I am entitled to disregard your statement and in fact say you are lying in your teeth.

    ————————————-

    You’re entitled to do whatever you like regarding my posts, your opinion Mr Kennard has long since being of any concern to me. I have more respect for a blood sucking flea than I do for you, knowing some of your background, which unlike your friends, I am not rude enough to post on here. I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll give you permission to ignore my posts.

    Robin Bain’s doctor stated she would not release his medical records, however, did state she had prescribed him anti-depressants, however would not state why or for what reason.

    It is in her witness statement, on the second page, third line of the second paragraph.

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

    muggins (56) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    I believe Jinny is trying to trap me into saying I have a copy of the transcript.Well,I ain’t going to fall in that trap.
    Jinny,I repeat,you are lying when you say a witness identified Robin Bain wearing that jersey.Hell’s teeth,if one had,that would have made headlines.”Witness saw Robin Bain wearing the green jersey that was worn by the killer”.
    And if you keep repeating that falsehood then I will keep calling you a liar.
    And for the umpteenth time,it has never been proved what time David Bain arrived home.By his own reckoning he was home at around 6.42,and who would know better than him.
    —————————————————

    Those headlines belong to an article written by the journalist that was caught lying at the Perth conference. Some recomendation that is. I don’t care whether you have the transcripts or not, because I know you don’t have the second trial transcripts and are going for the above line in a means to escape having to reveal that. ( If you are going to use such excuses, you should make sure they aren’t discussed elsewhere first)

    It was proved at the second trial that he was at the gate arriving home at 6.45 am. The other witnesses that saw him on the round gave the times they saw him. It would have been impossible for him to have arrived home at the times you like to promote, and either way, it makes no difference, because he would have had to have been their 45 mins earlier to have killed them, and those mins are accounted for with witness sightings.

    Call me whatever you like, I can’t repeat on here the names I have for you.

    If you want to play the liar game, then how about you saying there was Stephen’s blood on the duvet all this time – huh Liar!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Bryan Bruce’s excellent documentary A Question Of Justice is here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    Nookin muses: “Does like attract like? Just pondering?”

    Yup. It appears so, Nookin. Like the ‘membership’ of a coven. Or a sect…. 😀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    Nookin muses: “Does like attract like? Just pondering?”

    Yup. It appears so, Nookin. Like membership of a coven. Or a sect…. 😀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (477 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link Scott Chris. I was hoping to watch this again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Jimbo (61 comments) says:

    Jinny 5:29:

    So we’ve gone from the dog eating your homework to “please sir, I did do it, I just can’t remember where I put it. I really did do it. Please believe me.”

    Perhaps you could talk to David about how to recover those important memories?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    Oops – apologies for the duplicated comment. Phone signal dropped out – and yes, it even happens in this part of the world. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. misspw (32 comments) says:

    knockoutking (5) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    misspew – hahaha poor spewie. Don’t you remember our last fleeting encounter on sella before you got the boot. Hope your latest ‘condition’ isn’t contagious. Wouldn’t want the kids to catch anything.

    I have never ‘ had the boot ‘ from sella. Get treatment Brian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Kanz: If one was resting the butt of the rifle against something, the silencer would give a much broader end than the barrel itself, therefore giving more to rest the head against.

    According to the postulations made by the defense at the trial, in each pose the person holding the rifle had their hand grasping either the barrel or the silencer. Both of these are metal and would have rendered up perfect fingerprints. And according to Jinny, he rested the gun on his forehead to avoid leaving fingerprints in the aforementioned positions, though how he managed to make the bullet twist around a corner to hit him in the temple I am sure I don’t know. Maybe Jinny can explain as she is good at explaining the unexplainable.

    Jinny: David did not hate his father. The day before he attended a polar swim with him.

    It is quite a distance from Every St to St Clair beach, David did not have his own car and he had crashed the motor bike he had taken for a test run, therefore David would have had to rely on his father for transportation. It was merely a matter of convenience don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    I was hoping to watch this again.

    No probs SGTH. Having just watched it, another interesting point was raised:

    If Robin changed clothes to top himself, why was he still carrying the spare magazine that was found upright next to his dead hand? Makes no sense at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    So the proof of the blood wash on the palms has been posted only to be greeted with cups of tea, polars swims, ‘why would’s’ and other such nonsense. Now we also have the brilliant deduction that people hold rifles with their fingertips.
    The rifle entirely covered in blood was found not to be covered in blood at all it was either gun oil, lacquer or the wood that fluoresced under the polilight. Jones said it was blood, but blood would show up as a dark colour because it absorbs the light. When questioned about this Jones said he was misleading the jury but that he was giving the jury the wrong information because it was ‘easier for them to understand.’ He acting condensed the whole crown case with that point. Regardless Robin didn’t get the blood on his palms from the rifle and that’s will be the point of interest for Justice Binnie. The blood wash on Robin’s hands, gun oil, the temperature effected any prints left that morning, but his may have had been among the unable to be undentified prints, not that they need to be there because the spatter on his trouser leg proved he was holding it when he killed himself.
    Remember Jones said he misled the jury to help them understand, he also admitted ‘enhancing’ fingerprints. You could argue removal of a fingerprint was enhancement as would be the ‘placing’ of a fingerprint in ‘blood’ that was not there. But was there, on Robin’s palms at least, was blood wash – and yes and on his left thumb as well.

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

    misspw (16) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
    I have never ‘ had the boot ‘ from sella. Get treatment Brian.

    hahaha oh yeah (wink wink) you were “in character” at the time. Fly fly witchy britchy fly – freakin hilarious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    • Jinny (245) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    Lindsay Kennard (13) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    Cite the evidence that Robin was taking Ant – Depressants please, for some one with your sources of information the should be a simple task. Without that Citation and prescribing medical practitioner I believe I am entitled to disregard your statement and in fact say you are lying in your teeth.
    ————————————-
    You’re entitled to do whatever you like regarding my posts, your opinion Mr Kennard has long since being of any concern to me. I have more respect for a blood sucking flea than I do for you, knowing some of your background, which unlike your friends, I am not rude enough to post on here. I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll give you permission to ignore my posts.
    Robin Bain’s doctor stated she would not release his medical records, however, did state she had prescribed him anti-depressants, however would not state why or for what reason.
    It is in her witness statement, on the second page, third line of the second paragraph.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It would be a breach of patient privacy to state what if any medication prescribed by Robin’s doctor even after death medical records have absolute privilege even after death and require the permission of executor or coroner before release police cannot access them with out a court order and executor approval and medication is never divulged unless is the direct cause of death in suicide and is by law suppressed. No evidence of anti depressants taking by Robin was mentioned by the defence and I can not imagine that not being used as a means to further blacken Robins considering the number of times he was described as depressed by those not qualified to make the diagnosis such as educational physiologists.
    Your claim is easy to make but a statement is not evidence as very often it is verbaled. Evidence is able to be cross examined in court. That you have access to privileged information and are prepared to publish it on a blog is absolutely mind blowing and leaves me wonder as to what depths some are prepared to go for money

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Sofia (974 comments) says:

    David Bain does appear to have a very confused recollection of events –

    Up to this moment my memory is perfectly clear but from then on it is completely clouded by the shock that I got seeing my mother like that

    Standing here today I have to tell that my memories of that morning are totally confused, from the moment I found my mother, the trauma of it all, the time elapsed, all the evidence I have read and listened to, the tv programmes, the police reconstructions and photos of the trials have been the cause of this.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bains-speech-at-Perth-justice-conference/tabid/309/articleID/245984/Default.aspx

    His confusion is evident in what he says concerning Laniet –
    Unfortunately it was to me she sought help in the days leading up to the 20th of June. It was one of the most painful aspects of the tragedy that I only learned of this through a friend after everything became my nightmare.

    The only unusual aspect of the night was that Laniet was staying for the weekend as she had been living away from home for some time now

    So Laniet was home for the weekend but didn’t elaborate on what she had sought David out at university for?
    Now ‘a most painful aspect’.
    And a possible contradiction that no one seems too interested in.
    But it would appear to confirm that any comments in this thread [or elsewhere] as to David being the only one to really know certain facts, mean nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Stop splitting hairs Nostalgia NZ. If Robin had been holding the gun in any of the poses as demonstrated by the defense, then prints would have been left on the metal of the silencer or the barrel. There were NO prints of Robin’s in either of those two places. And yes, I use my fingertips when using my rifles. I balance the underside of the barrel on my palm and then curl my FINGERTIPS around the rest of it. Going by what has been revealed on this message board, you should be well aware of how a firearm is held.

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

    corrigenda (38) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    Stop splitting hairs Nostalgia NZ. If Robin had been holding the gun in any of the poses as demonstrated by the defense, then prints would have been left on the metal of the silencer or the barrel. There were NO prints of Robin’s in either of those two places. And yes, I use my fingertips when using my rifles. I balance the underside of the barrel on my palm and then curl my FINGERTIPS around the rest of it. Going by what has been revealed on this message board, you should be well aware of how a firearm is held.

    ————————————————————

    Do you check your rifles for fingerprints when you’ve used them?

    Fingerprints are not left unless there is the right amount of skin moisture or similar. Too little and the ridges don’t show, too much and the ridges can’t be determined because of the smudging of them.

    There were prints on the Bain rifle but due to the amount of blood, they weren’t distinguishable.

    If your argument was relevant, then, if it was David, his prints would have been left in the positions you mentioned, they weren’t. Neither left identifyable prints on the metal of the silencer, or the barrel. Therefore, going by your standards, neither Robin nor David could have done it.

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

    Sofia (253) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
    David Bain does appear to have a very confused recollection of events –
    —————————————————–
    So if you came home to find your family dead from gunshot wounds, with blood everywhere, you’d be entirely cool calm and collected?

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

    Lindsay Kennard (14) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    absolutely mind blowing and leaves me wonder as to what depths some are prepared to go for money

    —————————————————————-
    You think I get paid to do this? That would have to be the perfect job. Medical privilege does not apply if the information is proven to have already been public. Really peeves you off that there is information you can’t getting your grubby mitts on, doesn’t it. Good – suffer – I love it!!

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

    Scott Chris (3,940) Says:
    March 14th, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    If Robin changed clothes to top himself, why was he still carrying the spare magazine that was found upright next to his dead hand? Makes no sense at all.

    ———————————————–

    Wow, that really proves murder doesn’t it! Perhaps he knew jamming was a problem, and wanted to make sure he could complete the job and catch the bus to the highway in the sky. Fact is, we’ll never know, second fact, it means F all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    corrigenda
    8.31

    So we should take advice from you and ignore what the scientists said. Please provide a photo of somebody holding a rifle with their fingertips? For all your expert advice how do you explain the lack of David’s fingerprints in a firing position? Will you rely on the old ‘gun was wiped down’ despite it still having numerous fingerprints on it, mostly unidentifiable?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Sofia (974 comments) says:

    Jinny – So if you came home to find your family dead from gunshot wounds, with blood everywhere, you’d be entirely cool calm and collected?

    No – never said I would be.
    Just pointing out that David’s own admission one his recollections suggest he probably knows less than the likes of you, as Karam also says of David’s knowledge of evidence, so some comments above, not taking this into account, are just a bloody waste of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Perhaps he knew jamming was a problem

    LoL ❗ Jinny you really are loyal to David. Good for you I guess.

    Perhaps you have an explanation for Robin’s missing socks too?

    We know the killer stepped in blood and was wearing socks, but the question is: Where are the bloody socks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard says: “…That you have access to privileged information and are prepared to publish it on a blog is absolutely mind blowing and leaves me wonder as to what depths some are prepared to go for money”

    Ain’t that the truth…. they’re even prepared to try and portray Robin as a murderer when all facts point to him being one of the victims.

    Hopefully, Justice Binnie will also see through the smokescreen / the opinion being cited as ‘fact’ / the bullshit / the innuendo / the lies and the distortions to see this orchestrated campaign by the david bain cheer squad is doomed to fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I see Jinny is calling me a liar for saying it was Stehen’s blood on the duvet.Jinny is lying.So far as I knew that blood had never been tested.So I never said whose blood it was.
    Scott,at least the sole of one sock must have been covered in blood,yet David put it in the washing machine without noticing it had blood on it.Unbelievable!
    There were 5 socks in the washing machine.I reckon the reason why there was an odd sock is because David Bain took off that bloody sock and put it in the machine.He didn’t take off his other sock,because he didn’t realise it had two spots of blood on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. KH (707 comments) says:

    David Bain was not found guilty of killing his family. So fair enough – he was not guilty – court determined.
    Trouble with that is – He killed them. Killed them all. Dead, dead, dead, dead and dead.
    Just not found guilty — thats all.

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

    You know Lesley, you are the 17th person I have had say to me they knew Robin Bain before he died.
    Regardless of what Joe Karam thinks or says, the photos, the unfinished work, the piles of filth and rubbish, the body odor all give a picture. This is man that let his brother know, discretely that all was not right in his world.

    If I’d known Robin Bain before he died, I wouldn’t be advertising it. I’d be too ashamed that I’d let this wonderful man who was obviously struggling, continue without any support.

    Jinny – you said- “You may have met Robin but have you ever met Joe and David? It seems to me you are drawing your opinion from something you are telling others not to do. From unoriginal sources.

    I may believe Robin killed his family and himself, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect him, or appreciate the wonderful talented person he was.

    I will say to you what I’ve said to others. Mr and Mrs Weatherston knew their son well, as did his students and colleagues, many who saw him the day his killed his ex-girlfriend. They gave evidence in Court that he was lovely, charming, and there was nothing wrong with him on the days before or the day he decided to hack his girlfriend to death.”

    I watched the video again. Robin Bain was nothing like Joe Karam has described. I did not say I had met Robin Bain. Family members did – original sources. I was told that Robin was very sad about the situation with his family but there is a massive difference from being sad to, as Dr Joe Karam diagnosed – clinically depresed. This wonderful man Robin Bain was helping his own family at the time and he was very concerned about his daughter Laniet at the time of his death. He said he had wanted her and her boyfriend to move out to the schoolhouse so that she could get away from the bad influences in Dunedin. Robin’s good name has been blackened by those who did not know him. How could you compare Robin Bain to Clayton Weatherstone? There is no comparison.

    Forensics is what matters – not hearsay evidence and speculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “Please provide a photo of somebody holding a rifle with their fingertips?”

    Oh, what total bollocks. Show me any photo of anyone using a .22 rifle that does NOT have contact between their fingerprint areas of their hand and the wooden area under the barrel. Or show me a photo of anyone who is NOT leaving prints on the rifle butt near the trigger guard as they hold the butt to their shoulder. The comment in quotation marks (above) is drivel. Pure and utter drivel. And no surprises that the author is one of the front row members of the david bain cheer squad.

    Even when the purveyor of fiction contorted himself in Court trying to demonstrate how this was supposed to have happened, it was patently obvious that it was nigh impossible to NOT leave prints whilst trying to hold the rifle (complete with a silencer) / balance it on a chair / press a silencer against the temple and somehow pull (in this case, apparently push it with the thumb) the trigger. Because there is no other realistic way to hold it and not leave prints – unless gloves were worn. Or socks were put over the hands! Maybe socks that were put in with the rest of the laundry…. Gee, there’s a thought…

    Now, did Robin wear gloves? Nah – of course he didn’t. Because he was murdered and there were no gloves on his hands when his body was found.

    PS: And the ‘sock theory’ is bollocks. Just like Robin’s ‘suicide’…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Something more for the cultists. Details of the suicidee’s hands, with blood smears on the palms. Heading into several weeks now and no explanation from the cultists about the smears, explanations for every bit of inconceivable nonsense that could be imagined but nothing to get the dead father away from his suicide. The cultists know all of this because they have a specially developed website that has ‘all’ the evidence but you won’t find this there, I wonder why. Two cultists wouldn’t take a bet that David was strip searched and found not to have any scratches on his body, they wouldn’t take a bet that Robins dna was found inside of the barrel. Note Doyle admitting destroying evidence without testing it. That was around day 3 of the trial and the Crown never recovered, ultimately capitulated trying to move away from the final death scene and admitting that Robin could have turned the computer on.

    A. Q. I’d like you to look please at a job sheet of Detective Lodge and you’ll see this is a job sheet of Detective Lodge of the 20th of June 1994, do you see that?
    A. A. Yes.
    A. Q. And if you turn over please to the third page under a heading of “Move body and further examining” –
    A. A. Yes.
    A. Q. – you will see at 1505, 3.05 hours, he records, “Smear of blood on heel of thumb inside left hand, also a smear on left little finger, no blood on right hand.” Do you see that?
    A. Correct.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Reed to Doyle:

    Q. We have blood on the heel of the thumb, no photograph taken, no sample tested, do you understand that, do you want to disagree?

    A. No, no.

    Q. That went to the grave with Robin Bain. Now we know that this blood was on the hands of Robin Bain because one of your detectives, Detective Lodge, did a diagram showing where this blood was. I would like you to look at this please?

    WITNESS REFERRED TO DIAGRAM

    Q. This is a diagram I want to put to you, done by Detective Lodge, do you remember Detective Lodge?

    A. Yes I do.

    Q. Now this shows of course only the tops of the hands, it doesn’t show the blood underneath the hand, but if you look to the right-hand side of the diagram you will see a marking, “Blood smear by little finger”?

    A. Correct

    Q. See that?

    A. Yes.

    Q. That is exhibit 97, which is the one I have referred you to already, which is, “Two smear on slide of traces of blood on left hand of Robin” see that?

    A. Correct?

    Q. That was never tested, but destroyed by you – by your orders wasn’t it?

    A. That’s correct

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    > Robin could have turned the computer on

    Yes, and I could win First Division Lotto next weekend. What are my chances?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ross69
    7.38

    No chance. Just like you’ve got no chance of altering the fact that the Crown conceded the point about the computer. Try doing some research.
    Got an answer about those smears?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    As Kimbo said earlier, it is perfectly feasible for Robin to have turned the computer on. His alarm goes off, he hits the snooze button, but a few minutes later he gets up, goes inside and turns the computer on because he wants to use it before school and then heads out to retrieve the paper, possibly crossing paths with David on the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Nostalgia_nz. I believe that Robin put his hands up, palms forward, when David poked the gun at him and minute splashes from his wound could have got onto his palms. His arms were found by his sides so his hands moved and could easily have been smeared by the time his body came to rest or was moved where it was found. Whose blood was it by the way?
    A question for you. When you write memo notes to yourself, assuming that you do sometimes, do you date them? I don’t know anyone who does and when you find them again do you know exactly when they were written, let’s say years later?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    > the Crown conceded the point about the computer

    Hmmm I thought I had already conceded the point that it was feasible, like it’s feasible I could win Lotto.

    I suggest you need to understand the meaning of “reasonable doubt” because you seem to be confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. MorrisMinor (11 comments) says:

    to Nostalgia, the sooner the Parole Board see what you’re still up to, the better.
    To Jinny the non genius, row row row your raft, gently up the swamp….you sure haven’t got an inch further that the last time i looked in here .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. misspw (32 comments) says:

    An excellent summing up of the evidence by Brian Edwards
    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2010/07/a-persuasive-defence-of-robin-bain/

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

    Scott Chris (3,943) Says:

    March 14th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
    Perhaps he knew jamming was a problem

    LoL Jinny you really are loyal to David. Good for you I guess.

    Perhaps you have an explanation for Robin’s missing socks too?

    We know the killer stepped in blood and was wearing socks, but the question is: Where are the bloody socks

    ——————————————–

    Actually, we know the killer wore A sock, as only a bloody right foot sock print was found. There is no evidence that supports the killer wore two. We presume, because most people wear a pair, that he did. But then, most people don’t go round killing their family members either. It is a mistake to think the killer was acting like a normal person and therefore doing what a normal person would do.

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

    Scott Chris (3,943) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 8:16 am
    As Kimbo said earlier, it is perfectly feasible for Robin to have turned the computer on. His alarm goes off, he hits the snooze button, but a few minutes later he gets up, goes inside and turns the computer on because he wants to use it before school and then heads out to retrieve the paper, possibly crossing paths with David on the way.
    ——————————————-

    Why wasn’t the radio alarm turned off when the police found it?
    It was well known Robin was very conservative with power usage, and had insisted on small watt light bulbs to save power etc. The radio left going does not correlate with his previous behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. RRM (12,444 comments) says:

    Eleven Hundy!

    So what are y’all up to this weekend? 😉

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

    misspw (18) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 10:24 am

    …..A question for you. When you write memo notes to yourself, assuming that you do sometimes, do you date them? I don’t know anyone who does and when you find them again do you know exactly when they were written, let’s say years later?

    ——————————————-

    I know many people who write memos to themselves, that are kept and read years later. They put them in a book called a diary, so yes, they do know when they were written. Some use these for their thoughts, and memories, others to make a note of things the want to remember or stuff they have to do etc. Fascinating don’t you think?

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

    RRM (4,300) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 11:46 am
    Eleven Hundy!

    So what are y’all up to this weekend?
    ———————————————————-

    I’m going to a birthday party for someone turning 99. I am not expecting much of a rave, but might be surprised. How about you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (251) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 11:42 am
    Why wasn’t the radio alarm turned off when the police found it?
    It was well known Robin was very conservative with power usage, and had insisted on small watt light bulbs to save power etc. The radio left going does not correlate with his previous behaviour.

    But according to you he was on a killing spree so why would he care about how much power he was using? Perhaps the alarm was still on because Robin had been murdered and was unable to turn it off. Strange that he needed to wake himself up to kill his family though isn’t it? I wonder if he left himself a memo. Something like, ‘ Wake up when the alarm goes off, kill family, make it look like it was David and leave a computer message to let the world know he was secretly my favourite child.
    If the previous day was Sunday it is unlikely that he would have set the alarm to get up and so it was deliberately set for Monday morning.
    Cutting it a bit fine don’t you think. David would be home soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RRM (12,444 comments) says:

    A little bit of everything:

    New points and condenser to fit on the old beast…
    Minding the child while Missus sorts out her wedding dress…
    Sorting the house out for visitors that are coming next week…

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

    MorrisMinor 10:44 am Agree 100%. Parole is a privilege, not a right. He’s even been threatening me on this site.

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

    RRM (4,301) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 11:55 am
    A little bit of everything:

    New points and condenser to fit on the old beast…
    Minding the child while Missus sorts out her wedding dress…
    Sorting the house out for visitors that are coming next week…

    ———————————————————

    ah ha! so you are getting married congratulations!
    You do realise from here on, the ‘old beast’ will have to be second on the list (well, at least pretend it is !) *wink*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Why wasn’t the radio alarm turned off when the police found it?

    Jinny, have you ever hit the snooze button but got up before the alarm reactivated?

    As I stated earlier, Robin may have hit the snooze button but got up before the alarm reactivated to turn on the computer collect the paper and say his morning prayer. Perfectly feasible. Done it myself a few times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Jinny: Neither left identifyable prints on the metal of the silencer, or the barrel

    If Robin had committed suicide in any of the poses as demonstrated in the comedy act, he would have left prints on the metal surfaces of either the barrel or the silencer.

    Jinny: Why wasn’t the radio alarm turned off when the police found it?
    It was well known Robin was very conservative with power usage, and had insisted on small watt light bulbs to save power etc. The radio left going does not correlate with his previous behaviour.

    Not a very convincing argument here. Our kitchen radio is on 24/7 but we have eco-bulbs in every room of the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (254) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 11:49 am

    I know many people who write memos to themselves, that are kept and read years later. They put them in a book called a diary, so yes, they do know when they were written. Some use these for their thoughts, and memories, others to make a note of things the want to remember or stuff they have to do etc. Fascinating don’t you think?

    Firstly the question was not directed to you, rather to ‘nostagia_nz’ aka ….. never mind the list is too long.

    Secondly, seeing you did answer, if you did find an undated note years later, on the back of a piece of paper, not a diary, would you be able to say exactly which date it had been written?

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

    corrigenda (39) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    Jinny: Neither left identifyable prints on the metal of the silencer, or the barrel

    If Robin had committed suicide in any of the poses as demonstrated in the comedy act, he would have left prints on the metal surfaces of either the barrel or the silencer.

    ————————————————————————————-

    I love this argument.
    The JFRBer’s and David doubters use it all the time.
    It’s one of their most argued points, so you think in all this time at least one of them would have done some research to make sure they weren’t making fools of themselves.

    Because I am sick of answering this one, I’ll give you some information, and let’s see if you can work out the answer, and as Scott likes to be ‘probable’ then perhaps the probability of something like 93 in 1000 against your theory, might impress him.

    Alan McRoberts of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Scientific Services Bureau — Identification Section:

    Often, detectives are disappointed and prosecutors are frustrated with the lack of the irrefutable evidence of the “suspect’s” fingerprints on a particular item of evidence, which he must have handled. It is unfortunate that, unlike on television, the suspects prints don’t always appear. A look at the factors influencing the chances of obtaining prints will assist in understanding the fragile and elusive nature of latent impressions. Each of the following various factors independently or in combination can account for the lack of prints on a surface: 1) Individuals don’t always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited, 2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear, 3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail, and 4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate. The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.

    followed with: –

    NO LATENT PRINTS WERE FOUND AT THE SCENE, SO HE MUST HAVE WORN GLOVES OR HE WIPED THEM OFF!

    There are many factors that cause an item to lack sufficient ridge detail. Surfaces, pressure, or the condition that existed before or after the finger or hand touched the surface, are some of these. If the background where the latent print is found is rough, grooved, or textured, it may impede the continuity of the ridge detail in the latent print. For example, take a plastic baggie in your hand and make a fist. Releasing the bag in your hand you will notice the baggie unraveling. The ridge detail originally connecting in its compressed state will lack this continuity in the unraveled state. The amount of pressure applied to the surface has varying effects. The results differ drastically when the items, say, papers, were “grasped or rifled” through.

    Again, the examiner does not always know the conditions that existed before or after the latent print touched the surface, but understanding the factors affecting latents aids the technician in explaining the fragile nature of these prints.

    Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. In hot weather, the opposite is true — too much perspiration causes the recordings of the prints to be spotty and distorted. The ridges must contain some sweat, grease, oil, or other foreign matter or no latent print will be left on the item that was touched.

    A large percentage of latent prints are “lost” before they are received at the lab for analysis because of poor handling or packaging of items to be examined. Most crime labs readily dispense information and assistance to police who may be having difficulty or problems with evidence retrieval.

    THERE WERE NO FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATIONS OF THE SUSPECT — THEREFORE HE DIDN’T DO IT!

    The assumption is that if no fingerprints of the suspect were found, he is innocent. For the reasons mentioned earlier, he may not have left behind any identifiable prints linking him to the crime, but it would not necessarily eliminate him as a suspect. There may have been fragmentary ridge detail indicating the item was handled but not enough to make a comparison. In some instances, an object can be so heavily handled that the ridges overlap, preventing the examiner from determining which ridges belong to which latent print.

    Finally, from Clive A. Barnum and Darrell R. Klasey, both Fingerprint Specialists at the San Francisco Laboratory Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
    Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting-edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature and the judicial system. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor.
    In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence.

    Jurors have been inundated with fingerprint information from television, movies and newspapers and feel that latent print evidence is a reliable means of establishing positive personal identity. However, jurors are generally under the impression that every item that is touched by fingers or palms will be left with an identifiable latent print impression. If an offender is arrested for possession of a firearm, jurors therefore expect his/her prints to be on it. In fact, most of the time, fingerprint specialists find no identifiable latent prints on firearms.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm

    For more supporting data
    http://www.scafo.org/library/130303.html

    Now there are about 15 official sites that also discuss the same issue as above. If you still won’t accept it, I suggest you look for the links from the two sites above, and read them.

    I’ll take it that you NOW concede that the lack of an identifyable fingerprint from Robin on the rifle means zlich.
    Thank you for your time

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

    I think this is a pertinent point to above
    “Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. ”

    The temperature that morning was recorded as freezing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Not a very convincing argument here. Our kitchen radio is on 24/7 but we have eco-bulbs in every room of the house.

    Yes I agree. A clock radio would only use 5 watts per hour as compared to the old fashioned incandescent bulbs which would use between 40 and 150 watts per hour.

    Jinny’s energy conservation argument doesn’t stack up to reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Jinny: I know many people who write memos to themselves, that are kept and read years later

    If, as he claims, Laniet did come looking for David and then confided in this “friend” and he wrote a message, but then neglected to pass on same, then he can hardly be called a friend can he? Something as important as this should have been acted on immediately if not sooner. The fact that he went merrily off, whether to Palmerston North or overseas is irrelevant, without making any attempt to pass on this message proves his unreliability and makes me wonder: (a) the mentality of this friend; and (b) the veracity of this claim.

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

    Scott Chris (3,945) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    Not a very convincing argument here. Our kitchen radio is on 24/7 but we have eco-bulbs in every room of the house.

    Yes I agree. A clock radio would only use 5 watts per hour as compared to the old fashioned incandescent bulbs which would use between 40 and 150 watts per hour.

    Jinny’s energy conservation argument doesn’t stack up to reality.

    —————————————————————————

    If you want to talk about reality Scott, then read the post above and apply a bit of it to something that actually does make a difference in the analysis of the deaths.

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

    corrigenda (40) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    Jinny: I know many people who write memos to themselves, that are kept and read years later

    If, as he claims, Laniet did come looking for David and then confided in this “friend” and he wrote a message, but then neglected to pass on same, then he can hardly be called a friend can he? Something as important as this should have been acted on immediately if not sooner. The fact that he went merrily off, whether to Palmerston North or overseas is irrelevant, without making any attempt to pass on this message proves his unreliability and makes me wonder: (a) the mentality of this friend; and (b) the veracity of this claim.
    ————————————————————————–

    I suggest you take the comments you’ve just made and apply them to sweet ad’s sister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (258) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    I think this is a pertinent point to above
    “Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. ”
    The temperature that morning was recorded as freezing.

    But David and Stephen’s prints WERE found on the gun and Robin’s weren’t. Go figure, eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Jinny: I suggest you take the comments you’ve just made and apply them to sweet ad’s sister.

    Would you care to elucidate??

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

    misspw (21) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Jinny (258) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    I think this is a pertinent point to above
    “Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. ”
    The temperature that morning was recorded as freezing.

    But David and Stephen’s prints WERE found on the gun and Robin’s weren’t. Go figure, eh.

    ———————————————-

    You didn’t read the articles, did you?

    David’s prints were not in blood, therefore, because the morning was cold, they (on a probability of 93/1000) were not left that morning. It was too cold for skin moisture or perspiration, which supports the thesis they were from an earlier use of the rifle, which is consistent with him owning it and using it before that day.

    There was not a full set of Stephen’s prints identified on the gun. The prints that were identified as Stephen’s were in blood, thus providing the necessary moisture required to show the ridges for identification.
    However, as the article say, most of the time prints in blood smudge, as did all the other prints on the rifle, except for that one instance. This print remained because it was not in an area commonly used to hold the weapon and therefore was not smudged by further use of the weapon.

    So, based on your argument that there must be fingerprints on the weapon left by the killer, and we know David’s fingerprint was from an earlier time and not that morning, then your rationale is that as Stepen’s was the only print related to that morning, he was the killer and somehow managed to kill them all, holding the weapon by the silencer, including shooting himself through the hand etc.
    Well done you – such a well thought out scenairo. It’s almost as good as Robin praying whilst standing on one leg and waiting for the rifle to be reloaded.

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

    corrigenda (41) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
    Jinny: I suggest you take the comments you’ve just made and apply them to sweet ad’s sister.

    Would you care to elucidate??
    ————————————————

    No, because I know that you know that I already know, you know the answer to that question. – *wink*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    then read the post above and apply a bit of it to something that actually does make a difference in the analysis of the deaths.

    Jinny, you were the one going on about how the alarm wasn’t turned off.

    Anyway, regarding the absence of fingerprints. Well, you’ve really got to compare apples with apples here:

    To suggest that fingerprints wouldn’t have been left after the killer took the ball gloves off to handle a gun that was wet with blood is spectacularly obtuse. The gun must have been wiped at some stage and unfortunately for David, he neglected to clean it properly and left a pristine set which subsequently degraded. Rabbits blood my arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    Jeez – more comprehension problems for the david bain cheer squad: “….on a probability of 93/1000…” something didn’t happen.

    Haha – Brilliant! 😀

    Of course, that means that, ‘on a probability of 907/1000’, something did !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (259) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    ‘David’s prints were not in blood, therefore, because the morning was cold, they (on a probability of 93/1000) were not left that morning.’

    But David had had a shower or even more than one shower that morning and he had been on a run with is papers so his body was certainly warm and probably sweaty too.

    ‘It was too cold for skin moisture or perspiration, which supports the thesis they were from an earlier use of the rifle, which is consistent with him owning it and using it before that day.’

    No. Read what I said above. His body would have been warm enough to leave those prints so this does not support the ‘thesis’.

    ‘There was not a full set of Stephen’s prints identified on the gun. The prints that were identified as Stephen’s were in blood, thus providing the necessary moisture required to show the ridges for identification.
    However, as the article say, most of the time prints in blood smudge, as did all the other prints on the rifle, except for that one instance. This print remained because it was not in an area commonly used to hold the weapon and therefore was not smudged by further use of the weapon.’

    Nobody is suggesting that Stephen was doing anymore than fighting for his life. Of course they were in blood and on the silencer as he tried to push it away as anyone would expect.

    ‘So, based on your argument that there must be fingerprints on the weapon left by the killer’

    Yes. David’s prints as they were warm enough to be there as he had not presumably been cold showering that morning.

    ‘ and we know David’s fingerprint was from an earlier time and not that morning’

    No we don’t. I have just explained why they would be there.

    ‘then your rationale is that as Stepen’s was the only print related to that morning, he was the killer and somehow managed to kill then all, holding the weapon by the silencer, including shooting himself through the hand etc.’

    No. Read the explanation. David was warm enough to leave prints and Stephen was fighting for his life.

    ‘Well done you – such a well thought out scenairo. It’s almost as good as Robin praying whilst standing on one leg and waiting for the rifle to be reloaded.’

    http://pinterest.com/pin/24699497926324611/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Although I think David committed murder, I don’t think the finger print evidence is persuasive. Finger prints are left on a gun in a relatively small number of cases. In most cases, there are no prints or the prints cannot be identified.

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

    misspw (22) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    ———————————–

    You are grasping at straws again.

    You are now suggesting that David returned at 6.45 am, with his father having woken at least at 6.32 am. Went inside, killed the first four, including the fight with Stephen, whilst Robin stood by (what? waiting for his turn?) then waited for a gap (because there was a noticable difference in time between the first four deaths, and Robin’s) then, getting Robin to stand on one leg, he went to shoot him, bullet misfeed, so Robin waited nicely by he reloaded, he shot Robin, then cleaned up, had a shower, put a load of washing on………..

    oh but wait, if he waited that long to put the washing on, it would have still been going when the police got there, and it wasn’t……. so he must have washed the bloody clothes before the killings – and some how managed to turn the computer on, before he got home….

    Your theory doesn’t fit, does it?

    And don’t bother trying to argue that he killed them before the paper run, because that has been proven impossible.

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

    Scott Chris (3,946) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    then read the post above and apply a bit of it to something that actually does make a difference in the analysis of the deaths.

    Jinny, you were the one going on about how the alarm wasn’t turned off.

    Anyway, regarding the absence of fingerprints. Well, you’ve really got to compare apples with apples here:

    To suggest that fingerprints wouldn’t have been left after the killer took the ball gloves off to handle a gun that was wet with blood is spectacularly obtuse. The gun must have been wiped at some stage and unfortunately for David, he neglected to clean it properly and left a pristine set which subsequently degraded. Rabbits blood my arse
    ——————————————–

    The fingerprints weren’t in rabbits blood, that was disproven long before the second trial. The Crown team supplied the defence with contaminated samples. That was sorted long ago.

    David’s fingerprints have been proven not to have been in blood of any kind, and left from natural skin moisture. There was no blood at all in the area from where the prints were taken.

    The articles I provided above said that common people argue the gun must have been wiped, when they can’t find fingerprints, because they tend to think that there must always be fingerprints, which is wrong. I suggest you read all the information again

    Further to David’s fingerprints –

    ————————————————–

    1995 – ESR scientist Peter Hentschel stated he removed five samples of blood from murder weapon, including one sample from the area where the fingerprints were found. (on the wooden fore-stock of the rifle)

    – given to ESR scientist and blood analyst Dr Pert Cropp who said when he tested them they were all human blood.

    – 2003 court of appeal endorsed this view.

    DNA tests 1997
    Assistant Commissioner Brian Duncan – conducted a review and ordered new tests to be done

    – Report by police/PCA made no reference to the results of these new tests
    – Tests were conducted by SallyAnn Harbison ESR – removed 10 samples of blood from the rifle including two from the fingerprints.
    – The samples from the fingerprints did not contain human DNA.
    – The other samples from various other parts of the rifle in most cases profiled as the blood of Stephen Bain.
    – The test was repeated on the fingerprints – but was contaminated.
    – Elliot and Harbison found two fingerprints remaining of the four left hand prints and two smears between the fingerprints which when sampled and tested. – no trace of human DNA was found, or anything to suggest it was even blood.
    – Jones and Hentschel had said at first trial that area was clear of any contamination except for the fingerprints.

    ESR Contamination Claim.

    – When defence team conducted tests on area from fingerprint which contained a large area of mammaliam DNA – rabbit or possum blood.
    – ESR then stated they had supplied the defence with a contaminated sample, ie they had supplied a sample to another laboratory knowing it was contaminated.

    1999 MOJ
    – Hentschel had told first jury the first sample had come from the fingerprints area – but in 1999 reported it wasn’t from that area but an area adjacent to it, about 10 mm away.
    – However, this area had cellotape round it that had first been put there by Kim Jones when the fingerprints were first found four weeks before Hentschel tested on 4 August 1994.

    DNA Tests 2003

    – Dr Sue Vintiner from ESR for the Police. Attened by Whthnall, Karam, Kim Jones, Kallum Croudis and other ESR scientists.
    – In order to find some human blood, ideally Stephen’s, the area where the fingerprints had been was pulled apart and swabbed for samples, including every obscure spot.
    – All of the samples failed to show any human DNA.
    – The rest of the gun and silencer were examined in the same way and tested. Human DNA was found and profiles obtained.
    – One of the samples had two DNA profiles that didn’t belong to any member of the Bain family.

    Blood Fluoresces

    – Kim Jones had stated at the first trial that in the violet light band of Polilight he saw what appeared to be blood all over the gun, inclidng where the fingerprints were found, because it fluoresced.
    – He also produced a photo which he said had been chemically enhanced.

    -Jones stated the sample Hentschel took was on the 22 June not 4 August and wasn’t taken from where Hentschel said it was. However, in all the paper work, job sheets, or any documentation provided, there was nothing to support his claim. The blood was removed without any record at all. Nothing to indicate how it was removed, what it was put into, or how it got from Dunedin to CHCH. All other records were heavily detailed.

    – And Hentschel denied he did it.

    No Photograph

    – there was no photograph ever produced or taken by the police to show these four fingerprints together on the rifle.
    – Nor a photo to show them as ‘red’ in blood’
    – Jones assessment they were blood because they fluoresced under the violet band of the Polilight.

    Blood does not Fluoresce.
    – UK 2008 Carl Lloyd British Police and Forensic Science services 40 + years experience. Blood does not fluoresce.
    – Confirmed by manufactures of light – “Although blood has a broad absorption spectrum, it only exhibits a single absorption max of around 415 mm and does not display any photoluminescence properties” Citing grease, oily substances, and varnish as examples of materials that naturally fluoresce.

    Ridges Wrong Colour

    – Photo produced by Jones to the court = chemically enhanced.
    – Ridges were white, but if made in blood, the ridges should be black and the gap between the ridges should be white.
    – Manufacturers confirm this saying ‘blood marks look dark against a lighter background’

    Blood Pools

    – Jones gave evidence that fingerprints were very well defined, meaning no smudges or deterioration – because prints placed when gun was gripped very firmly.
    – Lloyd stated the natural property of blood is that it coagulates and pools.
    – Fingerprints in blood are not well defined at all, because the blood ‘pools’ smudging the ridge detail.
    – No pooling in the evidential photo of the separate fingerprints.
    – Photos taken in blood of fingerprints were shown to prove this pooling effect, and no defined ridging.

    Three reasons why not blood.

    – latent fingerprints, normal, made without any contaminant except the natural moisture of the skin – which had been chemically enhanced for the photos. Chemical enhancement would not be necessary if they were in blood because they would be visible without it.

    Jones at retrial

    – agreed blood did not fluoresce
    – said he told jury that so they would understand easier
    – admitted the ridges in the exhibit photo should have been black
    – stated the finger print had never been chemically enhanced and he shouldn’t have said that,
    – When asked why he hadn’t stated before about the site of the blood sample which wasn’t from the fingerprint area, he stated he’d never been asked before in 15 years.
    – When asked on the stand about evidence he had given at the first trial for which he didn’t or hadn’t test or got right.
    – Q: Well, how could you give that evidence on oath to a jury on a murder case if you didn’t know it at the time? Why would you give false evidence, Mr Jones? I’m waiting. Jones; I haven’t got a comment to make on that, Sir.

    Paul Morten – took all the photos of the fingerprints.
    – Jones was wrong, about the ridges and the negative photo and that all his photos should have been in the fingerprint file which Jones said he couldn’t locate.
    – When he first saw the fingerprints they looked red and that was why he decided they were – last line of his evidence. Despite previously saying it was because they fluoresce.

    SUMMARY

    – There was no traces of blood or human DNA detected from the area where the fingerprints were located.
    – Jones confessed crucial aspects of his evidence were false.
    – Said he’d seen red pigment, but had previously said it was because they fluoresced.
    – Fingerprints were not made in blood and could have been there from any previous time as David owned the rifle and had used it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Finger prints are left on a gun in a relatively small number of cases.

    That may well be the case, but in order to make a definitive assessment of the likelihood of fingerprints being left on a gun that has been spattered with the blood of five victims and handled without gloves, then you’d have to compare it with other similar cases, not just any old case involving a gun.

    Most suicide scenarios wouldn’t involve the presence blood on the gun before the suicide for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Jinny where did that extract come from?

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

    Scott Chris (3,947) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
    Finger prints are left on a gun in a relatively small number of cases.

    That may well be the case, but in order to make a definitive assessment of the likelihood of fingerprints being left on a gun that has been spattered with the blood of five victims and handled without gloves, then you’d have to compare it with other similar cases, not just any old case involving a gun.

    Most suicide scenarios wouldn’t involve the presence blood on the gun before the suicide for instance.

    ——————-

    Read the reports properly and then follow up on the other links provided.
    You are agruing the exact case they say ordinary people argue because they are ignorant to the actual facts about fingerprints on guns. One of the articles actually goes so far as to say people like you get your arguments from TV and movies and think because it happens on tv, it must be real. . I’m starting to think you are one of the people they are referring to. At least inform yourself.

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

    Scott Chris (3,948) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    Jinny where did that summary come from?
    ———————————–

    It is my own summary made from a variety of sources, some of which are available to the public, some not. I put it together for a friend who wanted to know more about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Mr Hentschel gave evidence at the trial of obtaining five samples of blood from the rifle to pass on to Dr Cropp for analysis. He stated that ” … blood was taken from the silencer, from the front of the telescopic sight, from the barrel, from the stock near the trivger and also from the fore arm from where those fingerprints were found…”. Dr Cropp, ESR, then gave evidence at the trial “that the five samples were all identified as human blood.” The blood on the rifle [silencer, barrel, and wood near the trigger] was able to be grouped to Stephen’s, Laniet’s or David’s.

    These initial tests were later reviewed (section 277):

    As part of the Review, Dr Harbison examined the case notes of Mr Hentschel and Dr Cropp and conducted a series of tests. Mr Hentschel conducted a chemical test (Sangur) on areas of probable blood staining on the rifle the results of which were positive (ie. indicates the presence of blood.) Those samples were further analysed by Dr Cropp who conducted an ouchterlony test, which is a test that detects the presence of a human protein. These tests on the samples, and in particular, the area around the fingerprint, were also positive.? Dr t1arbison’s opinion was that the original two tests conducted by Mr Hentschel from blood being wiped across its surface. Mr Hentschel gave evidence at the trial that “, .. smears of blood were found over most parts of the rifle” … and “blood being wiped across the surface.,. Senior Fingerprint Officer Jones said in his statement to the review team that” … it was almost like it [rifle] had been wiped down with something soaked in blood … ” but he also agreed that it could be just covered in blood because someone in the course of a fight has been covered in blood and contaminated the gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    It is my own summary made from a variety of sources

    In that case, the honest thing to do is present the evidence and separate your conclusions from them.

    What you have failed to emphasize is that subsequent tests made on the samples were conducted many years after the event, so they had naturally degraded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    You are agruing the exact case they say ordinary people argue because they are ignorant to the actual facts about fingerprints on guns.

    You miss the point I’ve made. I read the extract. Nowhere does it specify categorically the specific circumstances of each death scenario.

    I repeat, in this case the gun had been covered in blood and handled without gloves. Try this as an experiment. Take a varnished wooden object and cover it in a water based paint, then handle it, and then put it aside to dry. Then examine it with a magnifying glass to see if there are any prints on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Jinny: No, because I know that you know that I already know, you know the answer to that question. – *wink*

    Ok I will play your silly game, but I haven’t got a clue what you are going on about. Must be like all your other “evidence” and wholely in your head.

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

    Scott Chris (3,951) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    It is my own summary made from a variety of sources

    In that case, the honest thing to do is present the evidence and separate your conclusions from them.

    What you have failed to emphasize is that subsequent tests made on the samples were conducted many years after the event, so they had naturally degraded.
    —————————————–
    Im sorry but your opinion doesn’t matter to me enough to retype over 2000 pages of documents so you can see the originals. But I see the game you play, you ask such things only on anything that threatens your case. It’s the old discredit eveything that kent has demanded. Confuse anyone reading so they don’t actually see there is evidence that proves you wrong.

    What you are saying is when the Crown pulled that gun apart, the blood etc they found, wasn’t really there, and the blood they didn’t find, on the area where David’s prints were, was actually there – and that is due to the fact, time degraded the sample (in this case the gun) What any idiotic argument, that you may be able to excuse some of the evidence, but you cannot exclude all the evidence with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Just reading Bain’s speech and I note he says he does have marginal recall of going from room to room trying to help.
    Yet in his notes to his lawyer he wrote”When I went into Laniet’s room I heard groaning type sounds muffled by what sounded like water.I turned on the light,went over to her,but could see there was nothing I could do.”
    Then he turned the light out and left her there,groaning.
    Unbelievable.She was groaning and he could see there was nothing he could do?What a load of codswallop.David Bain heard Laniet groaning and he knew there was something he could do to stop her groaning,and he did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “But I see the game you play, you ask such things only on anything that threatens your case. It’s the old discredit everything…. Confuse anyone reading so they don’t actually see there is evidence that proves you wrong.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    This is the modus operandi from the david bain cheer squad manual. Presenting opinion as ‘fact’ when clearly it’s merely opinion. Resorting to innuendo when it suits. Conveniently omitting facts that do not suit the fantasy version of events. Telling outright porkies. Even threatening someone with “a letter next week’ in order to try and muzzle someone who clearly knows what they’re talking about.

    And yet you suggest this is a tactic of the realists, rather than the david bain cheer squad cultists?

    Haha – comedy gold.

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

    Can anyone confirm that David Bain said in his speech, that he cries when he looks in the mirror?

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

    Scott Chris (3,951) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I repeat, in this case the gun had been covered in blood and handled without gloves. Try this as an experiment. Take a varnished wooden object and cover it in a water based paint, then handle it, and then put it aside to dry. Then examine it with a magnifying glass to see if there are any prints on it.
    ————————————————————————–

    Those articles deal with guns that have blood on them. They state how fingerprints in blood are mostly unidentifiable because the ridges do not form properly.

    You twist your argument by saying there is no example of a gun that killed five people and was covered in blood. You seem to forget there was only one person’s blood on that gun, and that the rest of the shots did not involve any contact with the victims. Therefore the gun does match those tested. They gave examples of fingerprints in blood on guns.
    They tested 1000 guns and found fingerprints on 93 of them.

    Do you really think your pathetic attempt to try and excuse those reports by your excuse. That is laugh, you accuse Karam of smoke and mirrors but it appears you are just as guilty – like it or not the experts don’t agree with you. The absence of fingerprint on a gun, covered in blood, is not a sign of Robin’s innocence. It does not support either side of the argument.

    David Bain’s fingerprints were NOT in blood and there was no blood found in the area where the fingerprints were, and time does not degrade something that doesn’t exist!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Jinny: And don’t bother trying to argue that he killed them before the paper run, because that has been proven impossible.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong again. If it had been PROVEN we would not now be here arguing the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    David Bain has never mentioned carrying a pooperscooper when he went on his paper round.Does that mean he just let Kaycee take a crap on the front verges of the good people of Anderson’s Bay every morning without bothering to pick up the dog shit?

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

    corrigenda (43) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    Jinny: And don’t bother trying to argue that he killed them before the paper run, because that has been proven impossible.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong again. If it had been PROVEN we would not now be here arguing the evidence.
    ——————————–

    I’m sorry, but not everyone comes from your stance that argues for Robin. Some accept they didnt’ died before the paper run, but still believe David did it. Stephen could not have died before David left for the paper run. Regardless of there being no core body temperature, the changes to his body in the cold temperature of that morning would have been so extreme if he had been dead for that length of time, even the police standing over him and not touching him would have noticed the difference between him and the other victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dr Harbison took a blood sample from the under those fingerprints.She could not find any human DNA in that sample.
    There are a number of reasons why no human DNA may be detected in a particular blood sample.These are some of them.
    [1]Human DNA could be present in such low amounts as to be below the power of a test to detect it.
    [2]The sample could contain inhibitors such that the test did not work.
    [3]The DNA could be so degraded as a result of chemical or biological influences that the test did not work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    5.11

    What rifle was ‘covered in blood’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    The dog shit expert stockdale is back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    You seem to forget there was only one person’s blood on that gun

    1) Try to keep the personal remarks out of this. Being uncivil really doesn’t advance your cause or cast you in a good light.
    2) When you shoot people at close range there is always going to be spray back.
    3) The blood soaked ball gloves were a sure indication of how much blood was on the rifle.
    4) The blood stained rifle strap was a sure indication of how much blood was on the rifle.
    5) A bloodied Stephen grappled with the rifle.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 6:11 pm u claim to be stockdale? or mcdonald? no, i believe u r mcdonald and just pretending to be someone else. nice try.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “The dog shit expert stockdale is back.”

    Nice…. real nice. Another erudite comment from the front row of the david bain cheer squad.

    And Nostalgia, your own area of ‘expertise’ (and your background) is…..??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    6.19

    If you’re talking to me you seem to have forgotten badgering me for proof of the smears on Robin’s palms, immediately following that you dropped the subject. Now you are referring to a rifle ‘covered in blood’ when the evidence disproves that. Flittering from failed claims to failed evidence, doesn’t advance your case.

    The fingerprints don’t advance the case because both men had handled the rifle, and even the discredited ‘expert’ agreed that fingerprints can last a ‘long time.’ On that basis, and particularly because you denied its existence, kindly give me your conclusions about the blood smears on Robin’s hands.

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

    muggins (60) Says:

    March 15th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
    David Bain has never mentioned carrying a pooperscooper when he went on his paper round.Does that mean he just let Kaycee take a crap on the front verges of the good people of Anderson’s Bay every morning without bothering to pick up the dog shit?
    ————————————————————————-

    LOL
    Keep digging old boy. No need to argue with you, when you have to resort to such crap. (excuse the pun)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    hiphip

    Well who are then sweetheart? Not old Kev is it? You and kal would have 2 of the 3 ks covered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    If you’re talking to me you seem to have forgotten badgering me for proof of the smears

    I wasn’t badgering you, Put It Away was. Try to keep to the facts Nostalgia. As it happens you were wrong anyway. Robin didn’t have blood on his palms.

    The fingerprints don’t advance the case because both men had handled the rifle

    Rubbish. There is no proof Robin touched the rifle that weekend. On the contrary, there is clear proof David and Stephen did. Here’s a picture of David’s pristine prints found on the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Elaycee
    6.40

    You’re sounding rather hysterical. Are you looking for me? Do I owe you some money or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    kindly give me your conclusions about the blood smears on Robin’s hands.

    I repeat: The human instinct is to raise one’s hands to defend oneself when faced with the muzzle of a rifle. As David shot him, Robin raised his left hand in a futile attempt to defend himself in the process of which small droplets of blood flew onto his hand.
    When he fell, a few of these droplets smudged.

    Obvious really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    7.08

    It’s not if I was right or wrong, it’s the evidence. The forensic scientists from each side agreed was as the result of heavy staining, rinsed, but not scrubbed. I’ve already published it here. Do you have some evidence from the retrial that says otherwise? Why do you keep circling the evidence and use lies and discredited material. Is it because you frantically rely on other ‘evidence’ from a ‘bad’ source? as a backup each time you get caught out?

    If you manage to negotiate this I will quickly set aside your bewilderment about the fingerprints. Better for now to concentrate on one subject at a time, particularly one that surrounds the suicide – or in my opinion proves the suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    The forensic scientists from each side agreed was as the result of heavy staining, rinsed, but not scrubbed. I’ve already published it here.

    Transcript, forensic expert’s names and source please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    7.12

    That’s absolute nonsense. Something that someone tried to use today, in the way these patterns go of desperation to find explanations for things which show Robin’s guilt. There is no evidence of smudges on Robin’s hands. The ‘futile attempt’ is accurate though. You, or whoever is ‘advising’ you needs to do more work on this subject, a lot more in fact. But why do you persevere against something agreed by scientists on both sides?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    7.33

    Happy to do that as soon as you provide the transcript details of your 7.12

    ‘As David shot him, Robin raised his left hand in a futile attempt to defend himself in the process of which small droplets of blood flew onto his hand.
    When he fell, a few of these droplets smudged.’

    As you appear to have everything on hand I’m sure you’ll post it in a minute. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Happy to do that as soon as you provide the transcript details of your 7.12

    Don’t be childish Nostalgia. You asked me for a plausible explanation as to how Robin got the tiny smears on his hands and I gave it.

    You on the other hand claim that ‘forensic experts’ have testified to the fact that Robin had blood was smears on his palms, and on the numerous occasions you have been asked to substantiate this claim you have reneged.

    Just give me some names and the context of the testimony and I’ll look it up myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    It would be a good idea if you did look it up yourself Scott Chris, otherwise it appears that you think I’m at your disposal when I’m not. You are trying to re litigate the failed case I am not. I can’t understand how you make the claims you do without knowing the evidence, but its par for the course from where your information comes from. Look forward to what you come back with I hope it’s an improvement on your efforts so far including your plausible explanations. Be wary of the use of ‘smudge’ it shows your confusion.

    So the following doesn’t confuse, day 3 of the trial I believe.

    Q. – you will see at 1505, 3.05 hours, he records, “Smear of blood on heel of thumb inside left hand, also a smear on left little finger, no blood on right hand.” Do you see that?
    A. Correct

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (3,956) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    What you have copied there, is David’s fingerprints as taken, not those from the gun itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Ok,McDonald,you call me by my name,I call you by your name.
    Now lets go back to those fingerprints on the rifle.
    [1]They were definitely David Bain’s prints.
    [2]There was definitely blood under those prints.
    The question is was it human blood or was it mammalian blood?
    Dr Harbison said she could not find any human DNA and I have already posted some of the reasons why she was unable to do this.
    Dr Geursen said he found some mammalian DNA but Dr Harbison said the samples he used were contaminated.
    But I do not believe the blood found under those fingerprints was mammalian blood.I shot many rabbits [and the odd possum]on my property over a period of 12 years,and I never got any blood on me or on the rifle.The thing is rabbits don’t bleed much,as a general rule.If you shoot one through the eye there might be a little blood,but not very much.According to Bain he used that rifle for less than a year.I cannot for the life of me see how he would have gotten rabbit’s blood on it.
    And even if he had,surely he would have cleaned the rifle down before he locked it up.
    At the first trial it was suggested that he might have innocently picked the rifle up after he saw his father.He can’t remember doing this.But his fingerprints were not in a pick-up position.They were more in a clean down position.Also,if he picked the rifle up one would have thought he would have used his right hand.Whereas if he cleaned the fingerprints off the rifle[and let’s face it,somebody did]he would have held the rifle in his left hand and cleaned it down with his right hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    By the way,McDonald,if anyone is a dog shit expert,that person would be David Bain.There was dogshit all over the floor at 65 Every Street.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    you think I’m at your disposal when I’m not.

    Heh. Translation:

    I made it all up, so that’s why I can’t produce the evidence for my lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Kanz
    9.01

    I never looked at that until now. But it is headed as fingerprints in blood and the Scientist says they are fingerprints in a contaminate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    9.29

    Ha. From somebody who produces a ‘fingerprint in blood’ when it’s not.
    I see you not now denying, again, the smears on Robin’s palms. No progress as usual with the weight of evidence and the lost case before you. Prepare for the next stage if you ever get past the palms that is.

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

    awww what a touching reunion. There’s stockie in doggy doo doo, morrie and misspew on their broomstick. I feel so nostalgic. Wedgies for all, hahaha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Stop making stuff up Nostalgia. Either produce the evidence or STFU.

    Now this is evidence:

    Professor Stephen Cordner explains post death gurgling

    1) If dead, you only gurgle if you’re being moved or
    2) you only gurgle when you’re decomposing and gas builds up inside you.

    David heard Laniet gurgling after the first non-fatal shot. The second and third shots were nearly instantly fatal. Therefore only the killer would have heard her gurgle.

    Therefore David Bain is the killer. No doubt at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Try the Judges summing up in this case, not what you read on a website. A summary of what the Judge said can be found here.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/59608/judge-outlines-039gurgling039-theories

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (375 comments) says:

    Bain says parents made him strong
    David Bain 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.

    That’s the post
    You guys have been off-thread for about the last eleven days, or maybe the last 1,115 responses

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    By the way, there are 9 pages of the Judges summing up to be found there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Elaycee (4,521 comments) says:

    “A summary of what the Judge said can be found here…. http://www.odt.co.nz/….. ”

    Haha – Whaaaaat? So the writing attributed to a reporter from the ODT, is somehow deemed to be ‘fact’? You have to be kidding!

    Yet another nadir for the david bain cheer squad….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Try the Judges summing up in this case

    Kanz, you do know the difference between a Judge summing up and the Defense summing up don’t you? (ignore the URL tag; it’s misnamed)

    Still, here’s what Bain’s defence has to say regarding the gurgling from your link:

    ….it was possible David had heard something else and attributed it to Laniet’s gurgling.

    Yeah, right. Laniet had blood in her lungs. She had been drowning in her own blood. She had been gurgling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (3,959) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Try the Judges summing up in this case

    Kanz, you do know the difference between a Judge summing up and the Defense summing up don’t you? (ignore the URL tag; it’s misnamed)

    Yes, of course I do, but it appears you don’t. You need to read, and comprehend it. That was certainly the Judges summing up, all 9 pages of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. sharkdog (3 comments) says:

    You know Lesley, you are the 17th person I have had say to me they knew Robin Bain before he died.
    Regardless of what Joe Karam thinks or says, the photos, the unfinished work, the piles of filth and rubbish, the body odor all give a picture. This is man that let his brother know, discretely that all was not right in his world.

    so this filthy dirty person used gloves to kill his family, changed his clothes to meet his maker and put his bloodied clothes in the laundry basket after murdering 3 of his children and his wife? you cant have it both ways

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Kanz/Nostalgia, did you even look at the link you posted? Go read it.

    It is a one page ODT report and it mainly consists of a part of Reed’s Defense summation.

    You really are just another of Nostalgia’s alter egos aren’t you?

    Same bloody minded denial of reality. Bah.

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

    sharkdog (3) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    You know Lesley, you are the 17th person I have had say to me they knew Robin Bain before he died.
    Regardless of what Joe Karam thinks or says, the photos, the unfinished work, the piles of filth and rubbish, the body odor all give a picture. This is man that let his brother know, discretely that all was not right in his world.

    so this filthy dirty person used gloves to kill his family, changed his clothes to meet his maker and put his bloodied clothes in the laundry basket after murdering 3 of his children and his wife? you cant have it both ways

    —————————————————————–

    OH lovely, another jfrb identity. So many with multiple personality disorder in the one group.

    Not keeping yourself clean is very different to not wanting the blood of your children on you. I do not believe he changed clothes to meet his maker. I believe he changed simply to get rid of the blood which has all sorts of significance. It was not a matter of cleanliness.

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

    Scott Chris (3,960) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Try the Judges summing up in this case

    Kanz, you do know the difference between a Judge summing up and the Defense summing up don’t you? (ignore the URL tag; it’s misnamed)

    Still, here’s what Bain’s defence has to say regarding the gurgling from your link:

    ….it was possible David had heard something else and attributed it to Laniet’s gurgling.

    Yeah, right. Laniet had blood in her lungs. She had been drowning in her own blood. She had been gurgling.
    ————————————————————————————

    I thought you were a reasonably wise person when I first came on here, but you certainly aren’t showing that now.

    To repeat myself.
    Laniet died instantly when she was shot through the top of her head by a bullet that passed through white fabric.
    The evidence for this was:
    1. She was sitting up at the time she was shot because her blood and brain matter was splatter on the wardrobe at the foot of her bed at a height consistent with her sitting.
    2. A piece of lead from the bullet was found under her body, which indicates the bullet that fragmented was the first shot.
    3. A body can make various noises for an extended period after death. Dr Dempster researched this between the first and second trials and said both on the stand and in a letter to the Crown that is was quite possible Laniet was gurgling even though she was dead.
    4. Because she was making noises the killer probably thought she was still alive and hence shot her twice more.
    5. The other two bullets did not fragment.
    6. The police, despite the visible white fibres did not bother to look for anything that the shot had been fired through.

    Laniet could not have survived the first shot, but due to the nature of that shot her body was able to make noises. This was proven and the crown accepted it in the second trial. Again, you seem to think your layman’s education supercedes what the crown experts knew and agreed with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    10.15

    Your posts are degenerating into abuse. It’s your problem that you sprung on the blood smears, I can understand you need to flee to new subjects but it’s unconvincing. I researched that photo you linked, you continue to post and link material from a site subject to High Court action – that photo is not what you claimed it to be and you unfortunately know it.

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

    Puzzled in Ekatahuna (156) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
    Bain says parents made him strong
    David Bain 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.
    ————————————————————————-

    You are right,
    and I believe the manner that David has survived in prison, and got through the various legal challenges, proves that. Also the manner in which he deals with the ongoing persecution from the JFRB group, who act liked demented energizer bunnies, stalking not just him but anyone that supports him, is evidence of that strength.

    There is no doubt his parents were intelligent and caring people. Perhaps the strain of returning from a completly different culture of PNG to NZ was too much though. Especially with a house full of teenagers. Something in those last few years destroyed Robin’s happiness, and he became what was referred to as a ‘walking cadivar’. That is really sad, for a man that had offered so much to the people of PNG. Whatever tipped the scales that made him kill, I do not believe it was an act of hatred, but rather an inability to cope here and a need to take his family with him. The fight with Stephen was not part of that plan. He had protected himself from getting his loved ones blood on him, but somehow he got covered in it. In the end I think he had a moment of clarity and knew he no longer had the strength to kill another one, so wrote the note on the computer, meaning it to be a full explanation, but he saw Kaycee coming through the gate, knowing he’d run out of time, he shot himself before David got there and might have stopped him. The signs were all there for anyone who looked hard enough. I suspect that is why so many can’t accept it. They didn’t help Robin when he was struggling, so instead it’s easier to say he wasn’t, and blame it all on someone they can’t be made to feel guilty about. For others it’s a symbol of people they ignore in their own worlds, easier to blame the psychopath than think that someone just like them could lose it to such a degree, that they kill their own. Only problem is, David was certainly not a psychopath.

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

    Scott Chris (3,960) Says:
    March 15th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
    Stop making stuff up Nostalgia. Either produce the evidence or STFU.

    Now this is evidence:

    Professor Stephen Cordner explains post death gurgling

    1) If dead, you only gurgle if you’re being moved or
    2) you only gurgle when you’re decomposing and gas builds up inside you.

    David heard Laniet gurgling after the first non-fatal shot. The second and third shots were nearly instantly fatal. Therefore only the killer would have heard her gurgle.

    Therefore David Bain is the killer. No doubt at all.

    —————————————————————————

    The evidence you have mentioned above was given without the knowledge of the first fragmented bullet. The crown previously advocated that the cheek shot was the first shot, followed by the other two, either of which killed instantly. However, because of the blood spatter (which the Crown conveniently left out in the first trial), and the piece of lead from the fragmented bullet under Laniet’s body, it was later proven at the second trial AND FULLY ACCEPTED BY THE CROWN that this first shot killed her instantly and their previous scenario was NOT possible.

    YOU are WRONG again. However that won’t sink in because you still think you know more than the Crown experts. The argument you make above was given by a man who didn’t have ALL the evidence before he made his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Laniet could not have survived the first shot, but due to the nature of that shot her body was able to make noises.

    1) Which part of blood in her lungs don’t you understand? Dead people don’t breathe.

    2) The testimony I have provided is specific and definitive and cites Victorian Professor of Forensic Pathology Stephen Cordner

    I haven’t simply made some vague assertion such as “Dr Dempster reckons…” What exactly did he say? On whose research was this based?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    I can understand you need to flee to new subjects

    Not at all. We can’t discuss something you’ve simply made up.

    Provide proof or a source for your assertions and we’ll talk about it.

    Put up, or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @ Scott Chris.

    I thought you were a reasonable person with whom to discuss this, apparently not. That link was to the whole of the Judges summing up, perhaps you don’t know how to use the internet?
    You quoted one line from it, here it is with the surrounding lines, it rather changes the inference.

    “As for the gurgling, a body of evidence pointed to the top of the head wound being inflicted first, and there was evidence such a serious injury could have been survived.

    In any event, it was possible David had heard something else and attributed it to Laniet’s gurgling.

    What’s more, there was evidence from three reliable witnesses that bodies could gurgle.

    Mr Reed had argued it was simply unsafe to act on the gurgling as a reliable reason for David being the murder”

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

    March 16th, 2012 at 8:15 am
    Laniet could not have survived the first shot, but due to the nature of that shot her body was able to make noises.

    1) Which part of blood in her lungs don’t you understand? Dead people don’t breathe.

    2) The testimony I have provided is specific and definitive and cites Victorian Professor of Forensic Pathology Stephen Cordner

    I haven’t simply made some vague assertion such as “Dr Dempster reckons…” What exactly did he say? On whose research was this based?
    ————————————————

    I don’t know how to explain it any more simply. When Doctor Cordner made his comments he did NOT know that the first shot to Laniet would have killed her. He was told she was shot in the cheek first, so decided that as she didn’t die immediately, blood would have been draining into the lungs through her attempts to keep breathing.

    WE NOW KNOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE – SHE WASN’T STILL ALIVE – SHE WASN’T STRUGGLING TO BREATHE – THEREFORE SHE WASN’T BREATHING BLOOD INTO HER LUNGS.

    Dr Cordner was not giving an opinion based on the facts but rather what the police had told him, which was later proved to be wrong. It does not matter if your Dr Cordner was the king of the world, he didn’t have ALL the facts and what he said was impossible in Laniet’s case, because she wasn’t still breathing.

    GET IT THROUGH YOUR STUBBORN HEAD – you are persistently arguing with first trial evidence that was PROVEN, even by the CROWN’s own experts to be wrong, because they were not given all the facts at the time.

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

    Scott Chris (3,962) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 8:19 am
    I can understand you need to flee to new subjects

    Not at all. We can’t discuss something you’ve simply made up.

    Provide proof or a source for your assertions and we’ll talk about it.

    Put up, or shut up.
    ——————————————————–

    That’s a bit rich coming from you, who has just made statements without any references.

    There is something so crass about a person that is such a demanding hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Kanz
    8.24

    Thanks Kanz. I copied that link but have yet to read it. The enlargement from what Scott Chris attempted to mislead the board with is consistent with the evidence as I know it.

    Scott Chris
    8.19

    Getting sprung everywhere haha, you’re a naughty little boy.

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

    Dr Peter Ross – scientist from Australia,
    gave evidence from crime scenes where bodies, even though they hadn’t been moved or handled would suddenly make noises described as gurgling/groaning sounds.

    Mr Cooper – Senior Ambulance Officer
    Q: With recent dead, have you had any experience of bodies making noises after they’re dead?
    Cooper: In my experience there are times where gases in the body, the bowel may make noises, yes
    Q: How long after death can that occur in your experience? From what you’ve seen and observed yourself?
    Copper: Those that I’ve observed is probably within half an hour to an hour after death.
    Q: Is this when the body is moved or when the body is still stationary?
    Copper: I can certainly happen when the body is moved, but it can certainly happen when the body is stationary.
    Q: I want to be clear, this is where the body is lying, not being moved or touched?
    Copper: That is when the body is lying, yes. — A rumble, a groaning noise, perhaps a gurgle, yeah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,the point is that David Bain is not a scientist.And

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,I say again,David Bain is not a scientist.He would not have known that dead bodies groan or gurgle.What is more,Ross is talking about bowel noises.Laniet wasn’t making bowel noises.
    And I am quite sure that if Peter Ross had arrived home one day to find one or more of his family members shot and heard one of them making gurgling or groaning noises,he wouldn’ have accepted that person was dead and turned the light out and left that family member to it.He would have phoned the emergency services straightaway.As I would have,and I suspect even you would have.

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

    muggins (64) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 9:59 am
    Jinny,I say again,David Bain is not a scientist.He would not have known that dead bodies groan or gurgle.What is more,Ross is talking about bowel noises.Laniet wasn’t making bowel noises.
    And I am quite sure that if Peter Ross had arrived home one day to find one or more of his family members shot and heard one of them making gurgling or groaning noises,he wouldn’ have accepted that person was dead and turned the light out and left that family member to it.He would have phoned the emergency services straightaway.As I would have,and I suspect even you would have.
    ———————————————————————–

    Good lord, you aren’t drunk this early in the day are you?

    No one has said David was a scientist, or even implied that.

    He heard her gurgle. He also recalls after having memory recovering treatment, that he touched his siblings. One does not need to be a scientist to know that a great big hole in the top of the head, with brain matter splattered everywhere, plus another hole in the top of the head and one in the cheek, means the person is long past any help. Dead.

    How do you know he didn’t phone as soon as he left Laniet’s room?

    David reports having the feeling of blacking out or fainting when he saw his mother, then going to check on the rest of the family, you do not know what time elapsed in that process, so cannot make a statement that he did not phone immediately after seeing Laniet.

    As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about, so you make a guess that you think you can fool the stupid with. It works, your idiot friends at JFRB believe you.

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

    muggins (64) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Laniet wasn’t making bowel noises.

    ————————————————–
    How do you know what part of her body was making noises? Were you there?

    Dr Peter Ross used the words groaning and gurgling sounds , as WELL AS ALSO MAKING BOWEL noises, in his testimony.
    Again you misrepresent what was actually said, and exclude the testimony of others as well, just to try and make your story sound legitimate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    And I see Jinny is quoting Carl Lloyd.Lloyd went back to England and when the prosecution tried to cross examine him to prove that the evidence he gave re there being no blood under those fingerprints was not correct,he claimed he couldn’t see anything on the link.All he reckoned he could see was a blur.There is no doubt he was mistaken about there being no blood under those fingerprints.As I have said before,two scientists found blood under those prints,Dr Harbison and Dr Geursen.
    Dr Harbison said she could find no human DNA in the blood sample she took,Dr Geursen said he found some mammallian DNA.Dr Harbison said Dr Geursen’s sample was contaminated.So far as I am aware neither Dr Harbison nor Dr Geursen have ever come to any agreement over whether his sample was contaminated or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins (65) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 10:17 am

    And I see Jinny is quoting Carl Lloyd.Lloyd went back to England and when the prosecution tried to cross examine him to prove that the evidence he gave re there being no blood under those fingerprints was not correct,he claimed he couldn’t see anything on the link.All he reckoned he could see was a blur.There is no doubt he was mistaken about there being no blood under those fingerprints.As I have said before,two scientists found blood under those prints,Dr Harbison and Dr Geursen.
    Dr Harbison said she could find no human DNA in the blood sample she took,Dr Geursen said he found some mammallian DNA.Dr Harbison said Dr Geursen’s sample was contaminated.So far as I am aware neither Dr Harbison nor Dr Geursen have ever come to any agreement over whether his sample was contaminated or not.

    Read what you have just written.
    You said “they both found blood”
    Then it goes on to say Dr Harbison said there was no human DNA in the sample she took. How can you possibly call it blood?
    Either way, they both said there was no human DNA found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,would you like to post the rest of Peter Ross’s testimony,the bit where he said “as WELL AS ALSO MAKING BOWEL NOISES”.
    It was only Cooper,or Copper,you don’t seem to be too sure how to spell his name,who ,according to you,mentioned the bowel noises.
    And,Jinny ,even if David Bain did think Laniet was dead,he should still not have turned the light off and left her to it.
    And,Jinny,please don’t keep regurgitating that rubbish about David Bain losing his memory.When he eventually got round to phoning the emergency services he said he had found all his family dead.He said that three times.
    The reason why he went to that shrink was because he knew there was evidence to place him in at least Stephen’s room,so he had to find some excuse to recover the memory that he had never lost in the first place.

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

    muggins (65) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Dr Harbison said she could find no human DNA in the blood sample she took,Dr Geursen said he found some mammallian DNA.Dr Harbison said Dr Geursen’s sample was contaminated.So far as I am aware neither Dr Harbison nor Dr Geursen have ever come to any agreement over whether his sample was contaminated or not

    —————————————————-

    They didn’t need to come to an agreement. The lab that supplied them with the sample admitted it was contaminated and took full responsibility for it. Why don’t you just read the transcripts you reckon you’ve got, and stop showing your ignorance.

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

    muggins (66) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Jinny,would you like to post the rest of Peter Ross’s testimony,the bit where he said “as WELL AS ALSO MAKING BOWEL NOISES”.
    It was only Cooper,or Copper,you don’t seem to be too sure how to spell his name,who ,according to you,mentioned the bowel noises.
    And,Jinny ,even if David Bain did think Laniet was dead,he should still not have turned the light off and left her to it.
    And,Jinny,please don’t keep regurgitating that rubbish about David Bain losing his memory.When he eventually got round to phoning the emergency services he said he had found all his family dead.He said that three times.
    The reason why he went to that shrink was because he knew there was evidence to place him in at least Stephen’s room,so he had to find some excuse to recover the memory that he had never lost in the first place.
    ——————————————————–

    More ignorance.
    I made a typo – just like you do but we don’t bother pointing them out to you because it doesn’t matter, but if you like, I will from now on. Perhaps I should start with the fact there are spaces after a full stop. Which you never seem to include.

    David Bain never said he had found all his family dead. He simply said, ‘they’re all dead’. He never mentioned to anyone about finding them or touching them until he’d had memory recovery treatment.

    How would you know whether he lost memory or not? Have you ever examined him? Do you have any qualifications that allow you know that sort of knowledge?

    Ask yourself, if he was so clever to fake lost memory, why would he even mention the fact Laniet gurgled, and place himself in her room?

    The turning off the light is simple – would you want to keep looking at the sight of your dead little sister lying there in her own blood with a couple of holes in her head? It would be an automatic response – but then, you’d have to be human to understand that.

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

    muggins (66) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Jinny,would you like to post the rest of Peter Ross’s testimony,the bit where he said “as WELL AS ALSO MAKING BOWEL NOISES”.

    —————————————

    No I wouldn’t, because it is in the transcripts, so you can read it for yourself.

    I am not about to go typing the many pages of his testimony for an old drunk for whom I have no respect at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Jinny, I can be civil if you can be.

    Now, back to the debate. I provided links to Cordner’s testimony as well as his credentials so check them if you wish.

    Regarding the sequence of shots, well, the defense position is clearly speculative, whereas the medical evidence is indisputable.

    There was blood in Laniet’s lungs in the post mortem which could only have got there by inhaling it. When asleep or unconscious, the epiglottis automatically covers the glottis to prevent saliva from entering the lungs. The only way blood can enter the lungs from the mouth is by inhaling it.

    Fact is, medical evidence trumps speculative reasoning every time. Laniet may have been convulsing, so that is how the bullet fragment got behind her, but like your evidence, that is pure speculation.

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

    Did Margaret Bain home school all her children in PNG or was it only David who didn’t fit in even there
    Someone suggested Robin Bain had trouble fitting in when they came back to NZ, I imagine David would have struggled the most, if he was a misfit in PNG it must have been 1000’s time worse in Dunedin.

    I’ll find my copy of “mask of Sanity” seem to recall he had no friends in PNG and even a good friend of the parents thought he had serious mental health issues.
    Didn’t he ride around by himself on a trail bike most of the time?
    Any ideas on why even the children in PNG didn’t like him, one would have thought children living a simple life there would not have been so judgemental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jinny,Dr Cordner said that Laniet Bain could have survived all three shots.
    So Dr Geursen now relases that the sample he used was contaminated.So no mammalian blood ,then.
    So that means you are relying on Carl Lloyd,who as you know could never be properly cross-examined.

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

    Scott Chris (3,963) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:00 am
    Jinny, I can be civil if you can be.

    Now, back to the debate. I provided links to Cordner’s testimony as well as his credentials so check them if you wish.

    Regarding the sequence of shots, well, the defense position is clearly speculative, whereas the medical evidence is indisputable.

    There was blood in Laniet’s lungs in the post mortem which could only have got there by inhaling it. When asleep or unconscious, the epiglottis automatically covers the glottis to prevent saliva from entering the lungs. The only way blood can enter the lungs from the mouth is by inhaling it.

    Fact is, medical evidence trumps speculative reasoning every time. Laniet may have been convulsing, so that is how the bullet fragment got behind her, but like your evidence, that is pure speculation.

    ————————————————————————-

    No, you are wrong, blood can only get to the lungs by inhaling it PROVIDED the epiglottis and glottis etc are intact. The cheek shot which was made from the left pointing downwards destroyed these areas. Because she was lying back, against pillows the position allowed blood to drain into her chest etc.

    Professor Cordner, forensic pathologist stated that physical evidence should always supercede theoretical.

    Her convulsions do not account for the splatter on the wardrobe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. misspw (32 comments) says:

    In case anyone is confused about jinny
    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=cartoon+cybernana&hl=en&biw=1271&bih=680&tbm=isch&tbnid=SLQ2Q7ungHlEKM:&imgrefurl=http://stripedsunlight.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html&docid=q9Ft0OBNfMZbiM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9DydFgluisc/TkjBzPXbDvI/AAAAAAAAAM0/NwDtI0aRuBI/s1600/cybernana—riot-day-fc.jpg&w=1412&h=1416&ei=3WtiT4WlNsediAfLvNzTBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=412&vpy=138&dur=1482&hovh=225&hovw=224&tx=158&ty=117&sig=106108852303757238017&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=150&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

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

    muggins (67) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:09 am
    now relases
    ———————-
    what does ‘relases’ mean?

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

    misspw (23) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:28 am
    In case anyone is confused about jinny
    ——————————————————-

    why are you so concerned with who people are? Are you a full time stalker, or it’s just a part-time thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. misspw (32 comments) says:

    I’m certainly not a full time board spammer like you are. You are a professional stalker and like nothing more than insulting people and deflecting away from any debate that is going on. For some reason it is personal for you. I have never seen you concede one single fact that is presented that doesn’t fit in with your own perception of what happened in this case. Your nastiness and dishonesty have become a legend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. misspw (32 comments) says:

    This is interesting
    Michael Reed cross examining Kim Jones.

    Q. No, just a minute please. You didn’t see anything red with the naked eye, you used the polylight to identify what you thought was blood, correct?

    A. When I carried out a visual examination of the rifle in room light in the laboratory on the 21st of June 1994, I located four bloodied fingerprints on that rifle. They were visible as red pigment and they appeared to be in blood.

    Q. Well then if that’s what you say now –

    A. That’s at room light.

    The visibility of red bloody fingerprints with just room light makes it impossible for these prints to have been made several months before by David while hunting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. misspw (32 comments) says:

    More interesting stuff from the 111 call.
    A. All he was worried about was when the ambulance was gonna get there. And I tried to calm him down and he swore at me. Which I was quite surprised.
    Q. Do you recall in what way he swore at you?
    A. Do you want me to say it.
    Q. Yes?
    A. Fuck up and shut up.
    Q. Anything else that you can recall about the conversation?
    A. I asked him where he was and he didn’t know, and but he said there was hostel across the road but he couldn’t recall the name of it.
    This was after he had clearly given his name and address.

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

    misspw (24) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:37 am
    I’m certainly not a full time board spammer like you are. You are a professional stalker and like nothing more than insulting people and deflecting away from any debate that is going on. For some reason it is personal for you. I have never seen you concede one single fact that is presented that doesn’t fit in with your own perception of what happened in this case. Your nastiness and dishonesty have become a legend.
    ———————————————————-

    I didn’t call you a spammer, I called you a stalker.

    I certainly don’t get paid for posting – are you offering to?

    Yes I insult people, but your comment about deflecting from the debate is a bit rich. I post constantly about the evidence, and yet, when one looks at your posts, the majority of them are attacking people, and very little about the case and evidence

    I suggest it is you that has the personal problem – I admit I am very interested in this miscarriage of justice, and have amassed an incredibile amount of information about it, but it’s not me that stalks people to find out what they do, their history, where they live, their children etc, like you have done. So get off you high horse and have a good long look in the mirror.

    I am nasty about the JFRB group, but not dishonest. They are everything I accuse them of being and more. A dangerous and deranged group of individuals who stalk, persecute and invade the personal lives of anyone that dares to speak against them. They use old outdated evidence to try and pass of their twisted story. You post above proves what I say.

    I don’t belong to any organisation/group, and I am not cybernanna – so one begs to wonder, how you can say you know what I am, when you can’t even get right who I am.

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

    misspw (26) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
    This is interesting
    Michael Reed cross examining Kim Jones.

    Q. No, just a minute please. You didn’t see anything red with the naked eye, you used the polylight to identify what you thought was blood, correct?

    A. When I carried out a visual examination of the rifle in room light in the laboratory on the 21st of June 1994, I located four bloodied fingerprints on that rifle. They were visible as red pigment and they appeared to be in blood.

    Q. Well then if that’s what you say now –

    A. That’s at room light.

    The visibility of red bloody fingerprints with just room light makes it impossible for these prints to have been made several months before by David while hunting.

    ————————————————————-

    You forgot to add, that he also stated he knew they were blood because they fluoresced under the polylight.

    BUT the manufacturers of the polilight insist blood does not fluoresced as the witness has said it did. He had lied to the 1st trial jury.

    You also forgot to add that NONE of the other witnesses, including the crown’s experts could see any red pigment, like the person you named did. A person who had to admit, he had previously misled the jury on purpose.

    Hardly an honest and reliable person, is he? He’d be a good candidate for your group.

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

    misspw (26) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 11:58 am
    More interesting stuff from the 111 call.
    A. All he was worried about was when the ambulance was gonna get there. And I tried to calm him down and he swore at me. Which I was quite surprised.
    Q. Do you recall in what way he swore at you?
    A. Do you want me to say it.
    Q. Yes?
    A. Fuck up and shut up.
    Q. Anything else that you can recall about the conversation?
    A. I asked him where he was and he didn’t know, and but he said there was hostel across the road but he couldn’t recall the name of it.
    This was after he had clearly given his name and address.

    ———————————————————–

    You find it strange someone was panicked and confused after finding his family dead and their brains and blood splattered all through the house?

    Have you ever come home to find such a scene?
    Can you refer us to the text book that tells one how to behave under such circumstances?

    Your post is evidence of how confused and upset David was, which proves his story that he was ‘confused and upset’ – which is also supported by professionals who deal with trauma and state it is perfectly normal for them to exhibit signs of being ‘confused and upset’.

    So just what was the point you were wanting to make with your post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. misspw (32 comments) says:

    A couple of weeks ago you didn’t EVEn know anything about the case according to you and could the reason you are nasty about the JFRB group have anything to do with you being blocked on that site after revealing that you were only there on false pretenses and to photograph the site and then you tried to get back on again using one of your many aliases. Your disclosure about your criminal history and medical condition on an internet site made them genuinely concerned for your safety.

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

    misspw (27) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    A couple of weeks ago you didn’t EVEn know anything about the case according to you and could the reason you are nasty about the JFRB group have anything to do with you being blocked on that site after revealing that you were only there on false pretenses and to photograph the site and then you tried to get back on again using one of your many aliases. Your disclosure about your criminal history and medical condition on an internet site made them genuinely concerned for your safety.

    —————————————————————————-

    I have never said I know nothing about the case, I have been involved in and studied it for many years now. I would NEVER join your group, or even want to be anywhere near it. I think you are all very nasty people, which is evidenced by your statement about a criminal history, which I don’t have, ( and incidently, I believe it is illegal to blame someone of having, when they don’t, so I’d be careful if I was you) and I don’t think an ongoing issue with a broken ankle is reason for someone to be kicked off an internet site.

    You obviously have no idea who I am. I have got a disc of information taken off JFRB and other sites, as do many people. It is actually available on the web and advertised for anyone that wants it. I found it very interesting, and added it to all the other information I’ve collected over the years about the Bain case.

    I sort of hoped it was obvious that I knew a lot about the case, but obviously I’ll have to try harder. In the meantime, I suggest you get your facts correct before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Scott Chris (7,882 comments) says:

    Her convulsions do not account for the splatter on the wardrobe

    Well my speculative theory is this. Critique it if you will:

    The first shot went through her cheek, hitting a tooth and fragmenting the bullet. It wasn’t fatal, so she woke and sat up and the bullet frament that had fallen beside her in the bed then moved behind her. She may have screamed at this point, waking Stephen and Aroha.

    The second shot was through the brain, causing spatter on the wardrobe. She then slumped back, apparently dead. The killer continued on his way, but Laniet was still breathing and gurgling, so at some point the killer returned to deliver the final perpendicular shot through the brain to finish the job.

    Make sense?

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

    misspw (27) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 12:13 pm (blah blah blah)

    hahaha the freakin’ nutjob teacher NOT minding her own business. Obviously praying ain’t working. Get help now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/58414/crown-adamant-rifle-fingerprints-blood
    There you go,Jinny,Kim Jones is adamant those fingerprints were in blood.the only question is were they positive prints,which would mean that David Bain had his brother’s blood on his left hand when he placed it on the rifle,or were they negative prints,which would mean that David Bain placed his hand on blood from Stephen that was on the rifle.

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

    Scott Chris (3,964) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    Her convulsions do not account for the splatter on the wardrobe

    Well my speculative theory is this. Critique it if you will:

    The first shot went through her cheek, hitting a tooth and fragmenting the bullet. It wasn’t fatal, so she woke and sat up and the bullet frament that had fallen beside her in the bed then moved behind her. She may have screamed at this point, waking Stephen and Aroha.

    The second shot was through the brain, causing spatter on the wardrobe. She then slumped back, apparently dead. The killer continued on his way, but Laniet was still breathing and gurgling, so at some point the killer returned to deliver the final perpendicular shot through the brain to finish the job.

    Make sense?
    —————————————————

    Yes, it makes sense, but doesn’t account for the fact that the bullet that fragmented went through fabric, and it was the one to the top of the head, not the cheek. When a bullet goes through fabric it causes it to sort of spread (sorry don’t know the correct terminology and are too busy to look it up right now sorry). This spreading leaves a bigger hole than a normal intact bullet does. The hole in Laniet’s cheek was from an intact bullet. When the shot was applied to the top of her head, she was sitting up, because that was the one that caused tremendous damage, making the blood splatter so far.

    A part of that bullet was found on the chair, that is how far it spread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. misspw (32 comments) says:

    You are not very smart are you ‘jinny’. Pity but then neither are your friends.
    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=cartoon+bipolar&hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1059&bih=566&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=fZnkHKE9Wlpj4M:&imgrefurl=http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/07/lithium_circadian_clocks_and_b_3.php&docid=1aoQE9iPGQUFMM&imgurl=http://scienceblogs.com/clock/upload/2006/08/a9%252520manic%252520depressive%252520cartoon.jpg&w=355&h=400&ei=voFiT8ScGoWwiQeC7bjaBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=84&vpy=201&dur=3056&hovh=238&hovw=211&tx=139&ty=165&sig=106108852303757238017&page=1&tbnh=111&tbnw=99&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

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

    muggins (68) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/58414/crown-adamant-rifle-fingerprints-blood
    There you go,Jinny,Kim Jones is adamant those fingerprints were in blood.the only question is were they positive prints,which would mean that David Bain had his brother’s blood on his left hand when he placed it on the rifle,or were they negative prints,which would mean that David Bain placed his hand on blood from Stephen that was on the rifle.
    ——————————————————–

    He is wrong, as many of his colleagues and subsequent more qualified and experienced professionals have said. But you believe whatever you like, the full evidence has been presented to Judge Binnie and your opinion isn’t going to matter to anyone. Fortunately, the Crown didn’t believe him either in the end apparently, going by what they said when summing up.

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

    misspw (28) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    You are not very smart are you ‘jinny’. Pity but then neither are your friends.

    ——————————————————————-

    you’re not exactly all that clever yourself. So far you’ve accused me of being a variety of different people, having a criminal record I don’t have, an medical condition that got me kicked off a website, that has never happened (I do have a bad ankle, so I won’t deny that), you’ve said I was cybernana, and that I was once a member of your group.

    I can assure you, if I was a member of your group, which is well below my standards, the last thing I would do is tell you I was a member and that I was there to take photos of what you said – I don’t believe anyone is that stupid.

    Like I told you, there is a member of your group, that doesn’t like you, but they are still a member from what I’ve read, and about to release CD number two. Now, I suggest, that unless you wish to join your friends in court, you actually make very sure you don’t continue to accuse people of being someone they aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Scott,I reckon your speculative theory is pretty much spot on ,so far as the shots fired are concerned.But I reckon David Bain may have shot his mother first,and ,if he did so,then I am pretty sure he would have shot Stephen next.Then Laniet,twice,then Arawa,then he did the washing,then he came back upstairs,heard Laniet gurgling,turned the light on again,administered the coup de grace,then walked out of her room,turning her light off on the way.
    He may have covered Laniet’s face with a piece of material before administering that final shot.If he did in fact do that,he must have taken that piece of cloth with him when he went on his paper round and disposed of it somewhere,as no piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it was ever found at the crime scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Like I said. You are not very smart. You are also dishonest. Don’t threaten me. Who am I accusing?

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

    misspw (29) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    Like I said. You are not very smart. You are also dishonest. Don’t threaten me. Who am I accusing?
    —————————————————-

    According to your posts above, you are accusing me. Now you’re asking me, ‘who am I accusing?’ I would have thought before you started making accusations about who a person was and what they had done, you would have found that out first. And you have the cheek to call me not very smart! Just how am I dishonest – this is going to be good!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Jinny you’re a joke. You can’t sue someone for besmirching the name of an online pseudonym.

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

    Put it away (2,538) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Jinny you’re a joke. You can’t sue someone for besmirching the name of an online pseudonym.
    ————————————————————————-

    No you can’t, but if you can prove who that person is, you can, if they identify you as a real person. You can also make application to the host, via the courts to reveal the IP and ISP of the person who posted those comments. It is then up to the person who pays for the service to prove who was using the computer at the time – otherwise they are responsible.

    I have no intention of doing that, unless she continues to make serious claims pointed at me, but I am interested to know just why a person would come on here making such claims about another poster, just because they post in opposition to them on this subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Jinny (291) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    So far you’ve accused me of being a variety of different people

    Who are these different people I have accused you of being by the way? ‘Cybernana’ is one. Who else?

    Put it away (2,538) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Jinny you’re a joke. You can’t sue someone for besmirching the name of an online pseudonym.

    Like I said. She is not very smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    I see Jinny reckons I am an old drunk.In actual fact I havn’t had as much as a drink of beer for the past 15 or so years.And even when I did have the odd drink of beer it was always in the form of a shandy.I only drink orange juice,lemonade,or water.In fact I doubt whether I have spent more than around $100 on beer or wine over my whole life.and I have only once tasted spirits.Once was enough.That’s why am able to keep my wits about me,unlike Jinny,who is always at her wits end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. misspw (32 comments) says:

    muggins (70) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    I see Jinny reckons I am an old drunk.In actual fact I havn’t had as much as a drink of beer for the past 15 or so years.And even when I did have the odd drink of beer it was always in the form of a shandy.I only drink orange juice,lemonade,or water.In fact I doubt whether I have spent more than around $100 on beer or wine over my whole life.and I have only once tasted spirits.Once was enough.That’s why am able to keep my wits about me,unlike Jinny,who is always at her wits end.

    I think they are coming to the end of the line from what I have heard lately and they know it. Striking out in all directions. At the end of this they will have to face the fact that they have been duped by con artists. If won’t worry them of course having practised the same behaviour themselves.

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

    hahaha – spewie and muggie are the smartest dumbos here. Too freakin hilarious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Misspw – although I could understand it if the real life criminal mental case became offended that you were blaming them for jinny’s nonsense. Lol

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

    misspw (30) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Jinny (291) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    So far you’ve accused me of being a variety of different people

    Who are these different people I have accused you of being by the way? ‘Cybernana’ is one. Who else?

    Put it away (2,538) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Jinny you’re a joke. You can’t sue someone for besmirching the name of an online pseudonym.

    Like I said. She is not very smart.

    —————————————————–

    I am a lot smarter than you give me credit for. I suggest you look at several recent decisions from our courts regarding just such matters. Not only are you liable, but also the host of the site is liable. You obviously aren’t interested in discussing the topic, only in attacking the posters who don’t agree with you. So far you have done it to at least three people.

    Yes, cybernana was one, another was someone who two weeks ago didn’t know anything, god knows who that is, according to you I’m someone with a criminal record, an illness and whatever else you’ve posted recently, and kicked out of your group, and off another website. All of which you are wrong about.

    You say I’m not smart, but you are not only stupid, you are ethically challenged.
    I’ve just been sent an email with a great deal of information about you. I am not going to play your game and lower myself to your standards. But I suggest you stop lowering the standards of this board and keep to the topic and cut your attempts to intimidate people because they disagree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Fancy a nice boy like David Bain saying “fuck up and shut up” to that telephone operator.My children never used the f word.Seems like Davey boy might have been hanging out with the wrong crowd.I very much doubt if either of his parents ever used that sort of language.

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

    muggins (71) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    Fancy a nice boy like David Bain saying “fuck up and shut up” to that telephone operator.My children never used the f word.Seems like Davey boy might have been hanging out with the wrong crowd.I very much doubt if either of his parents ever used that sort of language.
    ——————————-

    But you have no problem repeatedly posting them on here, despite the fact others had discussed the matter? It seems to me that you make no allowances for the fact he came home and found his family dead and was in shock, and acting in a manner completely consistent with the trauma.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. misspw (32 comments) says:

    Ah and here comes the concussed hyena. Right on cue.

    knockoutking (9) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    hahaha – spewie and muggie are the smartest dumbos here. Too freakin hilarious!

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=hyena+cartoon&start=42&num=10&hl=en&biw=1271&bih=680&addh=36&tbm=isch&tbnid=LVILYRu-pgqahM:&imgrefurl=http://slices-of-life.com/2011/12/05/what-animals-make-great-children%25E2%2580%2599s-book-characters/hyena-14/&docid=x15CUOCkVjoykM&imgurl=http://slices-of-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Hyena-14.jpg&w=580&h=640&ei=D45iT_ebKMWwiQfW0p3RBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=402&vpy=216&dur=933&hovh=236&hovw=214&tx=91&ty=135&sig=106108852303757238017&page=3&tbnh=153&tbnw=139&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:42

    Jinny (295) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Put it away (2,538) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Jinny you’re a joke. You can’t sue someone for besmirching the name of an online pseudonym.
    ————————————————————————-
    ‘No you can’t, but if you can prove who that person is, you can, if they identify you as a real person.

    Who has identified you as a real person?

    ‘I have no intention of doing that, unless she continues to make serious claims pointed at me’

    But you have already said that I don’t know who you are.

    ‘but I am interested to know just why a person would come on here making such claims about another poster, just because they post in opposition to them on this subject.’

    Now this bit is interesting and reveals this person as the threatening hypocrite that they are.

    Jinny (295) Says:
    March 16th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    ‘I’ve just been sent an email with a great deal of information about you. I am not going to play your game and lower myself to your standards. But I suggest you stop lowering the standards of this board and keep to the topic and cut your attempts to intimidate people because they disagree with you.’

    The demented hyena, unable to do his own dirty work sends you his file of lies and rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    > he came home and found his family dead and was in shock, and acting in a manner completely consistent with the trauma

    Oh so that explains the 25 minutes from when he got home to when he called police. Did he stop and do the morning crossword while Laniet was gurgling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Seems more consistent with an arrogant angry man trying to make sure things happen the way he planned them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Yvette (3,018 comments) says:

    Jinny it concerns me that someone who has studied the Bain case as you have would spend so much time to so little avail attempting to make sense of exchanges which are going absolutely nowhere.

    None of the above, being so diverse as it is, can really be evaluated to indicate whether David or father Robin is the more likely killer.

    I would respectfully suggest that if you feel you have insight in view of the evidence you have read, or anything you think is not included in the material that could be accessed by the Canadian reviewing the case, that you put it on a website and alert the media to its availability. Or in some way make it useful.

    I don’t think retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ian Binnie, is following this thread on kiwiblog [sorry David]

    For it sure as hell isn’t doing anything here and to continue in the current fashion would seem futile – even a touch unhealthy.

    David Farrar commented in another separate post that this thread has long ago passed a record number of remarks, but I would contend not a record number of different contributors, and it is reduced now to a handful of you slogging it out proving nothing.
    And it appears you have done this elsewhere too.

    So I suggest you try and think of some more useful purpose of your efforts as nothing is being achieved here for David.
    Provided that is the motivation behind what you are doing anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    There you go Jinny,telling porkies again.That last post that I made was the first time I have ever used the f word on any website.And my children word have never used the f word no matter what the circumstances.It was not a word that was ever used in our house,it is not a word that has ever been used in our house.
    And please do not keep prattling on about David Bain coming home and finding his family dead.He knew four of them were dead before he went on his paper round.
    More on those bloody fingerprints.
    Reed cross-examining Jones.
    Q.You didn’t see anything red with the naked eye,you used the polylight to identify what you thought was blood,correct?
    A.When I carried out a visual examination of the rifle at room light in the laboratory on the 21 June 1994,I located four bloodied fingerprints on that rifle.They were visible as red pigment and they appeared to be in blood.Thats at room light.The visibility of red bloody fingerprints with just room light make it impossible for those prints to have been made several months before by David Bain while hunting.
    So there you have it,Jinny.David Bain had blood on his fingers when he placed them on the rifle,and he may also have placed them in blood that was on the rifle.
    Jinny,have you been able to find out why David Bain changed his mind about making his mother a cuppa?

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

    Yvette (1,673) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    Jinny it concerns me that someone who has studied the Bain case as you have would spend so much time to so little avail attempting to make sense of exchanges which are going absolutely nowhere.

    None of the above, being so diverse as it is, can really be evaluated to indicate whether David or father Robin is the more likely killer.

    I would respectfully suggest that if you feel you have insight in view of the evidence you have read, or anything you think is not included in the material that could be accessed by the Canadian reviewing the case, that you put it on a website and alert the media to its availability. Or in some way make it useful.

    I don’t think retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ian Binnie, is following this thread on kiwiblog [sorry David]

    For it sure as hell isn’t doing anything here and to continue in the current fashion would seem futile – even a touch unhealthy.

    David Farrar commented in another separate post that this thread has long ago passed a record number of remarks, but I would contend not a record number of different contributors, and it is reduced now to a handful of you slogging it out proving nothing.
    And it appears you have done this elsewhere too.

    So I suggest you try and think of some more useful purpose of your efforts as nothing is being achieved here for David.
    Provided that is the motivation behind what you are doing anyway.
    —————————————————-

    I agree with you.

    David Bain does not need me or anyone else to promote his case for him. He has sufficient support and he has the evidence to prove himself innocent, and the one thing we can be sure of is that Justice Binnie will not be basing anything he decides on the blogs or what comes via the Justice for Robin Bain group, of which he is well aware of.

    My motivation is simply to pick up on any of the lies this group of people like to promote of various sites on the internet. You accuse me of having done this before, which I find rather telling, considering the people I argue against all belong to an organised group that have websites and memberships etc, for the sole reason of persecuting a man who in the eyes of the law, is innocent. They have been doing this for years. Are you also going to leave a message to them, as a collective? No, I didn’t think so.

    I think it is incredible that you would single me out, and yet are quite happy to allow others to continue to post lies, not to mention personal attacks on other posters, without provocation. These people have stalked to find private details of not just the people that disagree with them, but their families etc. As the posts from misspw above show, they are not happy to discuss the case, instead they want to denigrate their opposition. Just as you question my motives, I question yours.

    You wanted my motive, I’ve given it too you. In short I fully intend to be a thorn in the side of this group until they either cease their persecution of David Bain, and anyone that supports him or the law deals with them in the manner it should do.

    My concern is not for David Bain, as I’ve said before he has plenty of support. My concern is for all of New Zealand, who, whilst this group continue to act like they do, will not address the real issues regarding the Bain Case, and that is an incompetent and inefficient, and questionable police management of the case and other such cases.

    If I have to act extreme by posting often to reign them in, and provide a balance to what they promote, then I will.

    If David Farrer would like me to stop, then he has my email, it is afterall his blog, but until I receive such a request, I fully intend to challenge any statement that I don’t agree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. David Farrar (1,735 comments) says:

    IMPORTANT NOTICE

    I have had a complaint laid with me alleging a number of comments in this thread are defamatory of people, and also breach the Harrassment Act. I will be looking through the comments in the next few days, to identify material which may be such.

    Can I ask all those commenting to exercise restraint. For the avoidance of doubt it is fine to debate evidence in the case and whether or not you think the evidence means it is more likely Robin or David was responsible. You should avoid using terms such as guilty, as there has been a verdict that David was not guilty.

    It is not fine to attacks the motives of Joe Karam, or any other person who has a view on this case. This includes other commenters here. Debate should be about the issues, not attacks on each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Put it away (2,883 comments) says:

    Someone’s getting bothered about losing the argument

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

    muggins (72) Says:

    March 16th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    ——————————

    The statement you post regarding the finger prints is not the complete evidence. He stated they were bloodied fingerprints, but his reason for that, was because he said they were red. However, he told the jury in the first trial, they were blood, because they fluoresc – when challenged he admitted he had stated that wrongly. None of the other experts that examined those fingerprints saw any ‘red’ that he had claimed he saw. A summary of the fingeprints evidence, below.

    —————————————–

    1995 – ESR scientist Peter Hentschel stated he removed five samples of blood from murder weapon, including one sample from the area where the fingerprints were found. (on the wooden fore-stock of the rifle)

    – given to ESR scientist and blood analyst Dr Pert Cropp who said when he tested them they were all human blood.

    – 2003 court of appeal endorsed this view.

    DNA tests 1997
    Assistant Commissioner Brian Duncan – conducted a review and ordered new tests to be done

    – Report by police/PCA made no reference to the results of these new tests
    – Tests were conducted by SallyAnn Harbison ESR – removed 10 samples of blood from the rifle including two from the fingerprints.
    – The samples from the fingerprints did not contain human DNA.
    – The other samples from various other parts of the rifle in most cases profiled as the blood of Stephen Bain.
    – The test was repeated on the fingerprints – but was contaminated.
    – Elliot and Harbison found two fingerprints remaining of the four left hand prints and two smears between the fingerprints which when sampled and tested. – no trace of human DNA was found, or anything to suggest it was even blood.
    – Jones and Hentschel had said at first trial that area was clear of any contamination except for the fingerprints.

    ESR Contamination Claim.

    – When defence team conducted tests on area from fingerprint which contained a large area of mammaliam DNA – rabbit or possum blood.
    – ESR then stated they had supplied the defence with a contaminated sample, ie they had supplied a sample to another laboratory knowing it was contaminated.

    1999 MOJ
    – Hentschel had told first jury the first sample had come from the fingerprints area – but in 1999 reported it wasn’t from that area but an area adjacent to it, about 10 mm away.
    – However, this area had cellotape round it that had first been put there by Kim Jones when the fingerprints were first found four weeks before Hentschel tested on 4 August 1994.

    DNA Tests 2003

    – Dr Sue Vintiner from ESR for the Police. Attened by Whthnall, Karam, Kim Jones, Kallum Croudis and other ESR scientists.
    – In order to find some human blood, ideally Stephen’s, the area where the fingerprints had been was pulled apart and swabbed for samples, including every obscure spot.
    – All of the samples failed to show any human DNA.
    – The rest of the gun and silencer were examined in the same way and tested. Human DNA was found and profiles obtained.
    – One of the samples had two DNA profiles that didn’t belong to any member of the Bain family.

    Blood Fluoresces

    – Kim Jones had stated at the first trial that in the violet light band of Polilight he saw what appeared to be blood all over the gun, inclidng where the fingerprints were found, because it fluoresced.
    – He also produced a photo which he said had been chemically enhanced.

    -Jones stated the sample Hentschel took was on the 22 June not 4 August and wasn’t taken from where Hentschel said it was. However, in all the paper work, job sheets, or any documentation provided, there was nothing to support his claim. The blood was removed without any record at all. Nothing to indicate how it was removed, what it was put into, or how it got from Dunedin to CHCH. All other records were heavily detailed.

    – And Hentschel denied he did it.

    No Photograph

    – there was no photograph ever produced or taken by the police to show these four fingerprints together on the rifle.
    – Nor a photo to show them as ‘red’ in blood’
    – Jones assessment they were blood because they fluoresced under the violet band of the Polilight.

    Blood does not Fluoresce.
    – UK 2008 Carl Lloyd British Police and Forensic Science services 40 + years experience. Blood does not fluoresce.
    – Confirmed by manufactures of light – “Although blood has a broad absorption spectrum, it only exhibits a single absorption max of around 415 mm and does not display any photoluminescence properties” Citing grease, oily substances, and varnish as examples of materials that naturally fluoresce.

    Ridges Wrong Colour

    – Photo produced by Jones to the court = chemically enhanced.
    – Ridges were white, but if made in blood, the ridges should be black and the gap between the ridges should be white.
    – Manufacturers confirm this saying ‘blood marks look dark against a lighter background’

    Blood Pools

    – Jones gave evidence that fingerprints were very well defined, meaning no smudges or deterioration – because prints placed when gun was gripped very firmly.
    – Lloyd stated the natural property of blood is that it coagulates and pools.
    – Fingerprints in blood are not well defined at all, because the blood ‘pools’ smudging the ridge detail.
    – No pooling in the evidential photo of the separate fingerprints.
    – Photos taken in blood of fingerprints were shown to prove this pooling effect, and no defined ridging.

    Three reasons why not blood.

    – latent fingerprints, normal, made without any contaminant except the natural moisture of the skin – which had been chemically enhanced for the photos. Chemical enhancement would not be necessary if they were in blood because they would be visible without it.

    Jones at retrial

    – agreed blood did not fluoresce
    – said he told jury that so they would understand easier
    – admitted the ridges in the exhibit photo should have been black
    – stated the finger print had never been chemically enhanced and he shouldn’t have said that,
    – When asked why he hadn’t stated before about the site of the blood sample which wasn’t from the fingerprint area, he stated he’d never been asked before in 15 years.

    – When asked on the stand about evidence he had given at the first trial for which he didn’t or hadn’t test or got right.
    – Q: Well, how could you give that evidence on oath to a jury on a murder case if you didn’t know it at the time? Why would you give false evidence, Mr Jones? I’m waiting. Jones; I haven’t got a comment to make on that, Sir.

    Paul Morten – took all the photos of the fingerprints.
    – Jones was wrong, about the ridges and the negative photo and that all his photos should have been in the fingerprint file which Jones said he couldn’t locate.
    – When he first saw the fingerprints they looked red and that was why he decided they were – last line of his evidence. Despite previously saying it was because they fluoresce.

    SUMMARY

    – There was no traces of blood or human DNA detected from the area where the fingerprints were located.
    – Jones confessed crucial aspects of his evidence were false.
    – Said he’d seen red pigment, but had previously said it was because they fluoresced.
    – Fingerprints were not made in blood and could have been there from any previous time as David owned the rifle and had used it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Yvette,to be honest,I have to agree with you.I was speaking to a lawyer yesterday[not mine,I don’t have one]and he reckoned that I and others like me should get a hobby.I told him this is my hobby.Actually, I do find it keeps the old mind alert,specially the memory.He likened some of us to a car he had,he said he used to turn the motor off and it would start up again.
    Look,if only Bain would keep his head down.Everything had gone reasonably quiet,and then we had the news about the compensation claim.Then he pops up on TV3.Then he speaks at that injustice conference.And of course there was that book.
    Every time he raises his head above the parapet the motor starts up again.Jinny and I have been at it for over two years.Same old,same old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote