Collins on the Bain report

December 11th, 2012 at 9:57 am by David Farrar

ZB reports:

is blunt in explaining why she wants a second opinion on the report on compensation for .

She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and shows a misunderstanding of New Zealand law.

The Justice Minister has asked for a peer review into the report by Justice Ian Binnie.

Judith Collins says the report lacks a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.

Since she told him she wasn’t happy, Justice Binnie has provided her with two revised versions of his report.

The minister says seeking a second opinion was not a decision she made lightly, but justice needs to be done, and a proper process undertaken.

It will be fascinating to see the original report, the revised reports and the peer review report. I’m hoping they will all be released.

Tags: ,

152 Responses to “Collins on the Bain report”

  1. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    I’m hoping they will all be released.

    Why wouldnt they be released?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    That report has to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts,no way could Binnie have found Bain innocent beyond reasonable doubt if it didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and shows a misunderstanding of New Zealand law.

    What Simon Power was thinking in involving a liberal Canadian judge with no background in criminal law and a record of minority dissent in criminal cases, we will never know. I suspect he wasn’t thinking much at all.

    I hope that the review once and for all establishes the obvious balance of probabilities against David Bain, that Robin will be cleared, that David will get zero dollars and zero cents compensation, and we can all move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    its unfortunate because it just gives the bain fans ammunition when he gets sweet FA.

    all of the reports better be released! i know its going to take a few hours but DPF will read them all and report back to us in bullet point :D

    also, how much did we pay this guy? i heard a figure of 500k? if the report has failed on basic issues id like to think we are withholding part payment. like, half.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    I wonder if the report will contain elements of the pitchfork juries that seem to profess a hang him high attitude without attending the trials, with a presumption of guilty as fuck before innocent.

    Another point.

    How much will these reports cost ?

    Twice as much as the compensation ?

    Three times ?

    Four times ?

    Dime, you know as well as I do that DPF’s analysis will be selective, subjective and completely out of context with the rest of the report.

    I’d put $10 on it that he will find some way to blame Trevor Mallard for this clusterfuck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    A decision not to grant compensation, would NOT prove David Bain’s guilt. That would require an entirely new kind of report. This report was to find out if on the balance of probabilities if he was innocent – it does not require the Judge or anyone else to decide who committed the murder. Just because the evidence may not prove his innocence (and I believe it does, and Collins is guided by public opinion), it still does not mean he committed those murders.

    In all reality, there would be many people in the area that couldn’t prove they didn’t do it, which is why our laws require the crown to prove who did, and they haven’t, and this report won’t either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Judith Collins says the report lacks a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.
    She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts…
    Since she told him she wasn’t happy, Justice Binnie has provided her with two revised versions of his report.

    Lacks robustness of reasoning?
    Contains assumptions based on incorrect facts?
    Two revised versions?
    Oops….

    If Binnie has based any single part of his report / any recommendation on the contents and opinions contained in a book written by a member of the defence team, then Collins has definitely done the right thing in requesting a peer review.

    Popcorn….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bain-compo-judge-not-told-minister-s-concerns-5266953
    If Binnie wasn’t told of Judith Collins’ concerns then why was he sending her those unsolicited reports?
    I wonder how many more unsolicited reports he is going to send her?
    Hopefully in the last one he will say he has found that David Bain is guilty on the balance of probilities.

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

    Good on Judith Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “What Simon Power was thinking in involving a liberal Canadian judge with no background in criminal law and a record of minority dissent in criminal cases, we will never know. I suspect he wasn’t thinking much at all.”

    Damn right.

    They (National) never think.

    They’re always appointing dimwits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I see that Michael Reed has said,in an interview with the NZ Herald that “There are a huge number of people that think David Bain is guilty and they don’t want to pay him any money”. He got that right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Well well well….this is a very brave move on the part of JC…it could show her to be the bravest and most principles poli in a long time, or it could blow up spectacularly in her face…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Might have been something to do with the Commer door van after all, wonders will never cease.

    Michael Reed was pretty blunt about Judith Collin’s take as well recently. About time she released the material to the applicant as would be proper in such situations, there’s been too much behind the scenes stuff in this case for too long. The process of these applications are too easily manipulated into being self-protecting. It was the revered Doug Grahem that preferred the Government by proxy investigate itself, rather than there be detailed legislation allowing access to the Courts.
    It might be that Ms Collins or others within her department are smarting about the way their conduct has been analysed. Ms Collins is quite happy to be apparently publicly scathing about Binnie, but the impression remains that she is protecting members of at least 2 Government Departments and is looking for a report that will suit that end. She repeats the word conclusion(s.) Of course if Binnie’s report is done and dusted there would be no problem releasing it to the public now, unless of course there remain issues of ‘fairness’ as JK put it, being the nature of allegations it might contain.

    Mr Reed may soon decide to file a suit, as there is no transparency likely to come any other way.

    On a slightly different note I read somewhere that Binnie was reported as saying that he hadn’t been informed about the reasons for calling for a ‘second’ report, maybe I was mistaken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    Give bain $1 .

    Sends a messages and saves a fortune.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Incorrect facts = anything written or spoken by Joe Karam in relation to the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    I’m in the business of writing reports for paying clients. (Although one man’s guilt or innocence is never in the balance in anything I write!)

    There are basically two main categories of things that can cause a client to take issue with your report:
    1 – what you’ve said
    2 – the way you’ve said it

    Number 1 you have to be pretty strong and unflinching about – your investigations uncovered whatever it is that they uncovered, and telling it honestly and like it is should be at least a matter of your professional integrity, and preferably one of your personal integrity also.

    Number 2 is where the art of good writing comes in, and you sometimes have to re-jig things a bit to make everyone happy. Clients paying good money for your report report usually have some purpose in mind that they want to be able to use it for. So you have to write it up in a way that makes it useful to the client for their intended purpose.

    [I enjoy the luxury that Binnie J. doesn’t, in that my clients don’t usually go running to the media at this point saying “This report that RRM wrote for me doesn’t seem right, I’m getting another opinion!”]

    To this end it’s pretty normal to send the client a first draft of the report, with a covering latter/ e mail describing the basic guts of it and saying “look, here’s a draft copy of the report as it is at the moment. have a read and let me know if the way we’ve written up the findings makes this report useful for you or not.”

    So it will be interesting to see whether Judith Collins is raising objections of type 1 or type 2. The way she is quoted it sounds like 1 but that may be a matter of her perception… it hadn’t escaped notice that the political Right is pretty well unanimous in their opinion on Bain guilt, and has been since well before this report was commissioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nookin (3,557 comments) says:

    “Mr Reed may soon decide to file a suit, as there is no transparency likely to come any other way.”

    On what legal grounds? There is no right of compensation. What is happening is that the Government is getting independant legal advice. If you were in litigation, would you give the other side your lawyer’s legal opinions before settlement?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    David G…
    Yep.
    Look at Collins (quoted)words.
    They could mean a lot – or nothing.
    They could mean that Binnie cannot find (under NZ law) that there was/.has been malfesance on the part if the Crown….. or many, many things.

    Assertions that Binnie relied in some way on Karam’s book(s) defy understanding, especially when they come from normally sensible people. (Actually, TV3 quoted Binnie as saying that he read the books as part of his efforts to familiarise himself with all aspects of ther case and that they did NOT constitute any part in his consideration of the issues. (But….. did not one or two Dunedin flatfoots fail in a libel case against Karam? ).

    It is best that we await the opinion of the “porno judge” and then decide whether we need a “real” peer review.
    Lordy. Will it never end? Nope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @muggins: TVNZ can spin it as hard as they like, but Collins has said she told Binnie she was not happy with aspects of the Report. Indeed, Stuff said today that Collins referred Judge Binnie’s report to the Solicitor General because of concerns after reading it. She is quoted as saying:

    When the Secretary for Justice and I met with Justice Binnie in September, I made it clear to Justice Binnie there were concerns with the report he provided, and it would be peer reviewed… …Since then, I have received from Justice Binnie, unsolicited, two further versions of his report”.

    So Collins definitely met with Binnie in September and she advised him she was seeking a peer review of his Report. Why Binnie would since provide two, unsolicited revisions of his original report, is remarkable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Nookin

    Borrowed from flipper

    ‘malfesance on the part if the Crown…’ When police officers admit under oath to misleading a jury, or as another put it mislead the jury to enable them to better understand the evidence, there must be a remedy for that, particularly when variations of such conduct began at the outset of this case. David’s blood was assumed to be on the towel in the laundry and therefore it was damning evidence against him, in 2003 it was revealed to be his fathers, the list goes on and on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    kowtow:

    Give bain $1.
    Sends a messages and saves a fortune.

    Why not decline to pay him any money at all? Sends an even bigger message. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Nookin

    ‘If you were in litigation, would you give the other side your lawyer’s legal opinions before settlement?’

    Yes. If it was likely to achieve a settlement, and secondly to show the Court that every effort was being made to resolve the position fairly if it in fact proceeded to trial. This is a case where David Bain’s Lawyers can be wholly confident in relying on proving their case for compensation, they are able to say with a proper and reasoned inquiry he would never have been arrested because the case against him has been answered and dismantled – mostly by science and researching files and hidden evidence.

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

    > Incorrect facts = anything written or spoken by Joe Karam in relation to the Bain case.

    Well, certainly, I suspected Binnie was pushing his luck when he requested all of Karam’s books on the case, but didn’t want a bar of the juror who shared her concerns with Binnie. You have to wonder if Binnie is up to the job. Collins’ criticism of him suggests he isn’t. Time will tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    The Judge must have caught sight of that Tui billboard advert that was up for a while, and assumed it was true……

    “Dad did it whilst I was on my paper run….. yeah, right”

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

    > the case against him has been answered and dismantled

    Thanks for the laugh, Nostalgia. Have you got any other gems to brighten my day?

    BTW, how did David get all those scratches on his chest and bruise on his forehead, and why would Robin need to wear gloves? And why did David lie when he said there was no rift between him and his father?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. lastmanstanding (1,310 comments) says:

    Memo to Ms Collins.

    First rule is when you hire an expert you always must know what their findings will be in advance. Otherwise as in your case you end up with egg all over your face.
    Never assume the expert will come up with the result you want. Always telegraph clearly and precisely the result you want to the expert to find.

    yours lastmanstanding

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Ross679…
    Please dont misrepresent matters.
    The books were pre-inquiry background (TV34 when they ran the juror piuece).
    The Juror was post the report (verfsions 1,2 or 3?). :)
    Not the same Ross

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, does anyone remember when Judith Collins decided a sensible way to crack down on boy racers, would be by crushing the cars?

    Fast forward a few years and now, she’s crushed 1 car, and there is no more problem with boy racers?

    :neutral: yeah.

    Doesn’t really seem like someone whose criticisms of anything a top judge says should be taken at face value… imho.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    More interesting stuff off the ‘wires.’

    “After reviewing the report prepared by Justice Binnie in September, I was concerned with some aspects of it. With the consent of the Attorney-General, I received advice from the Solicitor-General on the report. Following this advice, I decided the report should be peer reviewed.”

    The Solicitor-general is head of Crown Law. Crown Law were and involved party in the claim – the opposition to the claimant. Therefore there is a very serious conflict of interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Yes Nostalgia…

    And still more mud in the water….

    This from APNZ in the Horrid today:

    ” She [Collins] said it was wrong to suggest that getting Mr Fisher to peer review Mr Binnie’s report was “shopping around” for an opinion she liked.

    “This is a peer review of Mr Binnie’s report which is around the process, about some of the reasoning in the report, those sorts of things. It is not a report into whether or not Mr Bain is innocent or not on the balance of probabilities. Not[sic] is it a report as to whether or not there are extraordinary circumstances that Cabinet can take into account.”

    Clear enough????

    So… we now link young Heron, representing the Crown, and other (Collins) comments on NZ law….. Was it F E Smith who last week suggested it was all about screams from the MoJ bureaucrats and the system?

    Fascinating.

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

    “The books were pre-inquiry background… The Juror was post the report”

    Wrong on both accounts. Binnie said that Karam’s books represented the “defence case”. That might well be true but ignores the fact that they are flawed. Why would you want to read anything that is flawed, especially when you’re deciding if Bain is innocent?

    The juror complained back in February from memory, well before Binnie had completed his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nigel Kearney (1,094 comments) says:

    When someone reaches a conclusion and you point out they used incorrect facts and faulty reasoning, what is the likelihood of them making the necessary corrections and reaching a different conclusion? Pretty slim, I would suggest. Much more likely they will base the same conclusion on different facts and different reasoning, especially if they are a lawyer.

    I hope that Justice Binnie’s first effort will eventually be made public along with an explanation of the errors that rendered it unsound.

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

    > Therefore there is a very serious conflict of interests (sic)

    My god, I actually agree with you! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Yes it was F E Smith that made those comments last week.

    Yes also that this is fascinating. Mr Heron in a defence role it seems. Maybe a spade has been called a spade and that won’t do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Ross…
    The juror? Really, not what was said by TV3.

    The books? Oh, horse manure.
    The PC report and the argument(s) presented there are more relevant.
    Go read the PC report. It is available. Raising issues relating to the books is nothing less than a smelly, putrid herring. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Viking2 (11,665 comments) says:

    I think I would be much more impressed had Collins asked and Australian hard nose judge to do the review. Asking ou rlight weight incestuous legal profession just adds to the continuing disgrace that this has been since day 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (379) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 11:31 am
    Incorrect facts = anything written or spoken by Joe Karam in relation to the Bain case.

    ****************

    That is a seriously defamatory statement and one I hope comes back and bites you, if it hasn’t already Mr Parker. You are either a complete idiot, or have some sort of personal vendetta or grudge against Mr Karam. Regardless of your stance on the Bain case, to make such an all inclusive statement would put you as no.1 for this years Darwin awards.

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

    flipper

    It was reported back in February that the juror – presumably the same one who was on tv recently – had written to the Justice Minister saying David shouldn’t be paid compo. When the juror wrote to Binnie is unclear.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6471671/Juror-urges-against-compensation-for-Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    That is an excellent point regarding the Solicitor General. What a huge conflict of interest, but then again, there have been so many in this case – an investigating detective with links to the same brothel one of the girls worked in was just the start of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    “…to make such an all inclusive statement would put you as no.1 for this years Darwin awards.”
    Fail…… Darwin awards require death
    you Bain supporters seem rattled today
    even Flipper is having a harder time pretending they are not a Bain supporter

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

    “Talking to reporters on her way to caucus this morning, Ms Collins appeared annoyed that Justice Binnie had sent her two further unsolicited reports and said he would not be paid extra for them. ‘Let me be very clear that I do not expect unsolicited reports which I have received two of in the last two months to be compensated for.'”

    Hmmm that suggests that Binnie’s subsequent reports are quite different from his original.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    To Judith at 12.53 you have no sense of humour or understanding of what is actually going on here. In the context of this blog post, such an “all inclusive statement” is clearly satire but behind that satire is sufficient truth for it to be acceptable. Judith Collins is also quoted as saying:

    “I know the public has a huge interest in this matter. As much as I can without defaming people or breaching legal privilege I expect to be able to release everything I can.”

    The book David and Goliath is riddled with misrepresentations, errors and incorrect facts: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/pca-report and we know that Binnie read it. If he included some of these facts in his report, then they could be the facts referred to by Collins and we all know how litigious the author of that book is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    SSSTL – yes I’m rattled. I believe David is innocent. Just for one minute stop and think about it. Regardless of what you believe, if he is innocent, can you imagine what he has gone through, and to have it held up even further is disgusting. As is giving it to the Solicitor General for an opinion. Why didn’t they just give it straight to Milton Weir and ask him what they should do with it?

    The government and the crown continue to act in an insecure manner by making such mistakes. They have to be seen to not employ anyone that could be biased, but again they have done so, thus making the entire procedure unsafe. (for either side)

    Personally I think the Solicitor-General’s advice indicates that the report is correct, and that by employing the peer review method, they can minimise complaints from the public by saying that it was checked and double checked. However, again, the SG’s advice is ‘unsafe’ because of his position, and now leaves that recommendation open to further complaint. What an absolute mess – and David keeps waiting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (380) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Of course you’d say that now. But that is not how I read it. You certainly did not clarify it as satire, and therefore I believe, as a right-minded citizen that you were defaming Mr Karam by suggesting he never wrote anything truthful. I’m sure others took it the same way.

    As for incorrect facts in his book, yes there were some, but far less that there were correct statements. Perhaps you might like to show some balance in future by starting with Sir James McNeish, who began his book with a mistake. According to him the murders/suicide were on a Tuesday!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith at 1.11, but he is not innocent, the facts clearly indicate his guilt, more so than most people who are convicted for murder. The facts are inescapable. If he is compensated, then crime pays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    “and David keeps waiting!”
    at least he’s alive……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    As for incorrect facts in his book, yes there were some, but far less that there were correct statements

    Really? So you are now trying to play down the number of factual errors?

    Besides, if there are some incorrect claims in a book purporting to be ‘fact’ about something, then doesn’t that totally discredit the author?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I’ve read the ‘facts’ Mr Parker from your ‘this is my fantasy’ site. Most of which are supposition, imagination, exaggerations and in some cases out right lies made up by people well after the events with their own personal motives.

    David Bain is innocent. Robin Bain killed his son, daughters and wife, and then shot himself. David didn’t have any part in the killings and couldn’t have. Don’t bother copying and pasting your points. I’ve seen them and can refute every one of them, and are not interested in repeating the exercise for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Judith (and sensilke) et al..
    Take heart.
    Collins said she hoped to be able to release parts of the Binnie/Fisher reports.
    Why just parts?
    And why was Heron involved?
    Given Collins’ statements about guilt or innocence, or the “ability” of the Crown to pay, It can only be because Binnie “panned the sytem”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,119) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    At the time they were the available ‘facts’, however, as we know for example, the Crown sent contaminated samples, which they knew were contimidated but failed to tell the defence. The defence team tested them, came up with findings that were ‘factual’, however, for reasons kept from them, they were not relevant. Mr Karam wrote what was correct at the time, but was later found to have a different result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    “Robin Bain killed his son, daughters and wife, and then shot himself”
    ok lets pretend you are right
    in your honest opinion can you tell me why David derserved to stay, but a boy of only 14 deserved to die? and Arawa, the high achieving daughter Robin bragged about also deserved to die?
    serious… what do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Of course you’d say that now. But that is not how I read it. You certainly did not clarify it as satire, and therefore I believe, as a right-minded citizen that you were defaming Mr Karam by suggesting he never wrote anything truthful. I’m sure others took it the same way.

    The point of the statement is that the whole Bain argument is based on big untruths. There is no conclusive truth that Robin Bain was committing incest and/or that that was sufficient to provide motivation for mass murder followed by guilt ridden suicide. There is no conclusive evidence for the whole ridiculous scenario. Further, to that there are dozens of items of circumstantial evidence that link David to the murders. Karam claims to have dismantled each of these, but in my opinion, and those of many others, the arguments do not stack up and are ridiculous too. There are so many of these ridiculous and/or false, erroneous, speculative arguments made in defense of David Bain, that is is fair to say that the whole of the argument amounts to “incorrect facts”. I am aware that I have partially retracted my previous claim of satire but it should be obvious to any reasonable reader that I don’t think that everything Karam says is incorrect but the most salient ones are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Anyway, it’s all good, and I have great confidence I am on the right side.
    As someone very wise just said to me, David will get his compo, and some heads are doing their best not to roll!!!

    :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (325 comments) says:

    “Since then, I have received from Justice Binnie, unsolicited, two further versions of his report.
    The first report cost taxpayers around $400,000 – and Collins said she wouldn’t be paying for the others.
    “I will receive Mr Fisher’s peer review in the next day or so, which will be forwarded to Justice Binnie for his comment. When I hear back from Justice Binnie, I will take a recommendation to Cabinet on the next steps.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8063237/Bain-report-based-on-assumptions-wrong-facts

    Why refer anything back to Binnie, who has indicated his first report was in some error by sending another, and then that in its turn needed to be replaced by a third.
    Don’t they have Three Strikes in Canada?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (382) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Covering ones butt is always best done before one goes public. ;-) Nice try!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith

    As someone very wise just said to me, David will get his compo, and some heads are doing their best not to roll!!!

    Well, the compensation outcome is not looking too great just at the moment. Time will tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You say James McNeish began his book with a mistake.
    I am looking at the first page of chapter one.
    It starts with a press conference given by DCI Peter Robinson ,20 June 1994.
    Underneath that,in large bold type, are the words
    MONDAY 20 JUNE 1994.
    McNeish then goes on to write “When the killings occured on a Monday……..”.
    Where does he say they were on a Tuesday?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Muggins, you won’t get much more out of Judith. She has put her foot in it too much today, already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Glad to see you back. Still saying that David Bain is innocent I see. Penny still hasn’t dropped.
    I have been asking a few questions on another thread but I’ll be darned if I can get any answers. But you seem to be reasonably well informed,so maybe you can help.
    First of all do you accept that David Bain was wearing those glasses that were found in his room?
    Any idea how he got those scratches on his chest?
    Why was he insisting that he wanted Laniet home that Sunday night? She said he had called a family,but she didn’t want to go to it because he was acting freaky. He never mentioned that family meeting when he gave evidence at the first trial.
    Do you really believe that he got those bruises on his head by falling backwards from a sitting position?
    Do you really think he fainted when he fell backwards? The ambulance officer said that he didn’t believe he had fainted.You can see his testimony on you-tube.
    Do you really believe that he got Stephen’s blood on his shorts from touching his brother on his shoulder?
    How did that drop of blood come to be in the wash basin AFTER David had washed his hands in it to remove the printers ink?Why did David start his paper run earlier than usual that morning?
    Why did he not bring the paper in when he said he normally brought it in when he ran his paper round as he said he did that morning?
    Why did he wait 20 minutes to phone the emergency services?
    Why did he change his story as to who owned that green jersey that the killer wore? Up until he gave evidence at the trial he said that jersey was Arawa’s,but then ,to his lawyer’s surprise,he said it was his father’s.
    Can you explain why a pristine set of his fingerprints were found on the rifle?
    Why did he say on the phone that all his family were dead ,then shortly afterwards say he only saw his mother and father?
    Why did he not turn the light on in his room when he came home,seeing as it was pitch black at that time of the morning?
    Why did he put that hand knitted woollen jersey in the washing machine when his mother had given strict instructions that hand knitted jerseys were to be washed by hand?
    That will do for starters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ suggests:

    Ms Collins is quite happy to be apparently publicly scathing about Binnie, but the impression remains that she is protecting members of at least 2 Government Departments and is looking for a report that will suit that end.

    It is hard to avoid the view that that’s exactly what she’s doing. Especially when your second point is taken into account:

    Of course if Binnie’s report is done and dusted there would be no problem releasing it to the public now

    Release it with a codicil explaining what you take issue with, and why. Unless you’re afraid the public might just agree with Binnie’s criticisms of government officers.

    Elaycee asks:

    Why Binnie would since provide two, unsolicited revisions of his original report, is remarkable.

    Perhaps because an internationally respected jurist at the end of his career doesn’t want to see his reputation sacrificed by a Minister desperate to cover up the failings of her government?

    [And lest people read the foregoing as opining that David Bain is innocent, it isn’t – I haven’t studied the case sufficiently to form an opinion on that one way or another. I’m merely commenting on whether it’s appropriate to withhold a report and pressure the author to change it to suit your own imperatives].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Kent, surely Judith will answer all my questions. She does believe that David Bain is innocent,after all. It wouldn’t be a good look if she refuses to answer those questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Kent Parker:

    Incorrect facts = anything written or spoken by Joe Karam in relation to the Bain case.

    Judith:

    “…to make such an all inclusive statement would put you as no.1 for this years Darwin awards.”

    SSASTHL:

    Fail…… Darwin awards require death

    You know what happened to some other people who got on the wrong side of Bain, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Judith:

    As someone very wise just said to me, David will get his compo, and some heads are doing their best not to roll!!!

    Full of Freudian slips, aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    I eagerly await Judith’s responses to Muggins questions…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    Some light reading while we wait
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Perhaps because an internationally respected jurist at the end of his career doesn’t want to see his reputation sacrificed by a Minister desperate to cover up the failings of her government?

    Or perhaps the report had flaws. Only their release, in due course, will tell.

    Release it with a codicil explaining what you take issue with, and why.

    I disagree. Releasing incomplete or flawed information with a codicil is just begging for further controversy. Assess and address the issues (if any) and then release.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Rex:

    Perhaps because an internationally respected jurist at the end of his career doesn’t want to see his reputation sacrificed by a Minister desperate to cover up the failings of her government?

    Whaaat? Power commissioned a report from Binnie. It was submitted and reviewed by Collins. She is reported as saying there were ‘incorrect facts’ contained in the report. She conveyed these concerns to Binnie in September. She has since requested a peer review (Fisher). How does that suddenly become someone desperate to to cover up the failings of her government?

    Your slip is showing….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    This is brilliant. I’d love a Bain supporter to come on here and hand on heart state they think this almost laughable scenario is how it happened-

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-confession-of-robin-bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Rex,you say you havn’t studied the case sufficiently to form an opinion. Fair enough. But let me assure you that I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours studying the case.
    When I first heard that Justice Binnie had come to the conclusion that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities I thought that newspaper report was incorrect.
    But when it became clear to me that Binnie had come to that conclusion I knew he must have made some assumptions based on incorrect facts. I stated that weeks ago. I also said that I hoped Judith Collins would have that report peer reviewed. She has decided to do that.
    The thing is ,Rex, people like myself are going to be going over Binnie’s report with a fine tooth comb. We will find all those incorrect assumptions. Had Judith Collins paid compensation on the strength of that report she would have copped a considerable amount of flack.
    I understand Robert Fisher has just been asked to review Binnie’s report and will not be advising on the compensation claim itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Covering ones butt is always best done before one goes public. ;-) Nice try!

    Judith Collins has placed “incorrect facts” at the forefront of her arguments against accepting Binnie’s report as is. One has to wonder where Binnie got these “incorrect facts” from, but then one doesn’t have to look far. I have always opined that Karam has promoted “incorrect facts” in his campaign for David Bain, and I have good facts to back that up. Therefore I think I am on safe ground assuming that the facts that Collins is referring to have most likely been sourced from something that Karam said or did. I don’t mind repeating that, since, unlike some others, like maybe, you, I am not scared of the truth, and I have very good reason for making that assumption.

    I look forward to seeing Binnie’s report to see just what the “incorrect facts” are and where they might have originated. I would suggest to you, Judith, that supplying incorrect facts for a judicial investigation is a much more serious offence than speaking the truth, or satirical opinion of the truth, on a political blog and may be the reason why Collins also said the following:

    “I know the public has a huge interest in this matter. As much as I can without defaming people or breaching legal privilege I expect to be able to release everything I can.”

    We all know who has been especially litigious in the defamation area in relation to the David Bain case. So why would Collins be concerned about allegedly defaming people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Muggins, I have answered everyone of your questions time and time again, however, when you are presented with a fact, you simply reword your questions, or other similar action. Because I have answered them, but you continue to use such tactics, I am not going to repeat the same actions over and over. We may have different names here, but the conversation is old and very boring. You are wrong, and you know it. EG David Bain was strip searched *fully naked* according to procedure and forms completed by Police Examiner, and no scratches were there because EVERY mark on his body was recorded on the appointed sheet.

    Your excuses regarding this have included he was stripped search, but his shirt was only lifted and so the scratches weren’t seen, he wasn’t strip search at all and the doctor falsely completed the form, the scratches were on the left side, the scratches were on the right side, the scratches went up and down, the scratches went across, and more recently, there were bruises as well as scratches, etc etc. No point talking to someone who changes their story depending on who they are talking to!

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

    [I’m merely commenting on whether it’s appropriate to withhold a report and pressure the author to change it to suit your own imperatives].

    Pressure the author? You’re straining now. Binnie sent two unsolicited reports to Collins. Maybe he realised his first effort was below par.

    I’m amazed at the speed at which Bain supporters wanted to see him compensated before they’d even laid eyes on Binnie’s report. It didn’t matter if Binnie was senile or had failed in his duty, let’s give Bain millions of dollars! Yeah like that wouldn’t be inviting controversey.

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

    It’s not a conflict of interest for the government to seek the advice of the Solicitor General – no more than if you consulted your own solicitor over a claim against you.
    And if the veracity of a report is in question, especially where it relates to fact or matters of law then the report should be reviewed by someone who has sufficient knowledge and judgment before it is released.
    It was unwise of Binny to request the books – regardless of how he treated them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I see that Judith has said that someone very wise had just said to her that David Bain would get his compo.
    If Judith does happen to know someone very wise it certainly isn’t the person who told her that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker,
    You are presuming the incorrect facts are concerning the crime. In short you are reading what you want into her statement. For all you know the incorrect facts could indeed be about the police behaviour or other such serious elements.

    What if Judge Binnie has (one would hope) pointed out some very serious actions of police misconduct and lack of competency, and Ms Collins is trying to lessen those comments? I think you have taken an unbalanced approach and are assuming this is about the facts regarding the deaths – because that is how you would like it to be. I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed, not to mention, have a lot of egg on your face. ;-)

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

    Judith

    So all the witnesses who saw scratches and/or bruises are wrong? Every witness testifying for the prosecution was mistaken or perjured themselves….do you honestly think that is going to be a winner? Instead of impugning prosecution witnesses, it might be more useful to address their evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Flipper 1.27

    Releasing parts of the report was a better alternative at the outset, and perhaps a suitable compromise. Those statements by Collins to which you refer just go further down the track of someone squawking and threatening legal action if some of the material is made public. While I’m not impressed by that at all, circumventing parts of the report in an interim measure at least may have made the situation better to deal with. We are getting a clear demonstration of why this Compensation by ‘Favour of the King’ was abandoned so long ago – political whim and administration of the Law don’t mix in a true democracy. If the dogs are barking on one side of the fence they surely are on the other as well.

    Why was Heron involved you ask. It’s not a question I can answer right now, but on the face of it he shouldn’t have been nor should Binne have been ‘dished’ in this way. The Minister for all intents in purposes appears conflicted in her ‘neutral’ role. Not that I’d expect her or anyone to note, but my advice would be to release the report so that she at least ‘looks’ to be above the conflict and not immersed in it. That way the various parties seeking to shut it down will be steering their own ships and the public will not see them as trying to influence the Minister. She could announce a release date in advance to give any parties the opportunity to challenge the release of material in the Courts which they claim to be unfair or the denial of natural justice. An advantage of that would be that the matters would be before the Courts and be ‘seen’ to be out of political hands. I’m assuming in suggesting this, that such a line would not prevent the Minister announcing if compensation is to be paid or not. She might also then announce a review of this compensation ‘Law’ with a view to taking another look at the recommendations of The Law Commission on compensation made some years ago.

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

    “Now that Mr Bain has been found not guilty of murder, the Herald can reveal the evidence of Mark Buckley and Gareth Taylor, who say Mr Bain planned a rape of a female jogger while at high school.”

    I’ll be fascinated to read Binnie’s report to see if he talked with Messrs Buckley and Taylor about Bain’s alleged rape plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    When people are continually defamatory, and continually tell lies, exaggerate and use mass media to desseminate that defamation, don’t stop when requested to, then they deserve to get their butts sued for it. If you, Mr Parker don’t have the brains to work that out, you deserve to lose the shirt off your back and more.

    Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to make up stories and spread them, especially those geared to cause harm to a person, like you did to Mr Karam. I have seen conversations on the internet that you have been the administrator of, that have attacted and belittled not only Mr Karam, but also his sister and other family members, including attempts to ruin business dealing of his family members. I’ve seen stories of indecency etc, not to mention a variety of other inproprieties that were not true which you were involved in. You lost any credibility you ever had the day you were ask to stop such behaviour and didn’t. From what I’ve seen by your leading comment today, in which you imply every part of Mr Karam’s book was inaccurate, that you haven’t learned a thing from your experiences.

    You are a fool, morally bankrupt and hopefully soon to be financially bankrupt, however, I fear you will never learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    What if Judge Binnie has (one would hope) pointed out some very serious actions of police misconduct and lack of competency, and Ms Collins is trying to lessen those comments? I think you have taken an unbalanced approach and are
    assuming this is about the facts regarding the deaths – because that is how you would like it to be. I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed, not to mention, have a lot of egg on your face.

    You hope. The police were investigated by the IPCA, and no misconduct was found. I believe that Binnie was instructed to assess the evidence in relation to the Bain murders. I do not think that he was requested to make any assessment regarding police conduct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,167) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Rape was never mentioned, that was added by the police to add impact. The police acknowledged that they had done that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (386) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
    The IPCA investigation was incompetent at best and poorly administered. It was a monumental failure, and has been superceded by further evidence, however, I note you cling to it like a baby with a comforter. It has mostly been disproven, but then you knew that.

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

    “Ms Koch told the TVNZ Sunday programme that the conversation with Arawa Bain happened in the Every St home a few months before the family were found dead. “She [Arawa] said the family was scared because David was intimidating them with the gun,” said Ms Koch.”

    Alas Ms Koch was denied the opportunity to provide this evidence at David’s retrial. No doubt Justice Binnie talked to Ms Koch about how David was allegedly intimidating his family with a gun.

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

    > Rape was never mentioned, that was added by the police to add impact.

    So David just wanted to shake the jogger’s hand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith,you havn’t answered my questions.
    And I didn’t ask you whether David Bain was strip searched or not. I asked you how he got those scratches. Not one single David Bain supporter has been able to answer that question. And nor has David Bain ,though he has implied that he might have gotten them during that “missing” twenty minutes after he arrived home.
    Some other corrections I would like to make regarding that same post.
    I have never said which way those scratches went. I am well aware that Bain’s female companion said they went one way and that prison officer said they went another way.
    So that is lie #2.
    I have never said that Dr Pryde falsely completed that form.
    So that is lie#3.
    I have never said those scratches went up and down.
    So that is lie #4.
    You say every mark on his body was recorded. Ok,so what were those marks that were recorded? I am aware that Dr Pryde recorded those bruises on his head. I am aware that he recorded that nick on his knee. And I am aware that he recorded that tattoo that David Bain lied about to a number of people.
    Please tell me what other marks Dr Pryde recorded,because my understanding is that he didn’t record any other marks.
    And I am still waiting for you to tell me where James McNeish wrote that those murders took place on a Tuesday,or is that another lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    oss69 (1,166) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
    Judith

    So all the witnesses who saw scratches and/or bruises are wrong?

    The first to examine him Womble and Anderson were not wrong, no doubt the others who saw him after the time relevant period can also be right. But Crown witnesses Womble, Anderson, Pryde were unequivocal, no injuries. Check it yourself ross, do yourself a favour and be released from continuing to make false statements.

    ‘Every witness testifying for the prosecution was mistaken or perjured themselves…’

    That’s absolute nonsense. In fact in Mrs Laney, Sanderson, Womble, Anderson and a host of others helped gain a true picture of what happened that morning. The questions now is why were parts of Laney and Sanderson’s evidence hidden from the first Jury and how will that situation be remedied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to make up stories and spread them, especially those geared to cause harm to a person, like you did to Mr Karam. I have seen conversations on the internet that you have been the administrator of, that have attacted and belittled not only Mr Karam, but also his sister and other family members, including attempts to ruin business dealing of his family members. I’ve seen stories of indecency etc, not to mention a variety of other inproprieties that were not true which you were involved in. You lost any credibility you ever had the day you were ask to stop such behaviour and didn’t. From what I’ve seen by your leading comment today, in which you imply every part of Mr Karam’s book was inaccurate, that you haven’t learned a thing from your experiences.

    It is clear that you have nothing rational to say in respect of this subject. Previous posts demonstrate that you get your facts wrong, and I can say, for the benefit of other readers, that this statement you have made is largely false and includes a lot of nonsense. Yes, I am being sued by Joe Karam but only for things he has said in relation to the Bain case, and I am happy to defend my right to comment on a matter of community concern in an informed and opinionated manner. I believe that Karam has wrongly slandered Robin Bain with his accusations against him, but as we know, a dead man cannot defend himself. How noble is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Ross, there were two witnesses that saw those scratches. Neither of them on the day of the deaths. One described them as going up and down the chest, the other described them as going across the chest. One said the left hand side, the other said the right hand side. They were not there on the afternoon of the deaths, therefore are not evidence of involvement in them. Scratches unlike bruises do not show up days later, they are immediately obvious, and yet, they were not noted or seen by Dr Pryde, whilst he recorded other marks etc.

    As far as the honesty of witnesses, it all depends on the questions asked or not asked as to how their evidence is presented.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    The IPCA investigation was incompetent at best and poorly administered. It was a monumental failure, and has been superceded by further evidence, however, I note you cling to it like a baby with a comforter. It has mostly been disproven, but then you knew that.

    Again, you wish. It has not been discredited. You have provided no evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Rex 2.19

    Constructive comment, and excellent suggestions on ways to progress this situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    It is not noble at all Mr Parker. And no, I am not wrong. The evidence is available as you well know, as all material was copied and has been widely distributed by people who copied your site and the sites involved. Comments which show exactly how you and the members of your group defamed others. I believe because there was so much material, only some of it is part of the court case, however, that doesn’t mean the rest ceases to exist. It does, and it’s disgusting.

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

    > Ross, there were two witnesses that saw those scratches. Neither of them on the day of the deaths.

    Scratches tend to be present for some time and they don’t just magically appear. How did David get them?

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

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-confession-of-robin-bain

    perhaps a David Bain supporter could write a reply to this, highlighting the ludicrous assumptions we would have to make to believe that David was guilty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Nostalgia 2.52pm…
    Thanks for that…. Much appreciated info.
    I concur with your detailed, well argued analysis.

    Do you have a reference for, or more detail of, the LC’s recommendations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    So what now happens about the dead?

    Do they just go unaccounted for?

    Or does the coroner hold an inquest?

    Surely they can’t just go unaccounted for?

    Why don’t they wait till after a coroners report, and then work out the ‘balance of probabilities’ against Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    ross,you and I know how David Bain got those scratches ,and I am sure Judith does to.
    I am still waiting for her to tell me what other marks Dr Pryde recorded. Funny how Karam doesn’t mention any other marks in his latest book.
    You see,and you have probably read this before,what I find very strange is that the defence did not ask the police officers who were in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain,if Pryde strip-searched Bain. Why didn’t they ask those police officers that question when they were cross-examining them? Instead they asked another ex police officer who wasn’t even there,who didn’t know what time of day it was when Dr Pryde examined David Bain,who even said Bain hadn’t been tested for gunshot residue when he had been. What on earth was the point of asking him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    The evidence is available as you well know, as all material was copied and has been widely distributed by people who copied your site and the sites involved. Comments which show exactly how you and the members of your group defamed others. I believe because there was so much material, only some of it is part of the court case, however, that doesn’t mean the rest ceases to exist. It does, and it’s disgusting.

    What concerns me is how you people are going to feel if Joe Karam’s little court case doesn’t succeed. Do you have Self-righteousness Insurance? I am genuinely concerned about people’s welfare. Talk about counting chickens!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I see Judith is now saying those scratches were not there on the afternoon of the deaths. I don’t know how she would know that. Dr Pryde examined David Bain in the morning.
    She reckons those scratches weren’t there that morning,and now she knows they weren’t there in the afternoon either.
    Did Dr Pryde carry out another examination that we havn’t heard about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I reckon Judith has got a bad case of foot in the mouth disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think you need to check your facts again Mr Muggins. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    I think you need to check your facts again Mr Muggins.

    Should we be checking against “incorrect facts” or correct facts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Very funny Kent, how long have you and Muggins been a ‘we’? Civil union was it? I wouldn’t suggest you check anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Judith:

    Very funny Kent, how long have you and Muggins been a ‘we’? Civil union was it? I wouldn’t suggest you check anything.

    That is kind of missing the point, isn’t it, dearie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent, I don’t want to have to spell it out any clearer than I have already. You sir are not a person who in my opinion, due to your past acts of defamation and other such behaviours, warrants paying the smallest degree of respect towards. Therefore, you will continue to get nonsense answers from me, in the manner of which you not only deserve, but that probably fit entirely with your thinking processes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kent Parker (257 comments) says:

    Kent, I don’t want to have to spell it out any clearer than I have already. You sir are not a person who in my opinion, due to your past acts of defamation and other such behaviours, warrants paying the smallest degree of respect towards. Therefore, you will continue to get nonsense answers from me, in the manner of which you not only deserve, but that probably fit entirely with your thinking processes.

    Well, as I said before, nothing rational happening here. Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Dexter (317 comments) says:

    I fail to understand why any Bain supporter would object to this review.

    A grossly flawed report will simply add to public vitriol against David and will essentially pile an injustice upon an injustice, resulting in a public debate that is never put to rest.

    If the report isn’t flawed, then unless anyone can seriously suggest that Fisher will sacrifice his reputation and is part of some ‘conspiracy’, he will validate Davids claims once and for all and take away any credibility the ‘Anti-David’ camp has.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    flipper 3.21

    I think this is it. http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/wrongful-conviction.
    I have a hard copy somewhere but haven’t read it for awhile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith,
    As you still havn’t told me where James McNeish said at the start of his book the murders were on a Tuesday I guess you were lying about that.
    And as you still havn’t told me what other marks David Bain had on his body apart from those mentioned in Karam’s book I guess you were lying about that.
    And as you still havn’t told me how you knew David Bain didn’t have those scratches on the Monday afternoon of the murders I guess you were lying about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Kent,I didn’t know you were a sir. When did that happen?
    And I see Judith reckons she will continue to give you nonsense answers.
    At least she gives you some sort of answers. She won’t even give me any sort of answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Is the Minister, having noted the lack of knowledge of New Zealand law of foreign judges, promising not to hire from abroad next time?

    A lack of knowledege of law is demonstrated by those who are sure that someone is guilty of an offence – despite there being either being no conviction (lack of sufficient evidence to convince a jury) or a coroner decision.

    Even saying that one of the two must be guilty is itself something that has not been proven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kanz (1,420 comments) says:

    It all remains to be seen when the report is finally released. Judith Collins said today, “This is a peer review of Mr Binnie’s report which is around the process, about some of the reasoning in the report, those sorts of things. It is not a report into whether or not Mr Bain is innocent or not on the balance of probabilities. Not is it a report as to whether or not there are extraordinary circumstances that Cabinet can take into account.”.

    That tends to say that they are not questioning the conclusion about Bain’s innocence, but are questioning any blame he may have apportioned for this gross miscarriage of justice. She went further to say that some of the report may not be released as she doesn’t want to defame anybody, which further suggests that Binnie has named names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Kanz – looks like you must have missed this:

    Judith Collins says the report lacks a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.
    She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts…
    Since she told him she wasn’t happy, Justice Binnie has provided her with two revised versions of his report.

    Lacks robustness of reasoning?
    Contains assumptions based on incorrect facts?
    Two revised versions?

    I wouldn’t quite count your chickens yet….

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

    > he will validate Davids claims once and for all

    My goodness, you must be optimistic. Have you also bought a Lotto ticket for tomorrow?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Yvette (2,757 comments) says:

    In a statement to ONE News, Binnie says he has no idea what the concerns with his work are and that he has had no communication from the Minister or her office since the Wellington meeting.
    Collins disputes that claim.
    “My office has certainly been in contact with Justice Binnie but not about particular details. It would simply not be appropriate,” she said.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/bain-compo-judge-misunderstood-nz-law-collins-5280924

    If Binnie hasn’t been spoken to “about particular details”, the two further reports he had sent, as reported elsewhere, must correct faults he has himself found in his original report, and then its first replacement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

    Binnie is a bit of a worry! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kanz (1,420 comments) says:

    Elaycee @7.53pm

    No, I did not miss that, nor did I miss this, another quote from her today.

    “The review would not have an impact on Bain’s claim, other than to delay it, Collins said.”

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

    Kanz

    “There are parts of the report, particularly around facts, matters of fact, but also around process, that would not mean it would stand up to any sort of scrutiny,” Collins said

    So despite this, you’re suggesting Bain will be paid compensation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Kanz – Your optimism could be likened to that of an ant crawling up an elephant’s leg with the intention of wiping it’s bum with a piece of confetti. 8O

    By the way, are you interested in a nice financial instrument I have with your name on it? Its from the lovely folk at the Central Bank of Nigeria….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kanz (1,420 comments) says:

    ross69 I am simply quoting what Judith Collins said.

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

    Can someone please tell the Labour party that their support for Justice Binnie’s report is wildly out of step with public opinion. Most people would support a review of the report – especially if it does find Bain is ‘innocent on balance of all probabilities”.
    Labour and all opposition parties need to support a robust process – not be prattling on about the qualifications of Justice Binnie in the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kanz (1,420 comments) says:

    Elaycee

    Is there any need for the Ad hominem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Be careful when you insult a Latin Scholar Elaycee! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Judith, you say “David didn’t have any part in the killings, and couldn’t have.” That’s a very powerful statement that implies you have compelling evidence / proof to back it up. I would be interested to hear it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Kanz…. you’re right. Of course. I don’t know what got into me… 8O

    I’ll drop an apology to the lovely people at the Central Bank of Nigeria – straight away. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    The Minister has had a troubling sort of day to discover that Binnie is not her lap dog, that coveted position is reserved…for a Commer van door. I believe she has requested that no more actual van doors should be sent to her, that photos will suffice and that she is considering putting a limit on the amount of times the same person can repeat themselves by attaching notes to the doors explaining what Mrs Laney said. She has explained that after reading 350 such notes she knows what the sender means deluded as he might be.

    Apart from that, the Minister has had an early exchange with the Supreme Court Judge clearly not so much to her anticipation or liking.

    Let the battle begin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Johnboy: Ad Alta used to be on the chest of HSOB jerseys – way before the ‘merger’ with Hutt Club. Is it still on HOBM jerseys or has it been replaced with something from the scriptures?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Collins appears to be saying that even if Bain is seen on the balance of probablities to be innocent (rather than just not proven guilty), the government will only pay out if it is shown that the process was unfair – some negligence or fault belonging to the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    Sorry, I’m in the WA desert and intermittently in range of a signal, so this response is somewhat late in the piece…

    Elaycee says:

    [Collins] is reported as saying there were ‘incorrect facts’ contained in the report. She conveyed these concerns to Binnie in September. She has since requested a peer review (Fisher). How does that suddenly become someone desperate to to cover up the failings of her government?

    Because I can’t imagine her shopping round for a different opinion if all that was at stake was money. Governments splash money around like water. I think it was FE Smith a while back who was intimating that the MoJ don’t come out of this looking very good and I’ve heard the same from legal sources, and that rings truer as a reason to stifle the Binnie report till she can find someone supposedly at arms length to discredit it for her.

    Imagine if Key had said he had the results of the report into Pike River but had decided to keep it from the public while he looked around for someone to refute it… or if the Maori Council had tried to injunct against the release of the court’s decision on partial asset sales while it launched an appeal against it.

    ross69 says:

    Pressure the author? You’re straining now. Binnie sent two unsolicited reports to Collins. Maybe he realised his first effort was below par.

    Jurists are used to issuing their findings and letting them stand, perhaps to be overturned by a higher court but certainly not re-written to suit one of the parties. For a senior judge to have felt motivated to do so, without remuneration and seemingly without a direct request from the Minister, strongly suggests he feels under considerable pressure. Whether that feeling is reasonable given the circumstances we cannot of course know… unless and until the Minister releases the report and the subsequent correspondence. Which she should most certainly do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    SPC 8.44

    How on the one hand could she basically say the decision doesn’t fit the facts without also knowing that the investigation and prosecutions contained major, fatal, faults. She’s being political, yet Justice is not political in a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Are you prospecting for Uranium or Uranus Rex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @milkmilo: Good to hear. You need to keep an eye on the left footers! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mikenmild (12,316 comments) says:

    Sorry Elaycee, I checked after I made that comment and deleted it because I am very sorry to say that the Catholics obliterated that piece of heritage. Interestingly, I ran into a number of old HOB types who wouldn’t attend the centenary a couple of years ago because they were still annoyed about the Marist takeover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Rex: Collins said of the Report (her words):

    Lacks robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.
    Contains assumptions based on incorrect facts?

    Both are damning comments that bring the integrity of the Report into question – IMO Collins has acted properly in seeking a peer review.

    Now we all have to wait and see what transpires….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    milkmilo: That’s not good news at all. Bugger.

    I remember the merger between Hutt (red and white hoops / white shorts) based at the Hutt Rec and HSOB (white jersey / black shorts) based at Strand Park – and the creation of the new HOB Club (gold jersey and green shorts) based in Myrtle Street? The HOB jersey had the Ad Alta monogram that originated from HVHS.

    Times change – maybe heritage is not so important these days. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Heritage is important Elaycee.

    Mass is held every Sunday at the HOBM clubrooms after every Saturday defeat.

    Jugs are still cheaper than the Bellevue! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Johnboy: Aha – not everything has changed then…. Love it. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (12,316 comments) says:

    The green and gold lasted quite a while, before a return to the red and white around 1989 or 90 was rudely interrupted by the arrival of the left footers in 1993. Keep religion out of sport, I always say!

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

    Who was it: Robin or David? That question has been hotly debated for eighteen years, and will be forever more, but in spite of continued divided opinion, Joe Karam persists with his ” overwhelming evidence of David’s innocence,” and David Bain insists ” I’m innocent, it’s been proved, I wasn’t there.” Where is the proof? Where is the D.N.A, evidence? The strong alibi evidence? What is the extraordinary circumstance? WHAT IS THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE? WHY DID IT FAIL TO OVERWHELM JUDITH COLLINS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    As soon as I heard that Binnie had concluded that Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities I knew that he must have made some errors and/or incorrect assumptions in his report. I knew that because I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the Bain murders since the retrial.
    Take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. Write up the evidence against David Bain on the left hand side and the evidence against Robin Bain on the right hand side. You will find you will run out of space on the left hand side whereas you will have written virtually nothing on the right hand side.
    Judith Collins knows there are people like me itching to read that report so that we can point out all those errors and incorrect assumptions. I said weeks ago that she should have that report peer reviewed which is exactly what she is doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I’m a great believer in looking folks in the eye and judging them from what I see.

    David Bain is as guilty as a Fox with a Chicken in his mouth. Joe Karam is an obsessed weirdo.

    Justice Binnie is a dickhead.

    Judith Collins is seriously pissed off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Where is the evidence that one or the other must have done it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. mikenmild (12,316 comments) says:

    SPC
    Ha! Maybe they both did it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    One doing the others and then being killed for it? Now we have 4 options.

    None proven.

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

    > ross69 I am simply quoting what Judith Collins said.

    I am quoting her too. She’s said Binnie has got his facts wrong. On that basis, do you think she will be paying Bain any compo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    Maxine (8) Says:
    December 11th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    Who was it: Robin or David? That question has been hotly debated for eighteen years, and will be forever more, but in spite of continued divided opinion, Joe Karam persists with his ” overwhelming evidence of David’s innocence,” and David Bain insists ” I’m innocent, it’s been proved, I wasn’t there.” Where is the proof? Where is the D.N.A, evidence? The strong alibi evidence? What is the extraordinary circumstance? WHAT IS THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE? WHY DID IT FAIL TO OVERWHELM JUDITH COLLINS?

    Maxine when has it ever been a requirement for the accused to provide DNA evidence of his/her innocence. Is this is a new twist on why he is guilty? What is certain is the Privy Council was not convinced of his guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    If Maxine would like to know why Judith Collin’s wasn’t overwhelmed, perhaps she should read Judge Binnie’s press release replying to Ms Collins. I suggest she takes particular notice of point 4 and point 6, and point out where the fairness, impartiality and balance has occured in Ms Collins actions. Collins is a disgrace, and clearly has no understanding of the word Justice. That she is the Minister of Justice makes a mockery of her position and the party who put her there. She can hardly consider herself or Judge Fisher as a ‘peer’ of a man with Binnie’s experience, and of whom has just been decorated with similar to a Knighthood by his country. Fisher is only a QC.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Ian-Binnies-full-statement-on-Judith-Collins-David-Bain/tabid/423/articleID/280085/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. RF (1,487 comments) says:

    Judith… Settle down, deep breath and take a step back. Bain is not worth it. Eventually a decision will be made and one side Will not be happy. I believe Bain is guilty but that’s only my opinion after in depth discussions with those who were there at the time. Gaining information from the so called horses mouth is more reliable than reading about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    There is a blog on counterspin.co.nz headed ‘The Bain killings. Whodunnit? It was written by a person who has spent hundreds ,if not thousands,of hours researching those killings.
    Go take a look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Mark, David Bain’s claim for compensation fell outside Cabinet guidelines because he was acquitted following a retrial. Because of this, something more ( than establishing innocence on the balance of probablities,) is required that demonstrates that circumstances are extraordinary – ie they must include some feature that takes the applicant’s case out of the ordinary run of cases in which appeals have been allowed. EXAMPLES of such circumstances could include strong alibi evidence, D.N.A evidence etc. It is up to a claimant ( David Bain) to show the existence of such features. I did NOT say that it is a requirement for an accused (David Bain) to provide D.N.A. evidence of his innocence. There’s no twist.

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

    “She can hardly consider herself or Judge Fisher as a ‘peer’ of a man with Binnie’s experience, and of whom has just been decorated with similar to a Knighthood by his country. Fisher is only a QC.”

    But Judith, Binnie – for all his wonderful credentials – has made some basic errors. How could someone with his nous and expertise stuff up? There’s an old saying: the bigger they are, the harder they fall. I’m predicting a pretty heavy fall for Binie. He has already shown that he doesn’t respond well to criticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Maxine:

    I think it was perhaps Rex or Flipper who pointed out what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ might be. I also earlier posted a link in which the QC David Fisher was quoted as what they might be. Those circumstances go right to the core of why Judith Collins lost her impartiality.

    Ross:

    Binnie has made no basic errors, in fact he stuck some worldy experience on Judith Collins by seeking advice on NZ Law – though I’d not expect that he anticipated that our ‘Minister’ would deliberately create mischief to malign him. A subject which Ms Collins seems to have shut up about now and moved onto other things told to her by the SG and his associates – those whose arses are on the line. As for Fisher we must wait and see, I’ve no reason to think he’ll doing anything other than a good job under pressure. Bottom line though like the PC, The Jury, and now Binnie you and your howling crows with ‘thousands’ of hours’ of learning nothing about the case will roundly abuse him. Your ‘crew’ can’t even follow the evidence of a strip search or that of Anderson and Womble sadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    ross69:

    Binnie…. made some basic errors…

    Ain’t that the truth. And once these errors were pointed out to Binnie when he met with Collins in September, he subsequently provided two, unsolicited revisions.

    No wonder Collins asked for a peer review:

    Judith Collins says the report lacks a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.
    She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts…
    Since she told him she wasn’t happy, Justice Binnie has provided her with two revised versions of his report.

    Lacks robustness of reasoning?
    Contains assumptions based on incorrect facts?

    Indeed, Minister Collins revealed two such errors in Parliament yesterday afternoon – no dispute there. Apparently, there are numerous more such errors.

    I can understand why the Bain cheer squad is getting increasingly fractious.

    Their entire claim is circling the drain……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote