Dom Post on Binnie report

December 14th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dominion Post editorial:

If is innocent of the murder of his parents, two sisters and brother he deserves to be compensated for the 13 years he spent in prison. If he is guilty he does not deserve a cent.

Exactly. It isn’t so much about the money, but about the outcome. I don’t care about $2 million when the Government spends $80 billion a year. If David did not kill his family, then he has suffered more than any person should suffer – and deserves compensation and more. But if he did kill his father, mother, brother and two younger sisters and tried to frame his father for the killing – it would be repugnant to reward him for this.

The concerns raised by Auckland QC about retired Canadian judge ’s report on the case are such that it cannot be used as the basis to compensate Mr Bain. …

However, Dr Fisher’s review of his report – commissioned by Justice Minister Judith Collins – suggests Justice Binnie misunderstood his brief and misunderstood the principles under which wrongful imprisonment claims are assessed. It is difficult to conceive of a more damning critique.

There is no dispute that Binnie got his brief wrong. He has admitted this. Fisher’s critique is damning. I am not a lawyer and am not competent to judge whether Fisher’s criticisms are valid, or as Binnie claims are nitpicking. I am not interested in the claims of anyone associated with the Bain camp (or Crown Law), or of those who are politically motivated by their views of Judith Collins.

I’d love to hear from non-interested legal experts as to their views of the Binnie and Fisher reports.

The Herald editorial sort of goes the other way and says:

Justice Binnie may also have erred in going beyond his mandate. But that is of no great importance.

Really? Obeying the terms of reference is not important? That is in fact crucial.

His reasoning has enough substance to warrant more than Ms Collins’ dismissive attitude.

I think it is clear a second report is needed. It need not be a report from start. It can use the evidence collated by Binnie, but follow the NZ law of evidence in reaching conclusions.

I think using Dr Fisher for this second report would lead some to attack it as they assume he is pre-disposed against Bain (I don’t think he is, but perceptions are important). but I am sure someone can be found – perhaps an Australian Judge?

996 Responses to “Dom Post on Binnie report”

  1. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    The blood spatter on Robin Bain’s trousers does not prove he was standing with one foot on a chair. According to an ESR scientist he could have been just standing.

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

    OpenMind (28) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    Scott….interesting scenario…curious as to why he would want to kill his whole family but leave David…doesn’t sound like they were best buds.

    —————
    It may not make sense if you look at it from the point of view that life was worth living.
    Someone that commits suicide does not think that.

    Robin may have believed strongly in the afterlife, being a religious man, and that the afterlife was a better place to be. He may have, like some suicide victims have decided life was an inferior state, and perhaps, if he did dislike David, he thought he ‘deserved’ to live that life, where the others deserved the better life offered by death.

    we do not know, but so many consider the suicide note that ‘deserve’ means life was the better state, and deserve was in the positive sense. It may not have been meant that way at all. There are noted cases of parents who have killed their children before themselves because they wanted them to be together in the afterlife, and could not stand leaving them behind.

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

    muggins (309) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    ——————-

    could have just been standing with one leg bent! Yeah ok, he stood there with one leg bent and waited whilst the gun misfeed, was reloaded etc. You believe that if you want to, but the probability is that he had that leg supported.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Nostalgia…are the cartridges in Robin’s van ones he’s meant to have dropped whilst trying to load the shotgun?
    Why would he have loaded the gun in there? Wasn’t it kept in David’s room? Wouldn’t he have had to get it from David’s room once he’d left for the paper round?

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

    Thankyou Ross, so it appears Binnie didn’t ask David why he thought he deserved to stay and his siblings deserved to die.
    One would have thought he would have been curious to hear David’s thoughts on th esubjext.
    Do you reckon he asked whether they had pens and paper in the house.
    I wonder if “Robin’s” suicide note was the first one ever to be written on a computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    I see a certain David Bain supporter has posted an excerpt from Binnie’s interview with David Bain re that strip-search.
    Surely he didn’t think David Bain was going to say he was strip-searched? Get a grip. He had to say he wasn’t strip-searched,just like he had to say on oath that he wasn’t wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    Some of these David Bain supporters are so gullible.

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

    “The blood spatter on Robin Bain’s trousers does not prove he was standing with one foot on a chair. According to an ESR scientist he could have been just standing.”

    He could have been standing on one leg with the other bent at the knee and raised? The blood splatter went upwards from the knee towards the hip, and downwards below the knee. How could it splash upwards if his leg was pointing towards the floor?

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

    OpenMind (29) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    The ones in the caravan were spent cartridges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    I guess I am just going to have to try and contact one of those police officers that was in the room with David Bain when Dr Pryde examined him to see if they saw Dr Pryde strip-search him.

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

    Belinda (30) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    If it was the first, it certainly wasn’t the last. There has been a very recent suicide in which the ‘note’ was left on a computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    That scientist said he could have been standing upright,Kanz. If the defence were so sure Robin Bain was standing with one foot on a chair then why did they have that Irishman with the headgear demonstrating how Robin Bain could have shot himself standing upright?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Many typed “suicide” notes are found to have been typed by the killer,not the victim.

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

    muggins (312) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Obviously that scientist, like you is unable and unwilling to explain how the blood splatter on Robin’s track pants goes in two separate directions. He is not here to ask, so would you like to attempt to explain it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Kanz (84) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    “The ones in the caravan were spent cartridges”.
    Sorry, by spent you mean they are ones that are empty, post having fired their load?
    Why were they in Robin’s van? If he was trying to frame David then wouldn’t he put them in David’s room not his own?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    He explained that at the retrial,Kanz.
    And I ask you again,if the defence were so sure that Robin Bain shot himself with one foot on a chair then why did they demonstrate how he could have shot himself standing upright?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    Judith,
    that would imply that robin intended to commit suicide (despite wearing gloves etc) and planned to write the note but didnt think about the note enough to realise that his audience (lets say david) might not share his morbid view of life. that seems contradictory.

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

    muggins (314) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Because the defence were demonstrating the trajectory of the shot and the manner the gun was held in their demonstration and not the position of the legs or feet.

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

    Scott1 (108) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    you suggest a man who is in a psychological state sufficient to kill his children would have been rational enough to think through what the audience would think after the event?

    He may not have intended to die himself. Perhaps he felt his deeds deserved him staying in this life, but as the events unfolded, and didn’t go to plan, he was unable to do that. Who knows, but trying to analyse his behaviour by comparing to how a rational person would behave, is never going to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    OpenMind.
    Re those spent cartridges in the caravan. It has been suggested that David Bain may have taken pot-shots at possums from the caravan. Robin Bain wasn’t home on Tuesday,Wednesday or Thursday nights,so David would have access to the caravan. Robin Bain was never seen firing a rifle. He had never owned one to the best of my knowledge. Of later years that caravan never left the property. So the question would be how did Robin Bain get access to that rifle when David was home?
    We know that David used to shoot possums on the property because he has said that he did and a neighbour complained about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Judith/ Nostalgia:
    The theory of Robin staging everything to look like it was David almost seems plausible…
    Except if Robin discarded his gloves in Stephen’s room because of misfeed or whatever…and then he had to carry on shooting the girls and then himself…where, oh where were his fingerprints all over the rifle? Especially since he would have been the very last one to touch it in multiple places when he shot himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    So the defence were misleading the jury,then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (14,384 comments) says:

    http://kiwiwit.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/imagine-if-david-bain-really-is-innocent.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘OpenMind (30) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
    Nostalgia…are the cartridges in Robin’s van ones he’s meant to have dropped whilst trying to load the shotgun?
    Why would he have loaded the gun in there? Wasn’t it kept in David’s room? Wouldn’t he have had to get it from David’s room once he’d left for the paper round?’

    .22 Rifle actually. The dropped lived rounds were in David’s room on the floor. All the rounds in the van were used apart from one from memory, a total of 22 or 23. The spent rounds in the van indicated that Robin had used the rifle, unknown to David and must have known where the trigger key was. On this particular point, the subtleness missed by many is that David had an opportunity to say at the outset that his father had the trigger lock key, in fact he said he was the only one who knew where it was – a remarkable admission for somebody allegedly try to hide their role in the killings. Both the Privy Council and Binnie remarked on this.

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

    OpenMind (30) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    —————
    What did he do to frame David?

    It wasn’t anything Robin did that framed David, it was the police inability to collect evidence, GSR etc, and conduct an investigation in the proper manner according to their manual that prevented the evidence being collected that proved beyond any doubt who was responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Judith…the Robin framing David theory has been mooted several times hasn’t it? Either he wore the gloves to frame David or to frame someone maybe..

    Anyway , my point is even if he wasn’t trying to frame anyone, where are Robin’s fingerprints? He was supposedly the last one to handle the gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘OpenMind (31) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    Judith/ Nostalgia:
    The theory of Robin staging everything to look like it was David almost seems plausible…
    Except if Robin discarded his gloves in Stephen’s room because of misfeed or whatever…and then he had to carry on shooting the girls and then himself…where, oh where were his fingerprints all over the rifle? Especially since he would have been the very last one to touch it in multiple places when he shot himself?’

    There is no evidence showing that Robin sought to frame David. There are certainly people who say that in defence of Robin Bain. Read Binnie’s report on the fingerprint evidence on firearms, in particular the Crown’s submission to him where they verified the unlikelihood and difficulty of finding fingerprints of users on a rifle, world wide. Its the amateur sleuths that have unrealistic expectations about fingerprints on firearms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Ok Nostalgia – I don’t see how that scenario is in defence of Robin…but beside the point.
    Weren’t David’s prints found fresh in the blood on the gun? If it’s so difficult to get prints and David supposedly didn’t touch the gun why were his there and not Robin’s?

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

    OpenMind (32) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    the gloves were in the same room as the gun, to get his own gloves he would have had to go out to the caravan. I do not believe Robin framed David, I think people just draw that inference. Just like I have seen people say that because David owned the gun, it must have been him.

    Why would Robin wear gloves? Perhaps he initially thought he could blame an intruder or something, perhaps the thought of getting his children’s blood on himself made him protect himself.

    It is common to be unable to identify fingerprints on murder weapons. Finding them is the exception. Fingerprints were however found on the weapon, but they were not copied, because the police couldn’t identify who they belonged to due to insufficient ridge detail. If they had kept a copy of them, they would have been able to at least identify who they didn’t belong to. Yet another failing of the Keystone Cops from Dunedin.

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

    muggins (316) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    The defense was demonstrating the positioning of the gun with regards to what was taking place regarding the wound site, in the demonstration that was so broadly published in the media.

    If you have read the trial transcripts you will know how they dealt with the body positioning – of course that depends on if you have seen them and you appear unable to confirm whether you have or you haven’t.

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

    Judith, I believe you are a seriously disturbed individual.

    Nostalgia, you just seem to be anti police or crown,
    but Judith there is something seriously wrong with your posts, I suggest you take a little break and consider whether posting every second of the day is what you need, you don’t post facts just hypothetical bullshite. No one cares what you think, we are just interested in the truth.

    I mean the scenerio of Robin taking off his clothes and putting them in the washing is ABSURD.

    Robin died in the same clothes as he wore the night before (davids testimony), he had no blood off any of the victims
    and no amount of bullshite will change this.

    Most of the other pro bain team, seem to be anti Collins or anti Police, how anyone could come from that point and appear logical and reasoned is just stupid.

    I wish you all well but some of you need think a little more logically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    BAIN DAVID CULLEN INTERVIEW (23 July 2012) A.

    Q. The – I’m going to come back to the rifle but you talked before lunch about your going into the lounge and you told the pol ice that you did not touch the rifle. You indicated this morning, I think, that you looked into the lounge –
    A. Mmm.
    Q.- but didn’t really touch anything, backed out, is that right?
    A. Weil l , no I don’t think I got to the point of indicating what had done but ­
    Q. Al l right, then could you do that now?
    A. Um, now the only memories I have are of, that, was that I was in the room, past the door frame itself.
    Q. Yes?
    A. Um, as to whether I got any closer to what, to my father or not I , sorry (inaudible) .
    Q. In the police statement you indicate that you did not pick up the gun.
    A. Mmm.
    Q. Is that right?
    A.Yes.
    Q. And . . .
    A.From memory at the time.
    Q.Yes.
    A. That’s correct. That’s – I’m accepting, though, that I you know, possibly touched things in any room so I’m not excluding that but it’s me being prudent.
    Q. There is the suggestion made by the defence at the 1 995 trial that the fingerprints identified on the gun could be attributable to your picking it up on the 20th of June by way of “innocent transfer”?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Do you say that is not a possibility?
    A. I don’t believe it to be a possibility, no, no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    “you suggest a man who is in a psychological state sufficient to kill his children would have been rational enough to think through what the audience would think after the event? ”

    he has nothing else important to be worried about. so, probably yes… He would probably think it though many times in his head.

    “Perhaps he felt his deeds deserved him staying in this life, but as the events unfolded, and didn’t go to plan, he was unable to do that. Who knows, but trying to analyse his behaviour by comparing to how a rational person would behave, is never going to work.”

    I dont think we should give up here. Murderers may be “hard to understand” but that doesnt mean impossible to understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    so judith,
    you are going with the hypothesis that robin put on david’s gloves on so that he would not have to get the blood of his family on him? and not to hide finger prints or anything of that nature?

    Surely, at least in isolation, you can see that appears to be a far worse explination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Who are you on counterspin truthiz?
    What names did you use on Trade Me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘OpenMind (34) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Ok Nostalgia – I don’t see how that scenario is in defence of Robin…but beside the point.
    Weren’t David’s prints found fresh in the blood on the gun? If it’s so difficult to get prints and David supposedly didn’t touch the gun why were his there and not Robin’s?’

    If you can’t figure out how the “Robin set up David’ routine works, then you must think that everyone came down in the last shower along with your carefully contrived name ‘OpenMind.’ Oh dear.

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

    > One would have thought he would have been curious to hear David’s thoughts on the subjext.

    Yes, one would have thought so, but it’s worth recalling that Binnie had traversed all the evidence by that stage. So I suspect that he had “I think you’re innocent” tattooed on his forehead by the time of the interview. As long as David didn’t say “I shot the prick”, he was home and hosed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    One ESR scientist said that based on that particular blood pattern it would be more likely Robin Bain was standing upright than not.
    And you still havn’t told me how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room.
    The Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glsses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is certainly a tenable one based on the evidence.
    Indeed ,in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stehen’s room where he was killed,the Crown thesis is a strong one.
    The issue for us ,however, is whether it is reasonably possible that the lens could have got in the vicinity of Stephen’s dead body in a manner or time unrelated to the murders. That could only be so if the lens was there prior to the murderer entering the room to shoot Stephen. There is no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses Stephen never wore,and had no need to wear,was already on the bedroom floor prior to him being shot.
    So there you have it Judith. The Law Lords weren’t bothered by the fact that neither the frame or the lenses had no blood or fingerprints on them.
    So can you suggest a reason why that lens was there because the Law Lords could’t think of one.

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

    > Robin may have believed strongly in the afterlife, being a religious man, and that the afterlife was a better place to be.

    David might have believed the afterlife was the right place for Robin and put him there. But of course that would mean sharing the $600,000 estate with 4 others, and of course he wouldn’t get his hands on the filthy lucre til his mother croaked. That was easily fixed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    If you can’t figure out how the “Robin set up David’ routine works, then you must think that everyone came down in the last shower along with your carefully contrived name ‘OpenMind.’ Oh dear.

    Carefully contrived name? haha…it’s just a username mate, I wouldn’t read too much into it, but you do seem to be rather preoccupied with people’s usernames dont you? I am asking questions because there are areas that concern me, and if you can give me valid and believable explanations for them I may well change my pre-conceived ideas.

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

    ross69 (1,277) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    I see what you are saying now. After reading the transcripts from 2 trials, the PCA report, Police job notes and interviews, numerous COA judgements, and The Privy Council judgement, not to mention having interviewed 2 of the lead Policemen on the case, he had already formed the opinion that Bain was the only honest one. It doesn’t say much for the evidence presented, or the Police he interviewed, then does it?

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

    > he had already formed the opinion that Bain was the only honest one.

    So all the prosecution witnesses perjured themselves, but all the defence witnesses told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I’m just about to have some of mom’s apple pie. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    OpenMind

    Valid and preconceived doesn’t work. Known and proved does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ross for a bullshitter you’re very consistent.

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

    ross69 (1,279) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
    So all the prosecution witnesses perjured themselves, but all the defence witnesses told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I’m just about to have some of mom’s apple pie.

    It was you who suggested “Yes, one would have thought so, but it’s worth recalling that Binnie had traversed all the evidence by that stage. So I suspect that he had “I think you’re innocent” tattooed on his forehead by the time of the interview.”

    So obviously you think they must have given that impression to Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    we do not know, but so many consider the suicide note that ‘deserve’ means life was the better state, and deserve was in the positive sense. It may not have been meant that way at all.

    If that was the case, surely he would have also felt that Margaret deserved to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Well yes Nostalgia, here I’m giving you the opportunity to convert my pre-conceived ideas..with known and proven facts.
    Unfortunately in this case much of the ‘evidence’ or what we know of is not actually proven. i.e we know there were broken glasses in David’s room and a lens in Stephen’s but it is not PROVEN how either got there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘OpenMind (36) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    Well yes Nostalgia, here I’m giving you the opportunity to convert my pre-conceived ideas..with known and proven facts.
    Unfortunately in this case much of the ‘evidence’ or what we know of is not actually proven. i.e we know there were broken glasses in David’s room and a lens in Stephen’s but it is not PROVEN how either got there.’

    Not proven is fine with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    “Not proven is fine with me”.
    hmm…not good enough for me I’m afraid. That’s the attitude of many of our jurors I fear.

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

    Truthiz (2) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    No one cares what you think, we are just interested in the truth.
    —————
    Goodness, computer time at the funny farm again?

    No one cares and yet people ask me questions and take the time to answer, especially muggins, who asks many questions of me. Evidence doesn’t seem to fit your statement does it. Don’t you think your ‘every second of every day is being a little bit irrational deary’.

    “Most of the other pro bain team, seem to be anti Collins or anti Police, how anyone could come from that point and appear logical and reasoned is just stupid.” – by Truthiz

    Truth is, there are many experienced and well qualified people who have come out publicly and spoken against Collins’ actions and statements, I suppose they are all ‘stupid’ too according to you. I guess everyone that doesn’t agree with you is ‘just stupid’.

    As Nostalgia asks, and who are you on JFRB, and TM – I think I can guess. Poor wee soul!

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

    OpenMind (37) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    The problem is Openmind, that evidence was produced by the actions of the murderer, but was destroyed, or not recorded by the actions of the police. Now, who gets the blame for that?

    If something cannot be proven because of the wrongful actions of people who did not follow the instructions of their employment and the manual that they were meant to follow, should a person who may be innocent suffer because of that?

    This case cannot be solved. They cannot prove who did it with absolute certainty and they cannot prove who did not do it.
    That is not David Bain’s fault, it is an agency of the governments fault, and therefore, regardless of what your beliefs are of who committed the crime, the government has to pay compensation. When people don’t do their job properly, there is a consequence, and this is it. And yes, we should all be very angry about it, regardless of what side we are on.

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

    So what actions of Robin have you proved ?

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

    > regardless of what your beliefs are of who committed the crime, the government has to pay compensation.

    In what part of the Cabinet Manual does it say the govt “has to pay compensation”?

    I’m sure if the government was confident that David didn’t slaughter his family, it would be only too happy to pay him. But it doesn’t know that, and David’s continued lies don’t help his cause one iota.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Ever consider that your continued lies are obvious ross?

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

    Why can’t David tell the truth about his father who he hated so much?

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

    ross69 (1,281) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Why can’t David tell the truth about his father who he hated so much?

    You are now appearing to have an obsession about this. Are you sure you are not projecting?

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

    Thats what i thought,

    You can’t prove a thing about Robin, other than he awoke at 6.30, collected the paper and entered the lounge …

    :

    You sad motherfkrs ….

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

    Truthiz (4) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Proof that he awoke at 6.30 please?

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

    In fact, proof that he slept at all that night would be good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    Judith,

    “This case cannot be solved. They cannot prove who did it with absolute certainty and they cannot prove who did not do it.”

    but in the current discussion of compensation we are no longer concerning ourselves with certainty or beyond reasonable doubt… Because there is no danger david or Robin will be sent to jail.

    Similarly it is not relevant if the police didnt do their job properly unless they did so in a malicious way…
    we just have to infer the best we can from the evidence we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    Said evidence being that: one of the two candidates left clear fingerprints on the gun in blood, fingerprints that weren’t overlaid by other prints or blood spatter from the murders; one of the two candidates had blood from the victims on his clothes; one of the candidates left a bloody handprint on the washing machine; gloves belonging to one of the candidates, covered in the blood of the victim who struggled, were found in the victim’s room; glasses known to be worn by one of the candidates were found broken, with the missing lens found in the room where the struggle took place; and one of the candidates had injuries consistent with struggling with someone. The other of the two: well, it could have been his right foot that left bloody footprints in the hall. According to Binnie, probability therefore lies with candidate two. If Collins was furious with him, I can understand that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    You not doing yourself in favours by only giving one side of the story Psycho Milt, but then again who would expect otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    And so the ‘faithful few’ of the Bain cheer squad continue their campaign in top gear… all in an effort to try and generate sympathy for Bain. And also on cue, Karam has trotted off to the TV and papers (and anyone else who’ll listen) bleating “it’s all unfair”…. Pffttt…..

    But even the cheer squad would be hard pressed to support Bain’s latest claim that he was going to be another [opera singer] Jonathan Lemalu. Bain’s own suggestion is that, because he was locked up for multiple murder he was somehow deprived of this opportunity. This most recent claim is the stuff of fantasy – it’s as daft as suggesting Bain was somehow going to raise himself from his role of a paper boy, to running Fairfax but he couldn’t achieve his goal because he was locked up.

    The increasingly daft comments from the Bain camp need to be exposed for what they are: part of a cheer squad campaign that is orchestrated, cynically timed and totally jaundiced.

    We should all be grateful that Justice Minister Collins has not been taken in by any part of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    I see your POA mates got fined Elaycee. You rode that horse into silence as well. So I guess you needed something else to be hysterical about. Good work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    NNZ – ‘My mates’ are not the POA – but now you mention it, because of the threats made by the MUNZ muppets / Helen Kelly et al, I purchased shares in the Port Of Tauranga and they have done brilliantly. Indeed, I expressed my appreciation about it many months ago. Do keep up.

    But I can understand why you would want to try and move off topic – the cheer squad campaign is running out of puff…

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

    Elaycee (3,165) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 7:47 am

    The increasingly daft comments from the Bain camp need to be exposed for what they are: part of a cheer squad campaign that is orchestrated, cynically timed and totally jaundiced.

    ————————-

    What? As opposed to the draft comments from the cheer leading squads supporting a murdering pedophile?

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

    “The increasingly daft comments from the Bain camp need to be exposed for what they are: part of a cheer squad campaign that is orchestrated, cynically timed and totally jaundiced.”

    That’s right, the Bain camp concede absolutely nothing. It’s a bit like Bain’s interview with Binnie. David contradicts himself, lies, often says he cannot remember, and calls into question evidence provided by eyewitnesses at the time of the murders. Remarkably, he says he doesn’t know if their testimony is correct or not because he can’t recall, but nonetheless says that it’s likely to be wrong! Does he honestly think this approach is going to work? Do his supporters? I’d like a supporter to read Binnie’s interview and tell me what concerns (if any) they have.

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

    > In fact, proof that he slept at all that night would be good

    Oh so you have proof that he was awake all night? Great. But I can’t see any mention of that in Binnie’s report, but there is reference to his alarm being set (and apparently going off) at 6.32am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny / Whatever you decide to call yourself today:

    What? As opposed to the draft comments from the cheer leading squads supporting a murdering pedophile?

    No ‘draft’ comments at all.

    The ‘cheer squad’ is the reference given to the fellowship of the David Bain supporters club. Do keep up.

    Paedophile? Who was the paedophile? Any proof of that? Or is this just something you made up?

    And who was the murdering paedophile? Are you suggesting that David was a paedophile? He’s the only one I know who was convicted of murder…. Wow! I hope you have proof of that claim because, if history is any example then someone will surely sue you for that comment. You’re saying David is a paedophile? Well, I never…..

    Goodness!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Have to bow to your superior knowledge about lying ross. You’re a practised artiste without peer.

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

    I read online last night, and it is from a site that claims to have ALL of the evidence, that Peter Robinson was in receipt of a letter from Margaret to Laniet. That letter showed that her parents were aware of her prostitution. If she said only two days before that weekend she was going to blow the whistle, it obviously wasn’t about that. Which leaves only the incest, which her Mother would not have known about. Oh dear….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Binnie was silent on that question Elaycee, other’s weren’t of course. If you carefully read the Bain Binnie interview about the events leading up to, and surrounding, the Sunday night meeting (particularly Binnie’s questions) you might form a different view. Oh, sorry that ‘s not something you can do. Don’t get all hysterical and trip yourself trying to be clever with language, that would never do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Kanz (91) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 8:45 am
    I read online last night, and it is from a site that claims to have ALL of the evidence, that Peter Robinson was in receipt of a letter from Margaret to Laniet. That letter showed that her parents were aware of her prostitution. If she said only two days before that weekend she was going to blow the whistle, it obviously wasn’t about that. Which leaves only the incest, which her Mother would not have known about. Oh dear….’

    I didn’t know that Kanz. Obviously that site didn’t appreciate the importance of that letter, or there position would be the same as the strip search – ‘didn’t happen, but I’ll ask the cops and ignore the transcript and other recorded material.’

    And of course the raised voices and going out for money. Do you know if Margaret drove?

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

    Elaycee (3,166) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 8:42 am

    your constant referral to my old identity is getting very boring Elaycee. I have explained more than once, and I challenge you to produce evidence that I am still using the old one.

    I made a mistake, without the edit function I could not fix it. Again your criticism reveals more about you, than it does about me.

    My cheer squad reference was about the organised Robin Bain supporters club who operate mostly in secret because what they say is so untruthful and defamatory they cannot be open about it. Note the organised as opposed to just individuals with the same beliefs, as per the David supporters.

    Robin Bain was the murdering pedophile or as you point out the less commonly used British spelling paedophile, (which actually produces a spelling warning on this system) that I was referring to. Perhaps you could prove he wasn’t.

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

    “And of course the raised voices and going out for money. Do you know if Margaret drove?”

    Probably, Laniet didn’t have her driver’s license.
    It certainly does explain the trip, though. They also went to Laniet’s flat to get some things, although Laniet had already done that earlier. It sounds very much to me a Mother attempting to protect her much misunderstood and hurt little girl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Robin Bain supporters club who operate mostly in secret because what they say is so untruthful and defamatory they cannot be open about it.

    Really? Anonymity makes you untruthful and defamatory? Interesting call Judith/Jinny/Ginny?

    /irony

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    By the way Judith, you didn’t respond to my point last night, with it’s implied question:

    [Judith] we do not know, but so many consider the suicide note that ‘deserve’ means life was the better state, and deserve was in the positive sense. It may not have been meant that way at all.

    If that was the case, surely he would have also felt that Margaret deserved to live.

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

    Apologies for the language, while you are sad, your not all mf’s.

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

    “If that was the case, surely he would have also felt that Margaret deserved to live.”

    Why would that be? Are you suggesting that this upright, good christian, respected teacher hated his wife? Goodness….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘bhudson (2,953) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:08 am
    By the way Judith, you didn’t respond to my point last night, with it’s implied question:

    [Judith] we do not know, but so many consider the suicide note that ‘deserve’ means life was the better state, and deserve was in the positive sense. It may not have been meant that way at all.

    If that was the case, surely he would have also felt that Margaret deserved to live.

    There’s been something written on that which shows your interpretation is quite wrong I think. I may try to find it over the next couple of days. I know how some minor things can be enlarged when people are getting desperate. And it is reaching that point, not guilty and now innocent on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nookin (4,580 comments) says:

    “Perhaps you could prove he wasn’t.”

    An interesting approach.

    Fortunately we have a system in which the person who seeks to take something from someone else, whether it be their liberty, property (money in the case of the current debate) or reputation, must carry the burden of proof.

    The standard depends on the circumstances. If liberty is at issue then the standard is beyond reasonable doubt.

    Regretfully, Robin is not here to defend himself and so the assertion that he is a murderer and paedophile will go unchallenged in Court. Still, I have confidence that a majority of New Zealanders have a sufficient feel for fair play to condemn the suggestion that there is an onus to disprove.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    Robin Bain was the murdering pedophile……… Perhaps you could prove he wasn’t.

    Whaaaat? You accuse Robin Bain of being a murdering paedophile and yet you want me to prove he wasn’t?

    I have long held the view that the Bain cheer squad has conducted an orchestrated campaign based on innuendo and smear tactics – all in an effort to deflect the heat away from David.

    I now rest my case.

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

    Nookin (2,290) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:18 am
    ——————–

    Perhaps I didn’t use the correct wording, but evidence has been offered that Robin was in an incestuous relationship with certainly one, and possibly both of his daughters. Perhaps Elaycee can now prove that is incorrect.
    In similar way that David was convicted, and then was able to have that conviction over-turned and then receive a not guilty verdict.

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

    Robin woke up (most likely at 6.30 on the radio alarm) dressed in same clothes as night before (davids evidence) got up, grabbed the paper, went in to the house and into the lounge, for prayers. His normal routine. Robin died sometime between 6.30-7.00 am.

    David woke up earlier, did his paper run and some washing. David had stephens blood on some of his clothing. The glasses that David was using while his own got repaired were damaged. David left a bloody palm print on the washing machine. David washed the killers clothing.

    The killer awoke early, killed four people before 6.30, the killer used davids gun, davids trigger lock key, davids ammo, davids opera gloves, the killer had an intense and bloody fight with Stephen, the killer wore the green jersey.

    :
    Plus, David told the 111 operater, they are all dead, but when being interviewed later said he only saw his mum and dad, first his mum, then sensed his dad in the lounge. Now years later David told Justice Binnie, that he saw his Mum, then Stephen, the Girls, then finally his Dad. Tui ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    There’s been something written on that which shows your interpretation is quite wrong I think.

    NN-Z,

    It is Judith’s interpretation, not mine. My question is, if Judith feels that Robin saw living as the real punishment, then why did he not also leave his estranged wife with the punishment of living, along with David?

    I know how some minor things can be enlarged when people are getting desperate.

    I have no idea if it would be considered a minor thing or not. Perhaps that is a question more appropriate for Binnie or Fisher?

    As for desperation, you may well be as you possibly sense the prospect of compensation ebbing away. As for me, I have faith that Judith Collins and Cabinet will make their determination based on proper information. Whether or not I personally agree with their decision is immaterial.

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

    bhudson (2,953) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:06 am

    ——————–

    I didn’t say that it MAKES them anything, I said because what they say is defamatory etc,. (That is, they have to operate in secret now, to stop have their asses sued)

    Perhaps you need to read it again.

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

    bhudson (2,954) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:08 am

    —————–

    I didn’t see it, but if I had I would have replied similar to Kanz. Do you suggest that he hated his wife, which if that is the case, it raises all sorts of further questions regarding Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    ^^ Really Judith? Very well – a change to suit your semantics gymnastics.

    Really? Anonymity because one is untruthful and defamatory? Interesting call Judith/Jinny/Ginny?

    /irony

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    I didn’t see it, but if I had I would have replied similar to Kanz. Do you suggest that he hated his wife, which if that is the case, it raises all sorts of further questions regarding Robin Bain.

    Judith,

    Hated? Are you suggesting that he hated David? Why?

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

    bhudson (2,955) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:57 am

    A call that is supported by evidence Bhudson.

    Prior to being sued for defamation, the JFRB facebook group was not a closed group. Following the accusation of defamation they subsequently closed the group so what they say cannot be seen by just anyone. The conversations on the JFRB page show that they take great care to make sure what they say and discuss is not seen. They constantly get rid of members they are suspicious of that might be sharing those conversations with others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Margaret Bain would not have known of the incest ? Of course she would have known about it,had there been any. Her bedroom was just across the hall from Laniet’s. Glad you finally caught up with that letter,which I mentioned to a certain minister.I made the point that why would Laniet be going home to tell her parents about her being a prostitute if they knew she was one and she knew they knew?
    I reckon that either she was lying to Dean Cottle or else he was lying about that conversation.

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

    bhudson (2,956) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:59 am

    now who is trying to be clever? My comment was answering your question regarding Margaret. I think Robin thought David deserved to stay. I merely point out that ‘deserve’ does not necessarily mean a positive as most assume. When a child is naughty, they deserve to the be reprimanded, some think hit. Because a child is a child, they deserve love, etc. The precise meaning of Deserve is ambiguous , and the suicide note does not provide sufficient text to understand what exactly was meant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    Then fact of a group being closed does not prove untruths or defamation. How did the law suit pan out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    David Bain said he hated his father.

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

    muggins (318) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:06 am
    Kanz
    Margaret Bain would not have known of the incest ? Of course she would have known about it,had there been any. Her bedroom was just across the hall from Laniet’s.

    ——————
    What an ignorant answer.
    Incest can occur in many ways and places, and not necessary in a bedroom. Robin was not a stupid man, of course he would not have committed incest in front of his wife (or at least one can reasonably expect he wouldn’t).
    Do not forget the family had not lived in that house all of Laniet’s life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    So, if we presume the note to be from Robin, do you think he meant that David deserved to live because of his virtuous (to Robin) characteristics, or because living is a punishment?

    Given you raised the prospect of ‘deserve’ not necessarily reflecting positive feelings, you must have a view in this instance. Or do you prefer for it to mean either (in this specific instance), such that you can use it to mean either way, depending on the question you are asked on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    The Justice for Robin Bain group policy statement says that only people who believe Robin Bain is innocent should join.
    Unfotunately a few dishonest David Bain supporters joined as well. Most if not all of them have now been removed.

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

    muggins (318) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:06 am

    So you are saying here, that a loving Mother would have known about her husband abusing their Daughters and allowed it to continue? You are one very sick puppy if you believe that. They didn’t always live in that house, and this type of behaviour is seldom done openly, although you seem to think it is. A number of people apparently knew about this and you dismiss it, Buckley was the only one who claims the ‘alibi story’ was true, yet you claim it as fact?

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

    bhudson (2,958) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:07 am

    It is still panning. 😉

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

    bhudson (2,957) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:07 am
    @Judith,

    Then fact of a group being closed does not prove untruths or defamation.
    —————–

    Nobody said it being closed did prove it. I happen to have seen the conversations of the group before and after it was closed, and it is from those that I draw the conclusion.

    They have yet to be decided, but they are still there and have made it through various court processes and despite Kent’s best efforts, he has not managed to have them thrown out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    So you accept that if Robin Bain was committing incest it happened before he returned to New Zealand?
    And then we have that affidavit that says that Laniet told a school friend that David was molsting her. What say you to that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Refer reply to Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Buckley was the only one who claims the ‘alibi story’ was true, yet you claim it as fact?”

    Kanz can explain why Buckley would invent such a story with a very similar MO but different crime years before the murder?

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

    muggins (322) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:16 am

    One uncorroborated claim. The case against it being Robin was corroborated by many.

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

    muggins (320) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:13 am

    BUT, that was not always the case, and anyone that was a member prior to that addition by Kent Parker, is there legitimately. You cannot change the rules for prior ‘contacts of membership’.

    Sorry muggins, but you have not got rid of them all, however the decision was made to no longer publicise what was seen but instead allow those who are submitted to barrages of information from some of the JFRB members, to see the true face of the people behind the group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2493809/Plan-to-rape-jogger-revealed
    Kanz.
    The name Gareth Taylor ring any bells?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,702) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:22 am

    A claim that was made many years after the fact. Just how long did it take him to dream it up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    The rules are clearly stated now. If some David Bain supporters are still members of JFRB then they are being dishonest.
    Personally I don’t give a damn who belongs.

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

    muggins (322) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:16 am

    ——————-

    I say that there is evidence of the person responsible for that, having been coerced and encouraged, and made to write that affidavit under duress via another family member. For that reason it has been given the attention it deserves, and been ignored.

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

    muggins (323) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Can you not find a link other than from MVB? The name at the top shows just how much weight should be given to that report, none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Robin thought David deserved to stay. How bloody ridiculous. Anyway if Robin Bain was going to leave a message he would have handwritten it ,just like those letters he wrote to his mother.

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

    muggins (324) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:27 am

    —————————-

    That is beside the point, those people joined that group when they did not have to believe the later addition. They are legitimate members.

    You should care, given the comments you have made in there, which effectively makes a mockery of any expertise and professionalism you attempt to portray.

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

    Of course the abuse is pure speculation.

    And the whole bringing her home to spill the beans is also wild speculation.

    And remember WHO wanted everybody there that weekend, and David himself mentions nothing about the so called revelation in front of the whole family, NEVER.

    So with the whole confession/relevation scenerio toasted, guess that don’t leave any reason for Robin to snap !

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

    muggins (325) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:30 am
    ———————

    That is a judgement call. It can be equally argued that Robin Bain was an avid computer user, and did the vast majority of his written work on the computer. He was responsible for his school being the first to have the internet in the area, and heavily promoted the use of computers.

    Good thing you note his mother. To her dying day she believed David was innocent, thus given the only other presented option, her son was guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Gareth Taylor was interviewed by TVNZ. Same story. David Bain is deep in the proverbial.

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

    Truthiz (7) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:32 am
    ———————-

    According to reliable Crown witnesses who had stayed in the house, the family met on Sunday night for family meetings, and had been doing so for years. David may have wanted her there, as did Arawa, afterall, it was both of them that picked her up to take her home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Link please to mother.

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

    Truthiz (7) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Which simply shows you have no idea how young girls who have been abused by their Fathers do finally disclose, and the trauma they suffer before doing that.
    The abuse was told to many people by the person being abused.
    The going home to spill the beans was from her own mouth, rather than speculation.
    The only thing new here was the fact that the spilling of beans had nothing to do with prostitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    The comments you are making on here make a mockery of you.

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

    Judith (150) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 8:55 am

    “Robin Bain was the murdering pedophile”

    Oh my lord, seriously lady who have problems.
    +

    And how could the JFRB site, stop anybody from joining ?

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

    Judith
    David told Binnie he wanted Laniet to be home that Sunday night.

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

    So how come after all these years David has NEVER said there was a relevation/confession ?

    NOT ONCE.

    sadly this destroys your entire case against Robin.

    Better luck in your new job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    You should care, given the comments you have made in there, which effectively makes a mockery of any expertise and professionalism you attempt to portray.

    But the same Judith / Jinny / Ginny has already stated:

    Robin Bain was the murdering pedophile………

    Pot. Meet. Kettle. Hypocrisy is alive and well within the cheer squad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Kanz, the claim was made in 1990 – four years before the murders. If it was made after the murders I would agree it would be worthless. Can you give reason why Buckley would invent such a story with a very similar MO but different crime years before the murder?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578737

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    You can’t help but laugh.
    David Bain’s supporters are quite prepared to accept that the right-handed Robin Bain shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with the silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and leaving not one fingerprint on that rifle,yet they are not prepared to accept that because David Bain’s fingerprints were not on those glasses then he could not have worn them.
    How dumb is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Gareth Taylor was interviewed by TVNZ. Same story. David Bain is deep in the proverbial.”

    Muggins, have you got the link please?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,703) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:47 am

    No, Buckley said it happened in 1990. He ‘claimed’ it was said in 2007.

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

    muggins (330) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:53 am

    There was blood on the gun, showing it had been used in the murder/suicide. Is the same true of the glasses?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. flipper (5,304 comments) says:

    Good morning.

    Is this day four or five of the Bain/Binnie inquisition? It does not matter because none of the facts that are pertinent to the Bain/Binnie/Collins/Fisher debate have changed, and the record as at December 17, 2012 will not be altered by the desperate attempts to twist the record to fit a pre-conceived viewpoint or objective.
    There are one or two objective and essentially neutral (Judith is partisan, but devoid of nastiness) contributors to the debate, notably Nostalgia whose patience, I say, is extraordinary.
    But there are clearly others like Muggins, Kent, ross69, davinni da da da, Elaycee (sadly), and a few more who present with chameleon-like nom de plumes, who are best described as “nutters”. To them I say this: stop your silly inquisition, and your pointless search for what you will never find, and turn your minds to an objective examination of the issues. Your campaign is noteworthy for:
    • micro-analysis of transcripts attached to Binnie’s report
    • Twisting aspects of those transcripts
    • quoting parts, while discarding others
    • injecting NEW matters that you say Binnie ignored or should have pursued
    • attributing to Binnie events, policies and attitudes that are false
    • claiming that Binnie placed the crown at a disadvantage
    • claiming documented events did not occur, such as the strip search oif Bain
    • ignoring the views of six independent, foreign jurists (The PC and Binnie)
    • resorting to ad hominem attacks on Bain over his musical musings, and to ad hominem attacks on those who question your approach, and ask for proof of your claimed “facts”
    • And more, and more, addum…..

    So, now on day five why do you not realise that this is the only time line that matters:
    • The Bains were shot to death, by which it has not been established.
    • David Bain was charged with the crime and found guilty
    • The NZ judiciary rejected his appeals and said his conviction was safe.
    • The Crown (Collins. D and Pike. J )admitted to the Privy Council that some of its conclusions and argument were wrong
    • The five independent Judges oif the Privy Council found that the conviction was UNSAFE on eight substantial, non-technical, grounds.
    • The PC quashed the conviction and said that any re-trial was a matter for NZ authorities.
    • Notwithstanding defence attempts to persuade him otherwise, Collins. D pushed ahead with a re-trial
    • Matters and inferences that the PC had ruled on were no longer available to the crown (1)
    • David Basin was found NOT GUILTY, ergo he had unjustly spent some 13 years in prison
    • Remedial compensation is not covered by statute law. (It is Cabinet policy, which is, I suspect, of questionable status, and not set in concrete. In other words, the Cabinet can do what it wants)
    • Bearing in mind the Thomas inquiry, and the need to be seen to be fair and reasonable, then Justice Minister Power appointed an INDEPENDENT Canadian jurist with experience in such matters, to review and report ion Bain’s request for compensation
    • The appointed jurist, Ian Binnie completed his report (Note: Binnie took advice on NZ legal idiosyncrasies from Professor Paul Rishworth of Auckland University, a man with no vested interest.) and delivered it to Collins. J as the now Minister of Justice.
    • Collins. J gave the report to Crown Law and the police. She declined on more than one occasion to give it to Bain et al.
    • Collins. J brought in a former NZ judge, who is known in legal circles as “the ***** judge”, review Binnie.
    • A fair summary of Fisher on Binnie would be that his (Fisher’s) fundamental, criticism was of style rather than substance, noting that he (Fisher) might well reach similar conclusions.
    • Binnie dealt with and demolished each and every one oif Fisher’s “nit-picks”.
    • The MSM has yet to publish Binnie’s demolition of Fisher, but that demolition may lead to another forum

    Nostalgia made a possibly prophetic observation yesterday when, in discussing matters that might be tested in the courts, he said:
    “I don’t think the Minister can do what she likes, she can’t deny the right to due process, fairness and natural justice. In ‘opening’ up the Binnie report for review the argument is raised in that review and letters associated with it that some effected by the Binnie report could arguable seek a Judicial Review. Judicial Review is a can of worms the Minister didn’t want opened, inadvertently I think she has.”

    The sad aspect to all this is that Bain noted yesterday that he had been told by A A Thomas that he, Thomas, had never received justice or fair play (paraphrased) from any NZ Judge. The NZ judiciary tried to derail the Williams RC, but Williams, Gordon and Johnston, backed by Muldoon would have none of it. In the end the NZ judiciary backed off.

    That point was not lost on Binnie, who had earlier noted that all six independent foreign judges had found in favour of Bain.

    Time for Collins to accept Karam’s “olive branch” and issue new instructions to her “hired gun”.

    Oh….and pay Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    Got a question for one of you Bain experts (either side will do), was the spare magazine found next to Robin empty or did it have rounds in it?

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

    Kanz,
    I know exactly how abuse works and the difficulties making it known, but David said he had never heard of it in his family before and he has never said that there was a revelation on the Sunday night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. flipper (5,304 comments) says:

    In above, at “:shot to death…”
    Read whom instead of “which”.

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

    “There are one or two objective and essentially neutral (Judith is partisan, but devoid of nastiness) (LOL), contributors to the debate, notably Nostalgia whose patience, I say, (I would say OBSESSION) is extraordinary.”

    No need to read anymore of your codswallop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    @Chuck: Buckley is on this interview (TVNZ’s Sunday Programme) [Starts around 3.00 minutes]

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2493693/What-the-jury-didn-t-hear

    A few other items relating to suppressed evidence / articles of interest are here:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578737

    A few other items of interest are here:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578737

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    BUGGER THE EDIT FUNCTION!

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

    Elaycee (3,170) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:47 am

    The difference being Elaycee, that I do not pass myself off as an expert. I do not write to, phone, and communicate with officials, witnesses, police, government, and other such parties, including jury members, about the case, nor write to newspapers stating things that imply some superior and exclusive knowledge, that muggins has said he has done. The web has many incidences of him doing this, many of which he then tells people on JFRB about. I do not claim to be anything other than an interested person who has read widely on the case and believe that David Bain did not kill his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. RRM (12,583 comments) says:

    635 Responses to “Dom Post on Binnie report”

    Is this a record?

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

    > It does not matter because none of the facts that are pertinent to the Bain/Binnie/Collins/Fisher debate have changed

    That’s correct, flipper. David’s lies and contradictions and misleading statements are now on record. I hope there is a second review of the evidence because it will likely mean that David will have to be interviewed again, giving him another opportunity to put his foot in his mouth.

    Why would an innocent person need to lie about not hating his father?

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

    Truthiz (11) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:40 am

    —————

    Membership must be confirmed by JFRB administrators before a person can join. The administors are listed on the sites page.

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

    > Is this a record?

    A previous Bain thread topped 1200 comments. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Kanz, you obviously did not check the link I gave you. Can you now answer my question please?

    Sunday also interviewed two former friends of Mr Bain, Mark Buckley and Gareth Taylor, who told police that Mr Bain planned what a court later referred to as a rape of a female jogger while at Bayfield High.

    Bain supporter Joe Karam has dismissed the evidence of both men as nothing more than “fantasy”.

    The men claimed Mr Bain had a sexual interest in the young woman and had told Mr Buckley in 1990 that he could use his paper round to “get away” with the proposed crime.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578737

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

    Can anyone tell me how the closed society of JFRB can stop anybody from joining ? or is more madness from the high priestess ?

    Anyone recall David talking about the relevation on the Sunday night ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Is this a record?

    RRM,

    No. IIRC, a Bain thread from earlier this year got over 1000

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

    And how does confirmation work ?

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

    Truthiz (11) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:04 am

    ———————–

    David also said he went to bed early on the night concerned, heard raised voices and his mother leaving in the car.

    It is not unusual that siblings are unaware of incest in the family. It is not an activity that is talked about or conducted in view of other family members (in most cases). Victims are often confused, and don’t talk about it until they are older.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,705) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am

    It was made perfectly clear by Buckley that the word ‘rape’ was never used by him or anyone else and was a police/crown construct.

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

    > That point was not lost on Binnie, who had earlier noted that all six independent foreign judges had found in favour of Bain.

    Only one international judge has concluded that Bain is innocent. That judge ignored important facts and seemed to have already concluded, before interviewing Bain, that he was innocent. The same judge thought it was quite plausible that Robin committed the murders and killed himself while David was in the house! No other international judge, or local judge, has said this is plausible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    Dexter: according to Binnie, it was empty, which meant it was most likely emptied killing the others and a replacement magazine 5-shot magazine fitted to shoot Robin (whether it was him or David doing the shooting). So, whichever of them did the shooting put the magazine down on the floor – either Robin when he changed the magazine so he could shoot himself, or David in an attempt to make it look like Robin did it. Binnie correctly concludes that it tells us nothing significant (although the placement of it within a couple of centimeters of Robin’s fingers looks a bit suspicious – could just be coincidence though).

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

    > It was made perfectly clear by Buckley that the word ‘rape’ was never used by him or anyone else and was a police/crown construct.

    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
  149. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    Anyone able to shed any light on whether the spare magazine had rounds in or not, surely Judith or Muggins must know?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    bhudson

    Binnie stayed right away from this. A good thing in my opinion…

    ‘NN-Z,

    It is Judith’s interpretation, not mine. My question is, if Judith feels that Robin saw living as the real punishment, then why did he not also leave his estranged wife with the punishment of living, along with David?’

    Assuming you’ve read a reasonable amount about the families circumstances you’d know there was a tension for years between the couple, and that Robin was pushed out. The best example is the Bain – Binnie interview, it’s thick with underlying meaning on this part of the family dynamics. David Bain makes no effort to blame his father, he’s absolute about that, also about his relationship with Robin and the dynamics amongst the other family members – of particular interest is his take on the relationship between Arawa and Robin. However, it reveals that there was information from other sources where Robin talked about going back home to ‘face’ a particular type of situation that clearly wasn’t welcoming. From one point of view Laniet faced a death that may have been led by a deliberate wounding from which she didn’t immediately succumb. I could go further but I won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Kanz (101) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:13 am
    muggins (318) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 10:06 am

    So you are saying here, that a loving Mother would have known about her husband abusing their Daughters and allowed it to continue? You are one very sick puppy if you believe that. They didn’t always live in that house, and this type of behaviour is seldom done openly, although you seem to think it is. A number of people apparently knew about this and you dismiss it, Buckley was the only one who claims the ‘alibi story’ was true, yet you claim it as fact?’

    You need to remember you’re talking to somebody who claims against all the evidence that there was no strip search and who has also made comment explaining what Robin might have shown Laniet to do, as though it were natural for a father to do or speak like that to a daughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Psycho Milt (852) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:23 am
    Dexter: according to Binnie, it was empty, which meant it was most likely emptied killing the others and a replacement magazine 5-shot magazine fitted to shoot Robin (whether it was him or David doing the shooting). So, whichever of them did the shooting put the magazine down on the floor – either Robin when he changed the magazine so he could shoot himself, or David in an attempt to make it look like Robin did it. Binnie correctly concludes that it tells us nothing significant (although the placement of it within a couple of centimeters of Robin’s fingers looks a bit suspicious – could just be coincidence though).’

    Nice to see a bit of balance there Psycho Milt.

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

    ross69 (1,287) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:24 am

    I didn’t say or imply that. But the word rape was not used by either of the two witnesses however, the Crown admitted to applying it for impact. No more, no less. Take whatever you want from it. I simply made the comment because the word rape had been used in your comment. I wished to clarify it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,287) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:17 am
    > It does not matter because none of the facts that are pertinent to the Bain/Binnie/Collins/Fisher debate have changed

    That’s correct, flipper. David’s lies and contradictions and misleading statements are now on record. I hope there is a second review of the evidence because it will likely mean that David will have to be interviewed again, giving him another opportunity to put his foot in his mouth.

    Why would an innocent person need to lie about not hating his father’

    Ross rightly maintains his expert status on lies. However one of his fellows now says David was telling the truth. Oh dear, conflicting dialogue within the ‘camp.’

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

    So anyone can join and as long they follow the rules, all sweet, but being their site they can choose to expel anybody they want.

    Hardly a closed and secret society !

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,845) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:32 am

    He is also a person, who stated about a witness claims that Arawa had reported at about nine years of age, she had been shown by her father about inserting fingers into her vagina – excused it as parental instruction of some kind.

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

    Truthiz (14) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Then why are people who have never commented, not broken any rules, and simply read the information on the site, expelled from it? What are applications from people to join the site rejected, if they are not known to other members? and why does the site say ‘closed group’ if it is not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Thanks Elaycee. Your link does not go to TVNZ’s Sunday Programme.

    Which episode was it?

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

    To clarify, I do not necessarily think Robin saw living as a punishment, I simply do not know. But I do know from what I have read regarding the application of the word deserve in instances like this, that it doesn’t necessary mean that being ‘deserved’ is a reward. It can be used as a ‘punishment’ or more so, a state a person should be in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “Dexter: according to Binnie, it was empty, which meant it was most likely emptied killing the others and a replacement magazine 5-shot magazine fitted…. ”

    Oh thanks Pycho and Nostalgia.

    Obviously if it was empty this makes the defense claim possible if a bit hard to believe. But if it had rounds in it, it makes Binnies statement not only false but completely discredits the defence claim. Now Collins in her directive to Fisher states that the magazine did have rounds in it and that Binnie has made a glaring error in fact in claiming otherwise.

    Now the crime scene photos here – http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body – Ignore the source I know it’s biased, but unless they photo shopped the photos they clearly shows rounds in the magazine. It also shows the position quite clearly. Now why then would Binnie state it was empty and accept the defense claim to the detriment of the crown?

    Maybe someone can clear this up and has Binnie made a huge mistake that has impacted on his analysis of a key piece of evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    I know why I got kicked off Counterspin. I told Kent he was going to get his arse sued if he didn’t cease and desist and clean up his site, unfortunately for Kent I was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    I do not claim to be anything other than an interested person………

    And yet today you accused Robin Bain of being a paedophile and a murderer…

    No proof at all – just an accusation from Judith / Jinny / Ginny. Another bollocks claim from a member of the cheer squad – in an effort to try and deflect attention away from David.

    Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Judith (160) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Chuck Bird (2,705) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am

    It was made perfectly clear by Buckley that the word ‘rape’ was never used by him or anyone else and was a police/crown construct.

    Judith, even if you can supply a source “rape” was not the issue the identical alibi was and you still cannot give a reason why Buckley would or could come up with the alibi story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    @Chuck: Click on the image of Buckley on this page to see what he said.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2493693/What-the-jury-didn-t-hear

    For the full Sunday programme, you’d probably need to search the TVNZ archive. Sorry… I’m out of the office otherwise I’d do it for you. 🙁

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

    Elaycee (3,174) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:57 am

    and yet here are you, applying the name of Ginny to me, despite me never having used such a name, and also passing comment. Does that mean you claim yourself to be an expert, and that only experts can make judgements, or are you just a tremendous hypocrite, out for an argument or anything that detracts the conversation from discussing the Bain case?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,707) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    Judith (160) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Chuck Bird (2,705) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am

    It was made perfectly clear by Buckley that the word ‘rape’ was never used by him or anyone else and was a police/crown construct.

    Judith, even if you can supply a source “rape” was not the issue the identical alibi was and you still cannot give a reason why Buckley would or could come up with the alibi story.

    —————-
    I did give you a reason why Buckley might have come up with an alibi story.

    The Crown admitted that the word ‘rape’ was not used by them. See transcripts and associated documents. I will see if there is a link to it on line.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,847) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:55 am
    so you got kicked off there for being right.

    I still don’t know why poor Pyrinthia got kicked off there, perhaps it was because she too disagreed with Kent, and saw some guy called mike for the idiot he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    Judith, Nos and co. Can you shed any light on why Binnie stated the magazine was empty?

    I would ask the other ‘side’ but given that counterspin doesn’t even appear to have picked up on this rather basic fact they might not be much help. And I’m sure that had they known about it they would have, given how bad it would appear to be.

    Thanks,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,174) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 11:57 am
    ‘Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    I do not claim to be anything other than an interested person………

    And yet today you accused Robin Bain of being a paedophile and a murderer…

    No proof at all – just an accusation from Judith / Jinny / Ginny. Another bollocks claim from a member of the cheer squad – in an effort to try and deflect attention away from David.

    Pathetic.’

    Drrh, the accusation came from many Elaycee and was recorded in testimony. Can’t you focus on more than one thing at once? You really need a least a very basic idea of the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Dexter (165) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    Judith, Nos and co. Can you shed any light on why Binnie stated the magazine was empty?

    I would ask the other ‘side’ but given that counterspin doesn’t even appear to have picked up on this rather basic fact they might not be much help. And I’m sure that had they known about it they would have, given how bad it would appear to be.

    Thanks,’

    I can’t without digging into a lot of stuff at the moment. It makes no difference to my mind. I’m not sure if that had anything to do with the mis feed or not.

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

    I just think,
    your sad, sad lonely people (flip, Jud, Nos) and obviously a misguided ones (who don’t know the actual evidence) who just hate the police/crown/collins.

    There are two truly evil people as well, but I haven’t seen them post, not that I look at these places much.

    I might join the JFRB site to see how closed they are, still can’t see how they gonna know Nos from me, but we shall see.

    Gonna have lunch, set up the tree, watch some gridiron and pray for those families in Connecticut.

    You all have a good Christmas and hopefully let a little joy in.

    Except Joe and David, I hope they get what they truly deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “I can’t without digging into a lot of stuff at the moment. It makes no difference to my mind.”

    No offence, but it seems pretty simple. There’s a photo of the magazine with rounds in it in situ, there’s then Binnies statement that as the magazine was empty therefore he finds the defense explanation plausible.

    If he has gotten such an elemental fact incorrect on such a major piece of evidence, surely that raises some serious doubts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Thanks again. I did see the link. It is inconsistent with Stuff which says that Taylor was not told directly but Buckley told him and he in turn told his wife as he was concerned as she was doing a play with David. It looks like TVNZ does not keep videos that long.

    I am not quite as sure a some that David did it but his lies and my thick compatriot, Binnie’s slack job make think there is no way he should get compensation. I would find this a outrage when you compare his case with Rex Haig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. flipper (5,304 comments) says:

    It would help this debate, and raise the level of discourse, if the JFRB brigade were to read Gould (below) from this morning’s New Zealand Herald. Declaration: I am not a Gouldfan , nor Labour/red me4lon supporter,. But sometimes evcen socialists get a pass mark. 🙂

    ” Collins should stand by Bain report
    By Bryan Gould

    5:30 AM Monday Dec 17, 2012

    Does Justice Minister claim to know better than the courts, and to believe in spite of all that he is guilty?

    Asking for further opinions until she gets one she likes cannot resolve Judith Collins’ dilemma for her. Photo / NZPA

    What are those of us – I assume a large majority – who do not have time to read the Binnie Report to make of David Bain’s compensation claim and the legal tangle that Justice Minister Judith Collins has got herself into?

    We can surely have some sympathy for the minister; she will be damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. But there are at least a few salient points that can help us – and her.

    First, there can be no doubt that David Bain – following the quashing of his earlier conviction by the Privy Council and his acquittal at his retrial – was found not guilty of the crime.

    No one with any respect for our justice system should dispute that outcome. The conclusion is unavoidable; David Bain should never, on that basis, have spent a day in jail, let alone 13 years. A claim for compensation should, in principle, be entirely justifiable.

    There are, however, complications. In most cases where a conviction is overturned, there is clear (often DNA) evidence to show that the accused person did not commit the crime. In the Bain case, it seems that the evidence still leaves room for doubt – and there is the further complication that, on the facts of this particular case, if he is innocent, there was only one other person who could have done it.

    But David Bain does not have to prove his innocence, or that someone else did it, nor is he responsible if his acquittal casts suspicion on someone else.

    The real complexity arises, however, because the legal test applied to the question of whether he is entitled to compensation is quite different from the one that determined his guilt or otherwise.

    David Bain was acquitted because the test in a criminal case is whether there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt – and the jury found that there was. His claim for compensation, on the other hand, falls under an “extraordinary circumstances discretion” by which the Cabinet will consider “claims on a case-by-case basis, where this is in the interests of justice”, and in circumstances where these terms are not defined.

    Simon Power, the minister who appointed Justice Binnie to report on this issue, specified that “innocence on the balance of probabilities is a minimum requirement”. The onus was on David Bain therefore to establish, on a balance of probabilities, his factual (and not merely technical) innocence as a condition of his receiving compensation.

    Justice Binnie’s conclusion is that, following a review of all the evidence, David Bain discharged that responsibility and is entitled to compensation.

    It is that finding Ms Collins has chosen to question.

    The minister is of course faced with a dilemma, and one that arises because public opinion, as far as one can tell, is divided on whether David Bain can be regarded as “innocent” on a balanceof probabilities, and not merely “not guilty”.

    The minister fears that if she advises the Cabinet that compensation should be paid, a substantial body of opinion will accuse her of unjustifiably paying out taxpayers’ money to someone who does not deserve it.

    Yet, if she does not do so, what basis can she claim for that decision?

    Short of a full and further judicial hearing, which is surely out of the question, does she claim to know better than the courts, and to believe that David Bain is guilty? What does she claim to know that eluded an eminent Canadian jurist engaged to give an authoritative opinion on precisely the issue of David Bain’s innocence and that would now lead her to assert that, on a balance of probabilities, he committed the crime?

    It is precisely because she can have no sound basis for unilaterally reaching for such a conclusion that she has cast around for someone else to get her off the hook.

    But going back to the Solicitor-General, who is surely parti pris, or asking for further opinions until – presumably – she gets one she likes, cannot resolve her dilemma for her.

    What, therefore, should she do?

    The two possible outcomes both carry with them the risk of serious injustice.

    On the one hand, to pay compensation to a David Bain who had killed his family would be to reward a criminal at the taxpayers’ expense. But, on the other hand, to deny an innocent David Bain compensation for 13 years in prison for a crime he did not commit would be to add insult to injury, in the dual sense that fairness had been denied to the victim of a terrible wrong, and that he had been left with an ineradicable stigma in the eyes of his fellow citizens – a stigma that our courts felt themselves not justified in imposing.

    There is surely no doubt that the latter outcome carries the greater risk of injustice.

    Judith Collins should set aside political calculation and concern for what some elements of public opinion may think, and reach the only decision that can minimise potential injustice. She should support her own justice system and the report commissioned by her predecessor, and advise the Cabinet accordingly.

    (Bryan Gould is a former Labour MP in Britain and a former law don at Oxford University) “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Except Joe and David, I hope they get what they truly deserve.”

    Joe is genuine but wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    Can you shed any light on why Binnie stated the magazine was empty?

    It reads as though Binnie picked this up from the court transcripts and other documents. Here’s what he writes:

    274. An important element of the prosecutor’s argument against suicide (and a point which
    found favour with the Court of Appeal) is that an empty 10 shot magazine was found close to
    Robin Bain’s dead right hand on the carpet resting on its narrow, slightly convex edge. The
    Crown Law Office says it is unlikely such an object randomly dropped would wind up on its
    narrow edge. Police reconstruction tests support this conclusion. The position of the magazine
    was more consistent with deliberate placement than with a natural fall from Robin Bain’s dying
    grasp.149 I accept this to be so, but the issue resolves into the usual question – whose
    placement, Robin’s or David’s?

    275. The curious placement of the magazine on the convex edge rather than on its flat side
    does not help in determining whether it was Robin or David who did it. Curious or not, either
    man could have done it.

    276. The Crown Law Office Submission acknowledges that “it is of course possible” that Robin
    placed the magazine on the floor prior to committing suicide150, but the Crown Law Office
    cannot think of a “logical reason for his doing so” (ibid). But there is no “logical reason”
    suggested for David Bain doing so either.

    277. The Bain argument is that the magazine must have been placed on the floor before
    Robin’s death because in order to make the fatal shot Robin must have switched the empty 10
    bullet magazine for the loaded 5 bullet magazine. Each of the 10 bullets was accounted for
    elsewhere in the house. When the Police seized the gun it was fitted with a smaller 5 shot
    magazine. It was a bullet from that 5 shot magazine that killed Robin. The Bain team theory is
    that Robin put down the empty 10 shot magazine on the floor as he fit the smaller 5 shot
    magazine to the rifle in preparation for suicide.

    So, yeah, that’s an odd one – that photo you link to shows the magazine with rounds in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “I did give you a reason why Buckley might have come up with an alibi story.”

    Please give it again or the time.

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

    > the word rape was not used by either of the two witnesses however, the Crown admitted to applying it for impact.

    The Court of Appeal used the word because they said that described the essence of the issue. But whether you call it or rape or sexual assault is largely irrelevant. But then you love arguing semantics.

    http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2009/1.html

    The false alibi evidence begins at para 191.

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

    We should make it clear that Messrs Buckley and Taylor did not attribute to the appellant the word “rape” and Mr Buckley did not attribute to the appellant the word “alibi”. We, however, use both words for ease of reference because they seem
    to capture the essence of what was proposed (at least on the challenged evidence). ~ Court of Appeal, January 2009

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    The minister fears that if she advises the Cabinet that compensation should be paid, a substantial body of opinion will accuse her of unjustifiably paying out taxpayers’ money to someone who does not deserve it.

    Yet, if she does not do so, what basis can she claim for that decision?

    1. Fisher’s report: Binnie failed to interpret balance of probabilities correctly.
    2. That failure means Bain hasn’t demonstrated his innocence on balance of probabilities and therefore doesn’t get the cash.

    Sorted. On to the next item.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    It doesn’t make much sense does it Pycho, he even uses the statement as his introductory heading. Surely he must have spent a lot of time studying the crime scene photos before making his conclusion.

    Some of his report is quite grounded, but this part is just inexplicable. If the bullet was misfed, we then have to accept that Robin Bain carefully balanced the magazine on it’s thin edge on the carpet, picked up the gun with both hands, positioned his body, killed himself, and then in death his body has landed in such a fashion that the said magazine is lying right at the tips of his fingerprints. I think I would sooner gamble on Horan being the next PM….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    @Judith – stop making things up….

    I’ve never professed to be an expert and whilst anyone can see you’re well versed in the art of spin, it does you no favours to suggest I’m anything but an interested party. However (even if I say so myself), I have a pretty good bullshit radar and when I read a comment from Judith / Jinny (or Ginny) appear, it is accompanied with a corresponding, warning alarm. Indeed, the alarm on my bullshit radar was at it’s loudest when you made this outrageous claim:

    Robin Bain was the murdering pedophile….

    The most appalling part of your statement is that Robin isn’t able to defend himself.

    Because he was one of the victims.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,710) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    “Except Joe and David, I hope they get what they truly deserve.”

    I hope EVERYONE gets what they truely deserve for christmas. 😉

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

    Thanks for that, flipper.

    Gould shows that he knows little about the case:

    “But David Bain does not have to prove his innocence, or that someone else did it, nor is he responsible if his acquittal casts suspicion on someone else.”

    Actually, Bryan, Bain does have to prove his innocence. As a general rule, governments don’t like compensating mass murderers. They’re funny like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – there have been many accusations made by various parties. Some accusations have been outrageous. But in the absence of proof either way, they remain that: just accusations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    flipper: Did you forget to mention the other opinion piece in the Hoorald – by Tapu Misa?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10854465

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Dexter:

    There’s nothing to be taken from many of the photos unfortunately. There evidence that they weren’t time and place recorded and some were moved around. Doyle said that the records of the photos was a shambles or some such thing. Even if that photo were correct, it doesn’t prevent Robin having put it there. You seem to be of the mind that any mistake impacts the report. Yet the prosecution and investigation was riddled with mistakes to a level of high unfairness, as the photo record shows – along with the exhibit register and ‘protection’ and movement of the bodies. Binnie says that the magazine takes the case no where on the BOP and I agree. I have my own view on the magazine but I’ll decline to mention it here as it would likely cause more controversy on a subject that Binnie has dealt with.

    These things can be all consuming but for no probative value, as we see the hunt for the ‘rape’ that never happened and ‘planned’ against a person who was never found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Elaycee (3,177) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    Nostalgia – there have been many accusations made by various parties. Some accusations have been outrageous. But in the absence of proof either way, they remain that: just accusations.’

    Of course, but we are talking about testimony under oath, as opposed to a TV show airing ‘allegations’ rejected by the Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    ” Even if that photo were correct, it doesn’t prevent Robin having put it there”

    I fail to see how it can’t be correct, the defence isn’t alleging that the Police staged the crime scene photos.

    Do you have any idea what the statistical probability of Robin balancing that magazine, shooting himself and then in death his hand landing in that precise same position all this without knocking the magazine?

    You just cannot accept it. Binnies error in this regard would not just seem to be a minor mistake that can be passed off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Judith (164) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Chuck Bird (2,710) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    “Except Joe and David, I hope they get what they truly deserve.”

    I hope EVERYONE gets what they truely deserve for christmas

    Judith you deliberately misquoted me. Joe is genuine but wrong. You are just plain wrong.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,711) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    nope didn’t misquote you, just didn’t include all your quote because it wasn’t relevant. You named two people you hoped get what they deserved, I simply added that I hoped everyone gets what they deserve, implying not just the two you named. Your feelings regarding Joe were not pertinent to my comment.

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

    Dexter (168) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    The defence might not have implied the police staged the crime scene, but many commentators, including members of the defence team have commented on the slack supervision, organisation and correct recall of the police involved in the crime scene, in particular the inefficient noting of photos, who took them and when, and the moving of objects not being recorded etc. Given that lapse of protocol and untidy handling of the scene, anything is possible and cannot be ruled out, as I have constantly said, making it impossible to ever solve this crime, as there will never be 100% assurance that what is left of the evidence, particularly photos, are accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Dexter (168) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    ” Even if that photo were correct, it doesn’t prevent Robin having put it there”

    I fail to see how it can’t be correct, the defence isn’t alleging that the Police staged the crime scene photos.

    Do you have any idea what the statistical probability of Robin balancing that magazine, shooting himself and then in death his hand landing in that precise same position all this without knocking the magazine?

    You just cannot accept it. Binnies error in this regard would not just seem to be a minor mistake that can be passed off.’

    Sure. But it goes a lot further than simply being passed off. Item’s moved round in that scene are a big problem because there is no record as the original position as far as I know. Then I believe there was also testimony that Dempster may have knocked it over, obviously from where it needed to be righted. So the ‘precise same position’ isn’t established, can’t be. Overall, and while I didn’t agree so much in the beginning, or was at least surprised, the ‘footprint evidence’ as least as established by the defence and Crown experts to whom Binnie referred, renders the magazine into the category where Binnie decided on the BOP it as of no probative value for or against either man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “You named two people you hoped get what they deserved”

    Judith, why do you like telling lies? I named one person. I cut and pasted what someone else has said and you are trying to attribute that to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    I see Judith is getting nastier by the minute. But that won’t deter me,I’ve been through it all before. I have been called a paedophile by one David Bain supporter. And we don’t know what Robin Bain said to Arawa. He could well have pointed to David’s penis and told him “that is your penis,David”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “. Then I believe there was also testimony that Dempster may have knocked it over, obviously from where it needed to be righted.”

    Even in that case, that still doesn’t impact on the photographs unless they were taken after Dempsters examination nor does it remove from the fact that the officers at the scene testified that they saw the magazine directly at the tips of Robins fingers. And we would then have accept the notion that if the magazine wasn’t in that position at all, then when Dempster knocked it over he participated in some sort of criminal conspiracy to place it in such a position so as to make it appear that David was attempting to frame Robin.

    Sorry but that’s just getting ridiculous.

    And there is still no reason why Binnie couldn’t have properly tested this evidence and then came to the same conclusion, but the strikingly apparent thing is that he didn’t test it properly and appears to have made his conclusion somewhat ironically lacking an understanding of the evidentiary record when it comes to a key piece of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Re those magazines. Both magazines had bullets in them. But you have to wonder why Robin Bain felt the need to change magazines if he was going to commit suicide. It is much more likely that David put that magazine neat to Robin’s hand as a prop. There is a photo of Robin’s hand next to that magazine under the evidence section of counterspin.co.nz. Take a look and see if you think if Robin Bain’s hand could have hit the ground within a milimetre of that magazine without the draft of his hand knocking it over. And that photo was taken before Dr Dempster arrived at the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    I am still waiting to hear you plausible theory as to how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. I mean the Law Lords of the Privy Council couldn’t think of any explanation other than that David must have been in Stephen’s room when he was wearing those glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Take a look and see if you think if Robin Bain’s hand could have hit the ground within a milimetre of that magazine without the draft of his hand knocking it over.”

    I think it also likely if the floor was wood or particleboard that the vibrations would have tipped it over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Dexter

    ‘And there is still no reason why Binnie couldn’t have properly tested this evidence and then came to the same conclusion, but the strikingly apparent thing is that he didn’t test it properly and appears to have made his conclusion somewhat ironically lacking an understanding of the evidentiary record when it comes to a key piece of evidence.’

    Have to agree to disagree on that. The evidential record can’t be understood on this point because of the many variations it has. You and I at least would need to know a lot more before criticising Binnie on it, but regardless…as I said above, the footprints.

    Right on cue we have ‘a much more likely arrive’ who knows when the photo was taken but doesn’t know that a strip search took place that isn’t contested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. flipper (5,304 comments) says:

    Elaycee et al…
    Tapu Misi or whoever/whatever …

    Her views are worthless. She is wrong, as usual.
    Posting Gould does not mean I agree with all his assertions or “solutions”.
    But he does advocate for fairness. And he does have some standing, unlike, TM, you or me.

    And appropos standing, I continue to wonder about that lawyer fellow. You know, the one who once sat on the bench, had an affair with a female barrister before she became a QC (and then a judge), while his pregnant wife was at home in another town. Oh, by the way. What is his nick-name in legal circles? Is it the ” ***** judge” ? Well, I suppose it just goes to prove that such folk are not all like Caesar’s wife.

    As for who did that nasty deed in Dunedin, it was either Elvis or the dingo, was it not? 🙂

    Balance, Elaycee. Balance. Not revisionist garbage. That is beneath an otherwise sensible fellow like you. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Likely’ particle board, doubt it probably 150 m tawa or Kauri. Carpeted as well.

    So does anybody know the first time it was stood up, or how many times, or from where it was moved to where?

    Now we have lies being told about the Privy Council decision – will wonders never cease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ.. 12.58pm. The crime scene photographs were confusing as some were out of sequence. This caused frustrations for Jim Doyle and his investigators. I understand that the majority of the photographs were taken by a Constable Trevor Gardner who is now deceased. I am not sure how detailed his evidence was at the time.

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

    I’m just wondering if any of the retards venting on this site have actually read the Binnie report? And if so. what they find – substantively – to object to in it?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,713) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Then I apologise, I didn’t realise it was a cut and paste as it wasn’t attributed to anyone else, or a reference of their name/date/time pasted as many do. It wasn’t a lie, it was a mistake.

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

    muggins (333) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    This is the last time I will tell you. I have given my opinion regarding that and have no intention of repeating it just because you demand it be done. Perhaps if you were less demanding and a bit more polite, I would have considered it worth the effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how many so called self proclaimed experts simply believe there opinions of guilt over Justice Binnie and the Privvy Council, Yet all your arguments are speculation and you have not proven any of the allegations. As Binnie said if the fingerprints, glasses, footprints etc could be proven against David then they would be highly indicitive of guilt yet they have all been totally discredited yet all you haters still try and use them to support your illogical arguments, where is the proof these glasses were used in the killings, no forensic evidence and they were certainly not used where short sighted David somehow ambushed Robin in the dark. Binnie also shows how illogical the argument that David proceded Robin into the lounge is and how weak the whole crown argument is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “And if so. what they find – substantively – to object to in it?”

    Some of it is compelling, ie the foot prints. Some of it is blatantly wrong, i.e the spare magazine. If you want to bother reading a few replies up you will see exactly why.

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

    RF (547) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    The crime scene photos were not only out of sequence, there were also arguments regarding who had taken what photo. Some had taken rough notes, others hadn’t because it was normal procedure for the police to note it, police said the photographer should have noted and so on. The manual requires the police to record, but it appears very little attention was paid to anything in the manual during the investigation.

    I have seen it noted in other court cases, the photographer, the type of camera, light measure, etc etc, and in the old days the film, and developing techniques and so on. One would have expected the same was done in this case, to prevent any room for objection. Obviously it wasn’t done.

    Photos were also destroyed, fortunately the pathologist discovered a large number of photos he had taken, and produced them. Interestingly that same pathologist also wrote to the crown noting his previous testimony was incorrect, and that he could not support the theory that David could not have heard Laniet gurgle, he also expressed his concern at some of what the crown had emphasised at the first trial. (reference: Letter to Robin Bates, Crown Prosecutor, dated 16 May 2007, from Dr Dempster)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. James Stephenson (3,056 comments) says:

    Now we have lies being told about the Privy Council decision – will wonders never cease.

    Well, one would have to say that Binnie started it.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/binnie_responds.html#comment-1060292

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    Cut out the buills**t. The reason you can’t answer that question is because you have no answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10854585

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Re that strip-search.
    One of those police officers that was in the room with Bain and Dr Pryde said Bain wasn’t strip-searched when he was there,but he did leave the room for a few minutes. The other police officer isn’t available for a few days. I sure hope for David Bain’s sake that he didn’t lie to Binnie, I mean he is in enough trouble as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘RF (547) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ.. 12.58pm. The crime scene photographs were confusing as some were out of sequence. This caused frustrations for Jim Doyle and his investigators. I understand that the majority of the photographs were taken by a Constable Trevor Gardner who is now deceased. I am not sure how detailed his evidence was at the time.’

    More information about this is contained in the Binnie – Weir interview, also about the lack of a ‘pyramid’ of control. I think Doyle himself said something to the effect of it being a shambles, either in evidence, or perhaps in his interview which I haven’t read yet. As Don Mathias has said in a recent blog credit to the police for keeping the footprint evidence intact, measured and so forth. Weir was basically made OIC of the exhibits, but not told how to co-ordinate with others with different responsibilities, and rightly, you’d have to say, thought they (the individual task groups) were acting separately under instructions. It even came down to Weir, and no criticism to him because it doesn’t appear that he was told, expected scientists and so forth to say what should be gathered and kept although that wasn’t their job. Of course we all saw ‘the care’ with which some ‘exhibits’ were removed and probably not tested, bundled up in blankets and so forth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    I see David Bain is saying he didn’t know Laniet smoked until he came out of the fish and chip shop on the Sunday night.
    And he didn’t remember who Nader- Turner was. Perhaps he was in a trance when she gave evidence.
    And I see he explains all those bullet holes in those targets by saying he shot five or six times at one target and then another five or six times at another target and then compared them. I have never heard of anyone sighting a rifle in like that before.
    I reckon he’s making it up as he goes along,like that goat story.

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

    > I reckon he’s making it up as he goes along,like that goat story.

    I’d say so, which is why another interview with him would no doubt reveal more lies and contradictory comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    @flipper: They were both opinion pieces! And because one opinion happens to favour your own views compared to the other, doesn’t suddenly make ‘your favoured’ opinion piece more plausible than the other.

    But I suspect you probably knew that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2388409/Bain-trial-Evidence-right-all-along
    Simon Schollum,the only person in New Zealand who put all those crime scene photos in to chronological order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Winstone,
    Calling people retards makes people wonder about your mental capacity. I could post quite a few messages re Binnie’s report,but at the moment I am concentrating on his interview with David Bain. Have you read that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Winston,
    Sorry about the e,I wonder when we are going to get that edit facility back.

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

    About the empty magazine by Robin’s hand, this link http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562275 shows that the magazine was knocked over. That means that it needed to be replaced for photographing. Who can say that it was photographed correctly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I am pretty sure that photograph was taken long before Dempster came into the house,and he was the person who knocked that magazine over. Would you like me to check with Simon Schollum to confirm that?

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

    muggins, check with anyone you would like. The photos of Robin’s body don’t show it at all. I do remember testimony being given, but can’t find it right now, to the effect that they needed to stand it up for photographing. Are you telling us that such detailed photos were taken before the pathologist was even allowed to check the bodies? If that was the case, then Justice Binnie was being kind to the police in his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Justice Binnie was being kind to the police in his report”

    Was Binnie’s brief to report on police conduct or whether Bain was innocent on the BOP?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,714) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Part of his brief was to find if ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in the case. If police misconduct, whether intentional or not, is not just that then what is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “If police misconduct, whether intentional or not, is not just that then what is?”

    That would depend how often police misconduct occurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    would any of us in our houses use hte computer if we wanted to write a sucide note? Im pretty sure I wouldn’t.
    i certainly wouldnt if i had to turn the computer on (it takes ages in the old days!) is the argument that david did not have a pen in the house? if so why did he write such a short message?
    i know the answer is probably “how can we know the mind of a crazy person..
    but one must take that as an admission that on this point it is evidence against the robin hypothesis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    We must be running out of ‘pretty sures,’ ‘I reckons’ and other such crap Kanz. Along with the old ‘I’ll ring such and such’ there’s enough crap to fill the Ruapehu Crater. But there was no strip search, no, no, no. I fear there is some derangement about. Would you like me to check with a Psychiatrist to confirm that? Unfortunately, apart from ross putting abroad his ‘nose sniff’ test for lies that he doesn’t apply to himself, it over shadows a reasonable, informative debate.

    Do you know of any evidence by the ambos or the first police arriving about the magazine. You’d think if there was anything of substantial help to the Crown case we would have heard it by now. That evidence of Anderson about ‘preserving’ the fingerprints by using surgical gloves is odd, nobody but a specialist should have moved the rifle, it was no longer a danger to anybody because police had control of the house. Though identifiable prints were still unlikely to be found it would have demonstrated the application of observing the integrity of the scene and the evidence.

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

    How about this?

    “The evidence establishes that the miscarriage of justice was the direct result of a Police
    investigation characterized by carelessness and lack of due diligence. This is not a case of one
    or two isolated errors. There was an institutional failure on the part of the Dunedin CIB. Even
    Det. Sr Sgt James Doyle, one of its directing minds, acknowledged that the efforts to investigate
    the timing of David Bain’s alibi were “amateurish”.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    I’m not a policeman but I suspect with sufficiently close analysis – almost all police investigations would appear to be amatureish… the problem arises where the case is a close one and various facts that do not usually matter matter, and a long court case with a good defense team results in mistakes being used to shed doubt. Even more so when the case occured in the past when standards and procedures might not have been as refined.

    otherwise… what are the odds that this case would be some sort of perfect storm of incompetence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I told you where to look for that photo. The photo of Robin’s body doesn’t show it because it is hidden by the table. Funny place for Robin to have put it,don’t you think?

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

    Scott1 (113) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    Well, you may be happy to have amateurish police investigating, but I think you will be on your own there. Considering we have had a police force since 1846, I for one would expect them to be professional, even by 1994.

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

    muggins (342) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    There is more than one photo of Robin’s body. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz. the best photo to see that magazine is the one on counterspin.co.nz. But as I said I am pretty sure all the photos were taken before Dempster arrived,but I can check if you are worried about it.

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

    muggins (343) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Just how many days was Dempster kept out then? Because the photo of the hidden lens wasn’t taken until the Thursday night. But then, if you are ‘pretty sure’ all photos were taken before he arrived there, he must have been kept out for at least 4 days.

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

    muggins (342) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    Judith
    Cut out the buills**t. The reason you can’t answer that question is because you have no answer.

    ———————-

    I wasn’t aware you had learning difficulties, but it’s obvious you have, so I’ll try to make this clear for you. This thread has more than three answers from me regarding the lens. That you don’t find my answers plausible, is entirely your opinion. I don’t agree with you. I have answered you, more than once. You just didn’t like the answers..

    Tell me, is that how you treat these people you phone? Do you constantly ear bash them until they have to tell you what you want to hear, just to get rid of you? Do you carry on with them like you do here, asking the same thing over and over, just because the answer given to you isn’t what you want?

    Your comment above is testament to what an unreliable historian you are. Anyone caring to check can see I’ve answered. Now grow some, and stop acting like an attention seeking brat who can’t get his own way. Santa won’t bring you a pressie!

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

    “David gives an account of his family which is idealised to the point of sickening sweetness” ~ Paul Mullen, psychiatrist

    See at 1.14.00

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iG4wzSUsI

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    Can someone advise just how many photographers were at the Crime Scene. I understood that it was only Trevor Gardner who was the Police Photographer and the Pathologist who also took some.

    I would be surprised that there was anyone else.

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

    Interestingly, Robin Bain was also wearing shoes on that fateful morning. I don’t recall Binnie mentioning that fact. He kept banging on that there was no blood in David’s shoes…but was there any blood in Robin’s?

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

    There were five police photographers that gave evidence in the second trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    Judith.

    Bloody hell. Usually there is only one at a crime scene. Dunedin only has 2 so they must have hooked some in from Invercargill and Christchurch. No wonder there was confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,293) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    Interestingly, Robin Bain was also wearing shoes on that fateful morning. I don’t recall Binnie mentioning that fact. He kept banging on that there was no blood in David’s shoes…but was there any blood in Robin’s?’

    Yes very interesting ross.

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

    ross69 (1,293) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Interestingly, Robin Bain was also wearing shoes on that fateful morning. I don’t recall Binnie mentioning that fact. He kept banging on that there was no blood in David’s shoes…but was there any blood in Robin’s?

    Jim Bolger was our Prime Minister that morning too. I don’t recall Binnie mentioning that either. Damn he missed a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Damn he missed a lot.

    He certainly did, according to Fisher. It only took close to 800 comments for you to see that sense.

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

    bhudson (2,976) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    No… I am sure Fisher was saying that Binnie said too much, at least that was what Collins was saying.

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

    > Jim Bolger was our Prime Minister that morning too.

    I didn’t realise old Potato Head was a suspect. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    @Kanz,

    No, he noted that Binnie did not pay sufficient attention to certain matters of evidence – that he missed things

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Unlike you ross, he wasn’t suspected of not having a brain.

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

    According to Fisher:

    “The historical purpose of the ex gratia compensation discretion was to compensate the innocent, not to root out official misconduct. To the extent that condemning official misconduct has been engrafied onto that process, it should be reserved for those cases which are so egregious that they threaten the integrity of the judicial system. Planting false evidence
    is a classic example. Overlooking a possible line of investigation is not.”

    So Binnie overstepped the mark. Maybe he spent too much time focusing on police misconduct and lost sight of what his job actually was – to determine if Bain was innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Double drrrh.

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

    ross69 (1,295) Says:
    December 17th, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    He did determine Bain was innocent. He was also asked to investigate the possibility of exceptional circumstances which could lead to compensation being paid. He did that. You may think police misconduct is acceptable, but most people expect better. Few would be happy if they or a family member, being innocent, was locked up because of anybodies misconduct, let alone police misconduct.

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

    From that youtube link which I referred to above, it’s interesting that Michael Guest, Bain’s original trial lawyer, said that Denise Laney’s evidence was never set in stone. In other words, David may have arrived back home after his paper run before 6.45. if Bain’s defence lawyer acknowledges that, then we don’t need to argue the point. Also the Crown Prosecutor from that trial, Bill Wright, said that he had agreement from Guest pre-trial that Bain would admit that he wore his mother’s glasses that weekend. But when he testified, he denied wearing the glasses.

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

    Kanz

    You should read the Fisher Report. You might learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. UglyTruth (7,220 comments) says:

    http://waitakerenews.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/crusher-collins-v-binnie-and-bain-what.html

    A particular passage from his response is really going to get people thinking. He said “[i]t is of interest that … Mr Fisher was retained on 26 September … he met the Minister the same day … and without having performed the “first stage” analysis he reports that “as we discussed, a second and final report will be required for the purpose of reviewing the evidence afresh and arriving at its own conclusions on the merits”. As he points out normally one would expect Fisher to make his analysis of Binnie’s report and have his analysis considered by the Minister BEFORE a decision to have an entirely new report performed on the merits. Binnie is probably correct in concluding that Collins had already made up her mind on September 26 regarding the outcome.

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

    This quote from Fisher is highly relevant:

    “Take David’s fingerprints in blood on the rifle. It is common ground that whoever he was, the murderer was engaged in a struggle with Stephen, that much blood was spilt, that some of that blood is likely to have finished up on the murderer, and that the murders were carried out with a particular rifle. Most people would think that in those circumstances evidence that David’s fingerprints were found in unidentified blood on the very rifle in question would increase the odds that David was the culprit. Yet Binnie J dismissed that item from further consideration. His explanation for his dismissal is that ‘[o]n a balance of probabilities I conclude that the prints are not in human blood and that David Bain is entitled to succeed on this issue as well.’ … For reasons outlined earlier, that has never been the way in which circumstantial evidence is assessed.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Yes I agree we want the police to do a good job, but I think you have missed the point.

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

    Another good quote from Fisher:

    “Most decision-makers would look for corroborating evidence before accepting statements from a suspect. There are no overt signs of caution or scepticism in Binnie J’s approach to David Bain’s evidence. On the contrary, quotes from David declaring his innocence appear at the beginning and end of the Executive Summary to the Report.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    My 5 cents worth. At this late stage we have to fall back on evidence gained at the time. The old story … A photograph is worth a thousand words .. would normally apply if you can guarantee that the photographs depict an accurate picture of the scene. I suspect that some exhibits may have been moved during the initial scene examination and later replaced hopefully in the same position prior to being photographed. I have actually seen this happen but it was the result of an inexperienced cop not keeping his hands in his pockets. It did not change the outcome of the prosecution but does prove that it can happen. Not saying it would be deliberate or intentional but it may have caused some confusion.

    I can remember a crime scene where photographs were taken in the evening and the scene re photographed next day. The second lot of photos revealed that the night shift crime scene guard had eaten some fruit from the bowl on the table. Not a major problem but shows what can happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Ross69 thanks for the link to that doco, I hadn’t seen that.
    Still 20 mintues to go but what really strikes me is how transfixed Team Bain is about the opposing direction of the blood spatter pattern on Robin’s pants/clothes- some down the leg and some up can only mean he was kneeling to shoot himself.
    But think about how is the only way one can get up off the floor, whether from kneeling, laying sitting or crawling. And by the same token, how does one go from standing to the floor? By getting down on one knee.

    Rather than praying or shooting himself it seems very likely Robin was either getting himself up off the floor or from standing, down to the floor. Therefore one leg up, one leg down when he is shot. Simple isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Ah, now near the end of the doco the presenter has the same idea…either David forced Robin to kneel or he kneeled before him in fear or mercy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Unfathomable really… how did Stephen’s blood end up on the crotch of David’s shorts, on his tshirt and dripped on his socks if he apparently didn’t even go into Stephen’s room. And yet there was not a drop of Stephen’s blood on Robin.

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

    dear Nostalgia, Judith/Ginny, Kanz, flupper, just give it up …

    The whole country knows DAVID did it, no amount of bullshite or fake evidence is going to prove otherwise.

    Now some say, technically he may have got off, so deserves some payment, but it ain’t gonna happen.

    He brutally murdered his entire family … FACT.

    I can’t believe we still have to put with this shite,

    1: No relevation happened on Sunday night

    2: Robin did not change his clothes

    3: Davids gun, davids ammo, davids opera gloves, stephens blood on davids clothes, davids bloody palm print on the washing machine, davids confessions, davids change of stories, stephens blood in davids room, davids fingerprints on the murder weapon, the truly weird arse thing about wearing the trigger lock key around your neck every day as a matter of dressing, .. etc

    Good luck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    OpenMind, try closed mind next time. You forgot to explain the upward trajectory, only a small matter I know, but small enough to show you don’t know what you’re talking about. You were also unable to overcome the computer turn on time or Robin’s bloody footprints through out the scene. Michael Guest is well described in the Binnie report and Laney wasn’t his witness.

    Those ‘drips,’ something on which you should be an expert were not drips at all. They were contact smears. I know television is exciting and people become experts overnight in all manner of subjects but you really need to read the evidence. The Crown claimed they were drips from above but had to concede they were contact smears from the floor. A drip pattern and a smear are entirely different, a small thing I know and of no moment to a TV presenter without credibility and no evidence. That show is actually a mockumentary for the gullible. Glad you liked it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Open Mind you must have been away with the fairies when you wrote this.

    ‘But think about how is the only way one can get up off the floor, whether from kneeling, laying sitting or crawling. And by the same token, how does one go from standing to the floor? By getting down on one knee.’

    Unless you’ve got one very short leg. Nobody is able to either raise or lower to the floor with one leg straight and the other bent. Perhaps you might explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Hey Nostalgia, I haven’t claimed to be an expert of anything, I was just sharing my hypothesis that seems as plausible as any of your theories. Since you obviously know a lot more than me you must be certain that one leg was completely straight out and the other completely bent at a right angle…has this been stated?

    Funny that you are so certain, yet even the Defence specialist they called in said “He could not say whether Mr Bain was kneeling or standing, nor precisely what distance Mr Bain would have been from the curtain”. See below.

    “Dr John Manlove, an Oxfordshire-based forensic scientist who has assisted in the investigation of war crimes in Iraq, was called by the defence on the 50th day of 37-year-old David Cullen Bain’s retrial
    The way blood stains had been deposited on the fabric above and below the right knee suggested Mr Bain’s knee was bent, he said.

    If the blood stains originated at the same time, the bent knee could explain why the blood was travelling in different directions.

    But under cross-examination by Crown prosecutor Cameron Mander, who showed him a diagram of a person sitting on the floor, knees bent, and the head above the knees, Dr Manlove agreed that “as a general proposition” the blood staining travelling upwards above the knee and downwards below the knee, could also be consistent with a wound being inflicted to the head in that position.

    It was very difficult to be exact about Robin’s position when the blood was deposited, the witness said.
    He could not say whether Mr Bain was kneeling or standing, nor precisely what distance Mr Bain would have been from the curtain.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/57359/bain-retrial-evidence-backs-theory-suicide?page=0%2C0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    And as the “TV presenter without credibility and no evidence” stated, why does everyone think it had to be David that turned on the computer? Why was Robin in the lounge? Because David ‘allowed’ him use of the lounge in the morning to use the computer.
    Therefore is it not possible that it was infact Robin who had turned the computer on? Then David typed the letter later, or maybe he held the rifle at his father and told him to type it to save his fresh fingerprints from being been on the keys

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    oh and I stand corrected, contact blood not drips of Stephens on davi’ds socks…either way still shores up my point of 3 different points of contact with Stephen’s blood on David…yet not a drop on Robin.

    Take away the socks Nostalgia and explain how there was none of Stephen’s blood on Robin at all? Given that he had to fight, struggle and strangle his son whilst he was pouring with blood….

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

    OpenMind (43) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Are you able, with any certainty, to say whose blood was on the palm of Robin’s hand, or under his fingernails? The police can’t, the prosecution can’t, nor can the scientists, so good luck with proving your hypothesis. Because I will want proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Kanz, are you trying to deflect from answering my question?
    Here, I’ll rephrase it then…how did David get Stephen’s blood on his tshirt, shorts crotch if he he didn’t go near Stephen’s body.

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

    OpenMind (44) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 8:44 am

    The question as you frame it cannot be answered. David did go near Stephen’s body, he said he touched him.

    Now, can you answer my question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Kanz, answer me this…There was blood in the bathroom, on towel/ facecloth, in the basin etc that shows the killer washed himself…either by basin or shower. At the very least washed his hands. There is no evidence Robin had either showered or even washed his hands. In fact his hands were dirty from gardening. So who washed blood off in the bathroom? Pretty high probability the blood on Robin’s hand/s would then be his own wouldn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/davids-fingerprints-on-the-washing-machine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Stop nitpicking.
    The photo of that lens was a one off. The rest of those photos were taken before Dr Dempster arrived at the scene so far as I am aware. But because you wont accept that I will check with Schollum.
    The same as I am checking on that strip-search.

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

    OpenMind (45) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Yes, there was a lot of blood on the towel. Robin’s blood. Far too much to have come from the undisturbed splatter found in the suicide scene. Are you able to explain that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    David Bain said he touched Stephen’s shoulder and somehow that caused blood to be tranferred to the crotch of his shorts.
    I believe it was much more likely that the blood on his shorts soaked through from the trackpants he may have been wearing that were in the wash.

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

    OpenMind (46) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 8:55 am

    I have no interest in following links to that site. Binnie may have, if you follow the questions he put to Bain in his interview, but I don’t think they convinced him of anything.

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

    muggins (346) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 8:55 am

    As posted above 5 different photographers gave evidence, do you honestly think there was 5 photographers running around taking photos before the pathologist was allowed in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Have you been able to come up with a plausible answer how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room.?
    I mean the Law Lords of the Privy Council seem to think that the reason it was there was because David Bain was wearing those glasses in Stephen’s room. Can you think of a better reason than those Law Lords?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Kanz…Robin’s blood on the towel? Well that is curious. Did he go wash his own blood off after he’d shot himself in the head and then went and lay back down?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    I see you say,that up until yesterday,that you weren’t aware I had learning difficulties. Does that mean that up until then you believed I was learned so far as the Ban case is concerned and that everything I had said up until then makes sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    David Bain’s supporters [or at least one of them] are suggesting that Robin Bain had a nose bleed.
    Personally,I don’t believe he did. I believe that to be a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator, who has perpetrated many myths in the past and I daresay will continue to do so in the future. There was no sign of any bruising to Robin Bain’s nose.
    However ,if he is correct,then the only person who could have caused that nose bleed was David Bain,and he could have used that towel to wipe the blood off from beneath his father’s nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    You know,last night I thought this thread was on it’s last legs,but no,it continues to flourish.
    Made my day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Re that blood on Robin Bain’s left hand. You are quite correct in saying that no-one will ever be able to prove whose blood that was.
    But I believe,on the balance of probabilities,that it was Robin Bain’s blood,caused when he threw his left hand up to his left temple as he was about to be shot. I think you will agree that if all the blood on Robin Bain’s clothing was his blood,which it was ,then the blood on his hand was more likely than not to be his blood also.

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

    OpenMind (47) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 9:06 am

    No, as the blood from his death wound was undisturbed nobody got it from that. It must have been placed there before he shot himself. It has been suggested that morgue photos show he had possibly had a nose bleed. Did Stephen get in a good shot before being killed? Hmmm.

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

    Nope Muggins, up until yesterday I just thought you were an old man who didn’t get much say at home so used the internet to express yourself. I presumed like myself, and many others you were passionate about what you believed in. I’ve never considered you learned, or objective, and certainly never considered most of your information believable or correct, but I did believe you at least had a semblance of intellect that enabled you to determine an answer when you see one.

    You play with semantics regarding what is plausible, however fail to clarify that the judgement for that measure is your own. As neither an expert nor a professional in any capacity to do with forensics, the law or criminality, you do not have the necessary experience to decide what is plausible and what isn’t in much of this matter, other than by your own opinion.

    I might add, I fall under that same category. I do not have the expertise to declare whether anything you say is plausible, except by my own opinion. I can however tell when someone has answered my question, and when they haven’t.

    I think it best that we don’t address matters regarding this case to each other, as clearly there is no mutual respect, and such discussions tend to revert to the personal very quickly. Something which is undesirable for those who must witness such exchanges. Any assistance we can offer each other in determining this case, has already been said. In the interests of respect for other, I withdraw from discussion with you. Take that as a win if you must. I hope you and Mrs Muggins have a lovely Christmas, and enjoy all the good things in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Binnie seems to have bought the defence theory that there was no human blood under those fingerprints that were found on the rifle. Yet Kim Jones,the police fingerprint expert who examined that rifle shortly after the murders, said there was blood under those fingerprints.
    Personally,I tend to accept what the person who was there at the time says,rather than what someone who comes along years later theorises.
    That is why I have always accepted that the wound to Robin Bain’s head was a contact wound as Dr Dempster said.
    And I accept that there was blood under those fingerprints ,as Kim Jones said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You do what you want to do and I will do what I want to do.
    But seeing as you have wished me and Mrs Muggins a lovely Xmas, although I don’t know how you knew there was a Mrs Muggins, then I will wish you and Mr Judith [if there is ,in fact ,a Mr Judith] a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I have already pointed out that if Robin Bain did have a nose bleed ,which I very much doubt,then on the balance of probabilities it was caused by David and not Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Who turned the computer on.
    We do not know.
    David said his father usually came into the house at around 6.40am. So it is possible that his father turned the computer on in preparation for a report he was going to write and take in to that Education Board official he had made an appointment to see later that Monday morning. When he phoned her on the Friday previous she said they had a friendly chat,a few laughs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Open Mind you are to be congratulated on surrendering to the evidence on the ‘droplet’ issue. We have those among us still denying a strip search, the very reason why everything they have to should be disregarded.

    You might understand why some including myself are impatient when those such as Bryan Bruce who base theories on misinformation. Perhaps if he is not a bullshitter he might give a public display of a person (himself would be best) either sitting or standing from sitting managing to hold one leg bent and the other straight in a manner that would enable blood to fall and splatter on Robin’s trousers as it did.

    The evidence you posted was in context of the ‘bent’ leg, but it must be ‘married’ to the evidence of the straight leg for overall context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Re that strip-search.
    Only four people were present when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.
    Dr Pryde never said that he strip-searched David Bain.
    David Bain told Justice Binnie he was strip-searched.
    One police officer has said that David Bain was not strip-searched when he was in the room,but he did say he left the room for a few minutes.
    The other police officer who was in the room is unavailable at the moment,but I hope to be able to contact him before Xmas.
    If he says that David Bain was strip-searched then I will accept that he was strip-searched. If he says he wasn’t strip-searched then I will accept there was no strip-search.
    Of course there is always the possibility that the second police officer wasn’t in the room the whole time either.
    So then we will be back to square one. David Bain’s supporters will believe what David Bain said, and those who believe those marks were on his chest when Dr Pryde examined him won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    One ESR scientist said those blood spots on Robin Bain’s trousers were more likely than not to have gotten there when he was standing upright.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    I see a David Bain supporter is tired again. Probably because he can’t lie straight in bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    muggins, I have asked this a couple of times in general. Is a legally trained person this best to decide on this issue? I think a person trained in research or a scientist would be better suited as the laws of evidence do not seem to apply as they do in Court.

    I believe judges should have specialist training in logic and statistic that many seem to lack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    What do ya know?
    100s nay 1000s of hours of experience, yet a bullshitter no less.

    ‘545. Det. Sr Sgt Doyle was asked why Police had not checked David’s hands for firearms residue after locating him in his room at 65 Every Street. He suggested it would have been “insensitive” to do the test as David was then considered a victim.296 Yet by 11.00 am or so, David Bain was at the Police station being strip searched and tested for FDR by Dr Pryde, who found nothing positive.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    (iv) Dr Pryde’s strip search
    548. As stated, a firearms residue test was belatedly performed by the Police surgeon, Dr Thomas Rankin Pryde, beyond the three hours in which it should have been done according to ESR standards.298 Nothing was found that could be positively identified as FDR
    549. Dr Pryde’s strip search on Monday, 20 June 1994 was nothing if not thorough, and included “samples from the groin and penis”299 (it has never been suggested that sexual activity
    297 Doyle interview p. 34 ll. 2-7.
    298 Weir evidence 2009 retrial, p. 1156 ll. 15-18.
    – 165 –
    played any role in these murders). David Bain was stripped naked at a time when, according to the Police, he was not even a suspect. The Crown Law Office argues:
    “The Police had not formed any view as to the identity of the killer and, in terms of the decision of the NZCA in R v Goodwin decided in 1993, the right to counsel under section 23(1)(b) of the NZBORA arose only on arrest (as distinct from the Therens standard; arrest or detention). The applicant was not arrested or, for that matter, detained. Nor was he on 20 June a suspect to whom the “Judges’ Rules” applied.”300 (Emphasis added)
    550. When Det. Sgt Dunne arranged to have David Bain taken to the Police station during the morning of 20 June he noted “The accused was wrapped and carried in a portable seat both for the accused’s comfort and also so as to preserve any forensic evidence.” (Police interview with David Bain, p. 378)
    551. The Crown Law Office resists the description “strip search” but how else to describe it? It was extremely invasive.301
    552. Det. Sr Sgt Doyle explained in my interview with him that the purpose of Dr Pryde’s search was to collect evidence that might eliminate David Bain as suspect. David Bain signed a consent form that disclosed he was being examined “on an allegation of homicide”. Most of the tests seemed to have had little to do with exculpation.
    299 JCPC page 613
    300 Paragraph 347.2
    301 David Bain describes it as follows:
    A. [Dr Pryde] … then went through the various series of things, starting with making me strip and examining –
    Q. You say “strip”, did you –
    A. Take off, naked – take –
    Q. – take all of the clothing or what did you take off?
    A. – all the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.
    Q. So were you naked at the – some point in the examination?
    A. Yes. Completely naked.
    Q. So if there were marks on your chest at that point –
    A. Oh yes.
    Q. – they would have been evidence to Dr Pryde?
    A. Very much, another example of the stuff that’s come up that’s just proven to be ridiculously false.
    Q. What samples did Dr Pryde take?
    A. Ah, he took fingernail scrapings, and sorry, I can only go on –
    Q. No, no, what you recall.
    A. – what I recall from memory, he, um, took fingernail samples, saliva samples, um, he, um, put a swab up my penis, um, he…
    (Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    Couple of things:

    1. Anyone other than Bain say he was strip-searched? Presumably Pryde made a report.
    2. If he was strip-searched, this demonstrates what exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    That he didn’t have scratches on his chest, and accordingly that he had no injuries consistent with having had a fight with Stephen. There’s no doubt he had a strip search as the above shows and trial evidence I’ve posted earlier. It breaks down the case against him.

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

    Strip search or not, at least 2 witnesses said he had scratches on his chest. David surely should be able to explain how he got them…maybe he scratched himself?

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

    > I believe judges should have specialist training in logic and statistic[s] that many seem to lack.

    That would certainly help Binnie, whose reasoning defies all logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Dr Pryde has never said he strip-searched David Bain and my information is that he never asked David Bain if he was prepared to be strip-searched . In fact the person I spoke to who was there at the time was surprised to hear that David Bain has actually said he was strip-searched.
    But as I have said many times ,the only people who know if David Bain was strip-searched or not would be those that were in the room with him when Dr Pryde examined him.
    Dr Pryde is dead so we can’t ask him.
    David Bain says he was strip-searched.
    Two police officers,one of whom says David Bain was not strip-searched when he was in the room. The other police officer hasn’t been asked to date.

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

    “If there’s no evidence at all, we probably have no justification for believing a particular idea”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQnh4QNmY4

    Alas there was no evidence that Robin woke up earlier than normal on June 20 but according to Binnie, he probably did! I guess he had to make the facts fit his theory. Scientists typically do things the other way round – they develop their theory to fit the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    David Bain had scratches and or bruises on his chest.
    He showed them to a female companion on the Wednesday night after the murders saying that he didn’t know how he got them but inferring he might have gotten them during that “missing” twenty minutes after he arrived home that Monday morning. So you would have to think that
    [1] He knew he had them then and
    [2] He couldn’t think of any other time he could have gotten them

    A prison guard who strip-searched David Bain when he arrived in prison described those marks as scratch marks and bruising. He said they appeared consistent with “clawing or gripping through clothing”. He said the spacing of the scratches was “consistent with fingers”. The bruising looked like they were made by “someone pushing”.
    When he asked Bain how he got those injuries Bain could give no explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    I would be extremely upset if I came home and found one or more family members recently murdered as would most people. However, I doubt if I would faint.

    There must be a lot of cases in New Zealand of people coming home and finding someone murdered. I wonder if anyone can show a case where there was a 20 minute delay in that person telling anyone – be it the police, a relation or friend or a neighbour.

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

    Dr Pryde signed a declaration that he had undertaken the examination of David Bain according to the prescribed procedure. That procedure includes that a full strip search and identification of all marks etc on the entire body must be completed.

    Now, if he signed that form and hadn’t viewed David Bain’s entire body, then Dr Pryde could be considered dishonest (unfortunately he is also dead, which means he can’t be asked). As the evidence from Dr Pryde has been heavily relied on by the Crown, then if we are to exclude the strip search, we must also exclude all other evidence from him as an unreliable witness.

    Dr Pryde signed that he had done it. He was an experienced professional who I am sure would not have put his credibility on the line by signing off something he had not done.

    David Bain says he had done it. Tests taken from intimate parts of David Bain were done and the results are on record, along with Dr Pryde’s examination receipt and notification of Bain’s consent, which is standard procedure.

    Dr Pryde had no problem handling Bain’s penis, but people expect us to believe he had issue looking at his chest. Are we also expected to believe that this standard procedure which is carried out in all serious violent crime scenarios was not done on this occassion, even though it was an exceptional case of mass murder/suicide?

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

    Bob Jones has now waded in, and, perhaps not surprisingly, has got things wrong.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10854684

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    Binnie seeks expert opinion on chances the rifle magazine could have landed on its edge

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    So you don’t know for sure whether Dr Pryde strip- searched David Bain or not.
    The point I am making is that David Bain is saying he is strip-searched. He said that on oath. Now if it can be proved he was not strip-searched then he has committed perjury.
    But I understand what you are saying. The Crown might not want to say that there was no strip-search.
    But the way I see it,and I could be wrong,the court case is long over. What Bain said to Binnie is very recent.
    So maybe Bain’s perjury,if he has perjured himself,trumps what Dr Pryde ommitted to do back in 1994.
    I havn’t seen that form,so I don’t know what it says.
    You say Dr Pryde had no problem handling Bain’s penis. who would be a doctor,eh?
    But David Bain said at that injustice conference ,that all his orifices were examined. Does Dr Pryde mention examining David Bain’s rectum. Was that part of the prescribed procedure?
    Btw,Mrs Muggins thanks you for your wishing her a lovely Xmas,and she wishes you one in return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    You had me almost falling off my chair.

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

    Dr Pryde signed a statement that said he had completed the examination of David Bain.

    David Bain gave permission for that to be done, which is standard practice. Should the results of the examination be required for evidence, then they must be able to prove that the procedure was done with permission by presenting the said documentation to the Courts. When it concerns medical examination there are very specific rules and documentation, due to legal requirements regarding privacy and everything must be done as per the prescription.

    Dr Pryde was required to adhere to strict procedure. If had not, he would have invalidated that agreement, and his findings, (being a medical examination) would not have been allowed to be heard in court due to Doctor/Patient privilege. Dr Pryde was not about to falsify that documentation and risk that happening. What you are suggesting could mean that the entire evidence presented by him, regarding that examination is not only suspect, but could have very serious consequences, and would greatly enhance the claim for compensation. Especially if it can be proved that this Crown witness broke the legal requirements. (I am sure you are aware of the very strict rules regarding DR/Patient privilege).

    None of this is rocket science stuff. By all means speak to the police involved, and get them to sign an affidavit. I am sure there are many David Bain supporters that would welcome receipt of such a document.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Doyle’s evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn’t do the GSR tests on David – Doyle’s answer was that it would have been insensitive.

    Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
    A. He was examined by a doctor.
    Q. When was that done?
    A. Later that day.
    Q. On that same day?
    A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
    Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
    A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
    Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
    A. Oh I’m sure it is.
    Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
    A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
    Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
    A. That is correct.
    Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
    A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
    Q. All of those are done?
    A. Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. thedavincimode (8,131 comments) says:

    muggins

    You seem to have maintained presence here so at the risk of appearing lazy (because I am indeed being lazy in not wanting to sift through the last 500 posts) have any of the goat fucking advocates addressed the practicalities of goat fucking yet? A wirey kicking ball of muscle and sinew presents certain challenges to even the most ardent prospective lover. Or are they suggesting that eother the goat was complicit or the gumboot technique was adopted?

    Has anyone explained why, if Robin’s motive was to wipe out the family because of the incest allegation, he would have left David alive to spill the beans. Or if David was so special, what it was about David that was so special or made him more special than say, Stephen or Arawa?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Crikey Dick.
    A David Bain supporter has posted that transcript re Doyle for the umpteenth time.
    How many times do I have to tell him before the penny drops.
    Doyle was not there when that examination was carried out,he didn’t even know what time of day it was done,he didn’t even know that David Bain had had his hands tested for GSR.
    But Judith has let the cat out of the bag. I now understand why neither the Crown nor the defence asked those two police officers who were in the room if David Bain was strip-searched or not.
    The Crown because if the answer was “no” then the defence could dispute all the rest of Dr Pryde’s examination and the defence because they wanted everyone to believe that David Bain was strip-searched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    That he didn’t have scratches on his chest, and accordingly that he had no injuries consistent with having had a fight with Stephen. There’s no doubt he had a strip search as the above shows and trial evidence I’ve posted earlier. It breaks down the case against him.

    That doesn’t follow at all. At best it would demonstrate that Pryde’s evidence and that of other witnesses conflicts.

    There are various other things it could demonstrate:

    That no bruising had shown up by the time he was examined;

    or that Pryde didn’t examine him very carefully;

    or that this particular kind of injury that could be received in a struggle with a murder victim wasn’t received in this case;

    or that no struggle with a murder victim was engaged in.

    In the context of Binnie’s task of establishing whether Bain can demonstrate innocence on balance of probabilities, it would tip the balance more towards the view that Bain didn’t have any marks on his chest that could have come from a struggle with Stephen. How big a deal that is, given that he had other marks on him, is open to question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    thedavincimode
    Re goat shagging.
    Now I have never shagged a goat,my preference is sheep [only joking] but the Aussies believe we are a nation of sheep shaggers and if one can shag a sheep then one can shag a goat. But there are more sheep available than there are goats,if you get my meaning. But the Bain’s did have goats ,so there were goats available to anyone who had the inclination.
    What I can’t understand is why Buckley would shag one or more of those goats when he knew David Bain was home. I mean a bit risky,don’t you think?
    Your point re Robin leaving David to tell the tale is well made. There was absolutely nothing about David that made him special. I would have said Arawa was special. Head girl at Bayfield College,studying to be a teacher,Robin would have never shot her and not David,who had just spent two years doing absolutely nothing.
    I don’t believe those tales of incest. Laniet had also told a school friend that David was molesting her,but I don’t believe that either. I mean Laniet said she had had a black baby,for gods sake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    If only this much passion could be applied to Peter Ellis’ case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    I remember reading somewhere that goat-fucking isn’t anatomically possible due to size differences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    Your points are well made.
    It has never been established whether those marks on David Bain’s chest were bruises or scratches. Now the police did want to examine Bain on the Thursday following but his lawyer told him to refuse which he did. There have been suggestions made that they may have wanted to see if any bruising was showing up.
    I don’t believe Pryde examined Bain as carefully as he should have.
    And of course if David Bain didn’t receive those scratches/bruises in a struggle with Stephen than how did he get them by the Wednesday when he showed them to that female companion.
    He can’t answer that question and neither can any of his supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    chiz,
    What do you mean ,size differences?
    Of course David Bain never specified what was being done to that goat.
    Judith said that it could have been oral sex, but I don’t reckon a bloke would have oral sex with a goat because the goat might not like it and bite his John Thomas off,and then that bloke would be no use to neither man nor beast,if you take my meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Sofia (979 comments) says:

    Are you people talking just blind shit now to see if you can get the comments from 820 to a 1000?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    So the police 2IC is lying. So was Pryde, so was Weir. The only person who isn’t lying is someone that wasn’t there.

    Psycho Milt:

    ‘In the context of Binnie’s task of establishing whether Bain can demonstrate innocence on balance of probabilities, it would tip the balance more towards the view that Bain didn’t have any marks on his chest that could have come from a struggle with Stephen. How big a deal that is, given that he had other marks on him, is open to question.’

    It’s a very big deal because it means David wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning. However, the footprints show that Robin was. The other injuries were not present at 7.40 when David Bain was examined by Ambos Anderson, and Womble. A police officer with David also gave evidence that he saw no injuries before David Bain fell. BOP no injuries to his face and head before the fall, no injuries to his chest at 11am that morning. No bloody footprints in the murder scene made by David (those found being too small,) didn’t turn the computer on because he wasn’t home until 2 minutes later at least – case dismantled. Robin bloody sock prints left throughout the scene, his blood on the towel in the laundry, cuts and bruises to his hands, red material under his nails, spatter on his hands and diluted blood wash on his palms, contact shot, upward trajectory, no spatter shielding around his body that indicated a gunman could have been there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘or that Pryde didn’t examine him very carefully:’

    The two police officers attending never made that claim, nor did the Crown.

    But at least you observe that the strip search took place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    It’s a very big deal because it means David wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning.

    It does? The logic of how the absence of scratches on the chest means a person wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning escapes me. In any case, even if we were to pretend it had some logical coherence, it would apply equally to Robin – any scratches on his chest?

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

    1. David was not under arrest and voluntarily went to the station and agreed to tests being conducted.

    2. Police cannot make a person undergo such an examination without a Court order.

    3. Muggins states he has phoned one of the police officers who was in the room when David was examined, but that person wasn’t there all the time, which tells us nothing. There is no evidence this phone call ever took place.

    4. In 20 years, neither police officer has publicly challenged the suggestion of a strip search and no affidavit has been produced, despite the strip search being mentioned in Court, and in the media. The Crown did not object or raise concern when it was mentioned.

    5. Dr Pryde has agreed the strip search was done, via the method of signing off that he had completed it.

    6. Does a person believe a man who ‘says’ he has spoken to so many people but never produced any evidence to support those claims, or do we believe an experienced professional, well-versed in the methods and procedures, a Medical Doctor well aware of the limitations of Dr/Patient confidentiality, and the seriousness of the task he was assigned?

    7. The results of the samples taken e.g. penile swabs, indicate that the correct procedure was followed.

    8. Clearly another stool test is required, from the oral cavity of the persistent phone user.

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

    > It’s a very big deal because it means David wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning.

    It means nothing of the sort, unless Stephen’s blood teleported istself to the crotch of David’s shorts and elsewhere.

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

    > it would apply equally to Robin – any scratches on his chest?

    True, but Binnie couldn’t see that. He banged on about no blood being inside David’s shoes but conveniently ignored that there was apparently none in Robin’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Nostalgia:December 18th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Most of the strength of the defence case is just trying to disprove or twist the crown’s timing or maybe this happened scenarios. What if you take away some of the Crown’s weak as dishwater theories and teach each thing you just stated on its own merit:
    “It’s a very big deal (bruising/scratches) because it means David wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning”. No it’s not really. The crown suggested Stephen must have fought so hard as to leave injuries on his murderer. But what if he didn’t? it’s quite likely that a half asleep 14 year boy who’s just been shot doesn’t even have the strength to attack so hard to as to leave markings on someone’s body?
    “However, the footprints show that Robin was”. No they don’t. They show someone walked in socks with blood on them. And no other family blood on Robin’s feet/ socks/ shoes. But there was Stephen’s blood on David’s socks.
    “No bloody footprints in the murder scene made by David (those found being too small,)” Evidence that they were only partial prints and only right foot prints too..
    “(David) didn’t turn the computer on because he wasn’t home until 2 minutes later at least” There’s a good chance David didn’t even turn it on, given Robin more than likely came into the lounge to use the computer it was probably him.
    “Robin bloody sock prints left throughout the scene” Bullshit. Someone’s were, but no proof they were Robins.
    “His (Robin’s) blood on the towel in the laundry” It was the towel in the bathroom wasn’t it? but even so, that’s hardly surprising given that if David just murdered him at close range he quite likely got some of Robin’s blood on him- then went and washed up.
    “cuts and bruises to his (Robin’s hands” Given he had just been gardening/ clearing the section completely logical. How to you get cuts from fighting a 14 year old boy anyway?
    “red material under his nails” which is what exactly? I thought his nails had dirt…what was the red then?
    “spatter on his hands” Yes, as there was on rest of his body…he was shot at close range remember…blood spatters.
    “diluted blood wash on his palms” Again…blood off himself from being shot!
    “contact shot” Yes, by David, at close range…a lot of executioners shot right on someone’s head, why do you all think that’s so unlikely?
    “upward trajectory” David was crouching/ squatting behind the curtain.
    “no spatter shielding around his body that indicated a gunman could have been there”. Did his blood spatter in a complete arc around his body? Wasn’t Dayid tucked behind the alcove curtain anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    The two police officers attending never made that claim, nor did the Crown.

    This is a mistake Binnie also makes – if the Crown didn’t make a case for something, it can be left out. Physical reality isn’t dependent on what the Crown claimed or didn’t claim, and among many possible explanations for Pryde not seeing marks on someone’s chest is the possibility that he didn’t examine that person very carefully. It may be much further down the scale of likelihood than other possibilities, but it nevertheless exists.

    Similar case with the footprints. The Crown, when it thought the claim might incriminate David, claimed the footprints were “complete,” ie the fact that toes and heel are discernable mean the killer had stood in a pool of blood larger than his foot and the sock was therefore stained from the tip of the toes to the end of the heel. Once the defence made the case that this would actually incriminate Robin, the Crown belatedly noticed that the existence of toe and heel marks doesn’t necessarily mean the entire length of the foot left them. That is the physical reality of the situation – we simply don’t know whether the length of these particular footprints equals the length of the foot that left them or not. But Binnie was having none of physical reality, because the Crown had claimed it was a full-length print – the fact that we don’t know whether it was or not is dismissed out of hand, because the Crown claimed it did know. It’s a ridiculous way to assess likelihood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    The results of the samples taken e.g. penile swabs, indicate that the correct procedure was followed.

    They do no such thing, other than for the tasks of taking those specific samples. The fact that penile swabs were correctly taken does not evidence any other procedure being undertaken properly.

    There is no inherent correlation, let alone any causal relationship, in what you claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Chuck…

    I think a person trained in research or a scientist would be better suited as the laws of evidence do not seem to apply as they do in Court. I believe judges should have specialist training in logic and statistic that many seem to lack.

    You’re correct there Chuck. The scientific Theory of evidence must be introduced to the legal professions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Open Mind at 5.24
    You really do rely heavy on throughly discredited crown arguments as proof don’t you! This case will never be properly resolved due to the ineptitude and negligence of the investigating cops at the time. Have you actually read Binnies report?? It shows how illogical the David ambushing and shooting Robin execution style actually is. Binnie found David a credible witness and his answers consistent with the crime scene evidence. Therefore as the crown is unable to prove its arguments then as Binnie rightly found they all fail the BOP test

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

    > Have you actually read Binnies report??

    Yes, Rowan, I have, and it’s not worth the space it takes up on the internet 🙂

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

    > Therefore as the crown is unable to prove its arguments then as Binnie rightly found they all fail the BOP test

    The Crown wasn’t required to prove anything. Still, you are in good company. You’ve made the same schoolboy error that one of the finest jurists in North America has made. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    One for Muggins on the fingerprints,
    Do you really believe that we should believe Kim Jones evidence on the fingerprints on the gun?? despite it contridicts that of the other two crown experts Cropp and Hentschell, In 1995 he told the Jury that the blood on the rifle flouresced under the polilight, this was admitted to be incorrect at the retrial as blood shows up dark, he clearly misled the first jury and also tried to discredit the crowns own evidence, yet you continue to rely on it to support your illogical argument

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Open Mind

    ‘No it’s not really. The crown suggested Stephen must have fought so hard as to leave injuries on his murderer. But what if he didn’t? it’s quite likely that a half asleep 14 year boy who’s just been shot doesn’t even have the strength to attack so hard to as to leave markings on someone’s body?’

    Just to deal with one of your points for the pack of cards effect.

    Green fibres under Stephens nails indicate he did fight, there was a green pullover in the wash too small for David etc.

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

    > there was a green pullover in the wash too small for David etc.

    You mean it might have shrunk after being washed? That’s never happened to a jersey before…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Psycho Milt (858) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
    It’s a very big deal because it means David wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning.

    It does? The logic of how the absence of scratches on the chest means a person wasn’t in Stephen’s room that morning escapes me. In any case, even if we were to pretend it had some logical coherence, it would apply equally to Robin – any scratches on his chest?’

    No scratches on Robin.
    The ‘logic’ is the Crown’s case of a deadly fight between David and Stephen ‘proven’ by scratches that weren’t there and scrapes and a lump that occurred after the event. They made the claim and David proved it incorrect on the BOP, that’s what the application was about, not about whether there were or weren’t scratches on Robin’s chest to somehow compensate the Crown case .

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

    bhudson (2,984) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    It indicates that clothing was removed.

    The other tests include a swipe of genitalia (testicles) and surrounding area (cannot be done with pants on as prescription requires there be no possibility of the collecting instrument coming into contact with foreign material (that is clothing etc). This is because the results can be challenged if there is that possibility contamination.

    There is a body diagram and the attending doctor must indicate all marks etc, as well as physical attributes (e.g. discoloured nipples, nipples further apart than normal, nipple piercings, moles, including size etc etc, scars, including type of scar, size etc, inoculation scars, and so on).

    It is simply not possible to complete that examination without removing all clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Pryde not seeing marks on someone’s chest is the possibility that he didn’t examine that person very carefully. It may be much further down the scale of likelihood than other possibilities, but it nevertheless exists.’

    So does Santa Claus apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘bhudson (2,984) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    The results of the samples taken e.g. penile swabs, indicate that the correct procedure was followed.

    They do no such thing, other than for the tasks of taking those specific samples. The fact that penile swabs were correctly taken does not evidence any other procedure being undertaken properly.

    There is no inherent correlation, let alone any causal relationship, in what you claim.’

    That’s getting ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. RRM (12,583 comments) says:

    Keep flogging it, lads! This can make 900 comments. 😉

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,874) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    That’s getting ridiculous.

    As is the rest of their arguments. muggins, ross69 and bhudson are sinking to the depths of despair, and it shows in their nonsensical arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Thanks for your post. I think you may remember we met a few years back at a bloggers night.

    Would you drop us an email please at chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. mikenmild (23,679 comments) says:

    RRM
    Is there a record for number of comments in a thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    My apologies to Santa Claus.
    I never meant it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Nostalgia: “Green fibres under Stephens nails indicate he did fight, there was a green pullover in the wash too small for David etc”.

    Yes there were green fibres under Stephen’s nails….that’s a fact we all agree on. yes they were from the green jersey in the wash. fact.
    Does the fact that Stephen had green fibres prove that he threw punches or vicious cuts, scratches or bruises?
    Doesn’t that just show that he was clawing at or grabbed hold of the jersey?

    Surely, since you so wholeheartedly believe that David was completely scratch, bruise and mark free then it would shore up David’s defence wouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Rowan (3) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I would say the police procedures and crown case absolutely messed up in many areas, and unfortunately that let Karam & Reed etc to build a defence that questions or raises doubt in many areas. Botched carpet samples and misuse of correct terminology aside the defence could then only build their case against Robin by defaming him and creating the idea that this sad old man was actually sick and twisted. Very easy to create a defence with a victim who can’t defend himself, nor could any of the other family members.

    Simple fact is: Robin woke at his normal time, got the paper, came into the lounge as he did every morning.
    He was found in exactly the same clothes as he’d slept in and hadn’t even taken a pee. That is clearly not the actions or scene of someone who has just murdered his whole family.

    All the other scenarios are as fantastical as the constantly altering trollop that flows out of David’s Bain’s mouth every time he opens it. He conveniently ‘blacks out’ whenever he wants to avoid details and then conveniently recalls everything in clear detail when he feels like it. Yet he still trips himself up over and over. Inconsistent stories from the get go.
    I can’t believe so many people are sucked in by him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    I think one of the previous Bain threads went over 1000 (?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Oh and I forgot to add, the other obvious thing that makes no sense re Robin being the murderer…why on earth would he kill everyone…but spare David. And to this question, no-one, not even David can give any answer to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Simple fact is: Robin woke at his normal time,’

    How do you prove that simple ‘fact.’ Because of his alarm clock being set?
    I can see things are becoming a little difficult for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    How do you prove that simple ‘fact.’ Because of his alarm clock being set?

    There aren’t that many facts to be had in the case, to be sure. There are some, eg: David’s gun; David’s fingerprints on the gun; David’s gloves with a victim’s blood all over them; David’s bloody palm-print on the washing machine; David’s clothes with the victims’ blood on them; David the one with injuries; David the only one still breathing. No end of speculation available about the rest of it, but when you leave out the speculation about who might have done what or why would so-and-so do such-and-such, the balance of probabilities doesn’t look all that flash for his compensation claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    It’s pretty apparent that there are few established facts in the case, what little solid evidence there is can only be corroborated by other evidence and then the overall totality of evidence weighed up in a balance of probabilities exercise. Unfortunately for everyone, Binnie couldn’t even get the basic factual evidence correct, yet alone conduct a complex balance of probabilities test. At least he got his money….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    It is simply not possible to complete that examination without removing all clothes.

    No Judith. All it would require is the removal of pants and underwear.

    As for NN-Z and Kanz

    That’s getting ridiculous.

    If you cannot see how the proper performance of one task does not evidence the proper performance of another, then I suggest you are allowing your strong belief in David’s innocence cloud your reasoning – you are allowing your minds to convince you that one fact proves another, when that is not necessarily the case.

    I suspect you just don’t like the self evident fact that performing a penile swap in accordance with procedure does not prove that anyone inspected David’s chest. It is extremely possible to perform only parts over an overall process properly.

    Of course if you can prove otherwise, then by all means ‘go for it’. It was Judith who made the claim that proper penile swapping meant that the entire bodily inspection must have been properly conducted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    ^^ Swab and swabbing (damn missing edit function)

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

    “Simple fact is: Robin woke at his normal time, got the paper, came into the lounge as he did every morning.
    He was found in exactly the same clothes as he’d slept in and hadn’t even taken a pee. That is clearly not the actions or scene of someone who has just murdered his whole family”.

    It is not a simple fact.
    There is no evidence of what time Robin woke up or even if he went to sleep. His alarm went off at the normal time and was still going when the police got there, which could also signify he was not in his caravan when it went off, because he didn’t turn it off (it was sent to go off at the same time automatically)

    How do you know he went into the lounge the same as every morning? Evidence please.

    David said he was in the same clothes.

    He may have taken a pee. Professional evidence was given that 400 mls does not necessarily mean a full bladder. As Robin’s bladder capacity wasn’t measured, there is no way of knowing now whether that was full or not. Some males of the same age have had double or more that amount. He may have pee’d, had a drink or any other mixture of actions. There is not evidence.

    The scenario you gave is based on opinion, there is no evidence to support it therefore it is not fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross @ 6.25 Yes, Rowan, I have, and it’s not worth the space it takes up on the internet
    Yes and you and all the other haters have a better qualified opinion of his guilt than Binnie and the Privvy Council!! really do you actually believe that the Bain defence have actually managed to brainwash the privvy council, the jury and now the judge.
    ‘The crown is not required to prove anything’ really not sure of the logic behind this one

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

    bhudson (2,987) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    It is simply not possible to complete that examination without removing all clothes.

    No Judith. All it would require is the removal of pants and underwear.

    —————————

    Actually it does. Clothing can not be left where it can possibly contaminate the sample. Should clothing be left on the defense can challenge any results based on incorrect handling methods. Clothing and any other objects are always removed from the area being tested for that reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “Simple fact is: Robin woke at his normal time, got the paper, came into the lounge as he did every morning.
    He was found in exactly the same clothes as he’d slept in and hadn’t even taken a pee. That is clearly not the actions or scene of someone who has just murdered his whole family”
    Rather a lot of speculation here, I’m wondering what are the normal actions or scene of someone who has just murdered his whole family?? Murder/suicide is by definition irrational yet you expect us to rationalise all the actions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Clothing and any other objects are always removed from the area being tested for that reason.

    Not requiring a shirt to be removed to swab a penis. You are assuming that one requires the other because it would then allow you to claim some ‘proof’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Reid (21,449 comments) says:

    Simple fact is: none of you people who think you “know” who did it have a clue what the real issue is about. It’s not about whether he did it, it’s about whether or not Bain has been subjected to due process, that’s it, period.

    I know most of you who’ve filled up 800+ comments don’t get it, but a few of us do.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10854684

    The minister’s role is to uphold justice, not dispense or twist it which is the effect of her intervention and disgraceful bias in showing the Binnie report to the prosecution but not the other side. Her banana republic behaviour has brought disgrace on her office. Given this precedent we could save $1 billion-plus annually by the police simply submitting a weekly list of their intended criminal prosecutions for the minister to tick either a guilty or not guilty box, an exercise one suspects would involve her in about two minutes.

    When the highly respected Justice Binnie referred to her as a former tax lawyer, he was not jeering. Rather he was pointing out that as with 99 per cent of lawyers who enter politics, her legal background was as a solicitor and not a barrister. No barrister would act as she has done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Open Mind @ 8.03 “Surely, since you so wholeheartedly believe that David was completely scratch, bruise and mark free then it would shore up David’s defence wouldn’t it?”
    Hmm maybe given that he fainted in the presence of Constable Andrew, this might account for the bruise, the “scratchs” that were not observed by Dr Pryde and the blood marks consistent with walking around the bloody house, there was also the family cat wandering around the house this could account for some secondary transfer.
    How did David walk around in bloody socks yet get no blood in side his shoes??

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

    bhudson (2,989) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    Clothing and any other objects are always removed from the area being tested for that reason.

    Not requiring a shirt to be removed to swab a penis. You are assuming that one requires the other because it would then allow you to claim some ‘proof’

    ———–
    Maybe you wear your shirts at midriff level, but the majority of people do not. Should the shirt come into contact with the sample, there can be a transference of matter. For example, should semen be transferred to a shirt, it could have drastic implications in some cases. For that reason, all clothing is removed, so that there is no chance of a transference. Again it’s not rocket science. It’s commonsense. Any suggestion that the tests are not ‘clean’ and there is a chance that contamination or transference has occured, makes the evidence invalid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    The crown is not required to prove anything’ really not sure of the logic behind this one

    If you’ve read Binnie’s report you should be sure of it. Bain failed to meet the criteria for compensation for miscarriage of justice. Cabinet agreed to consider whether to make him an ex gratia payment on the basis that he is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Binnie’s task was to advise the govt on whether Bain could demonstrate the likelihood of his innocence.

    In other words, the Crown is not required to prove anything – the onus is on Bain to demonstrate the likelihood of his innocence on balance of probabilities. Mind you, your mistake is an easy one to make, because Binnie seems to make it himself – his report is full of assessments of whether the Crown proved its case or not on a particular point, which is irrelevant to the task at hand and one of the reasons Collins is so annoyed with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Judith,

    I’m not trying to convince you.

    You go on trying to convince yourself that the shirt would have to be removed to avoid contamination. I can assure you I don’t have to remove my shirt when I urinate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt @ 8.52 There aren’t that many facts to be had in the case, to be sure. There are some, eg: David’s gun; David’s fingerprints on the gun; …..
    Failing to investigate blood smearing all over Robins hands, and also not testing the red blood like substance under his fingernails or making any sort of proper investigation at the time isn’t no evidence, of course he crown will deny there is evidence but the fact is they didn’t do there job properly at the time

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

    Judith? your still flogging this dead horse? Sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Dr Pryde examined David Bain on the Monday morning of the murders. At no point did he say he strip-searched David Bain.
    Two police officers were in the room with him.
    One says he doesn’t think David Bain was strip-searched,but he can’t be sure because he was out of the room for a few minutes.
    I hope to contact the other police officer this week.
    No-one else was in the room apart from David Bain who says he was strip-searched.
    So it does not matter what anyone else says because they weren’t there when David Bain was examined by Dr Pryde,so they don’t know whether he was strip-searched or not.

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

    > Rather a lot of speculation here

    Not much speculation at all. Robin’s alarm clock was set for 6.32am and his radio clock was on, so it seems the alarm went off, as per usual, at 6.32am. But he often entered the house a little later, between 6.40 and 7.10am according to David. There is no evidence that Robin got changed and put on a second set of clothes. Of course if Robin did enter the house around 6.40am and did everything he’s alleged to have done, then he looked for and found the trigger lock, looked for and found the opera gloves (why not save time and use his own gloves?, why did ne need gloves at all?), found the gun and ammo, went from room to room and kill his family, changed clothes, dropped dirty clothes in wash, washed up, wrote a strange note, all or mostly at the same time that David was in the house! How incredible that David didn’t know any of this was happening right under his nose. Now who’s speculating with the most amazing story ever told?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, yes the defence must prove on the BOP, Binnie has done quite a good job here yet when the crown try to introduce the theroys such as pop in and pop out to try and discredit there already discredited scenario then shouldnt they have to show some sort of proof, similary with the shoes

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

    > There aren’t that many facts to be had in the case, to be sure

    There’s quite a few actually…but let’s focus on the facts that implicate Robin. Hmmm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Reid
    I wouldn’t take any notice of what Bob Jones says.

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

    bhudson (2,990) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    ———–

    I don’t have to convince myself because I know how these tests are done.

    When you pee, is anyone testing to see if you have been involved in a crime?

    When you pee it doesn’t matter if a substance falls from your shirt and onto your penis, because presumably, no one is going to test it. However, in cases like this, it does matter. Should there be any risk for example that some substance from the genital area was transferred to the bottom of the shirt, then there could be consequences. Don’t forget, it is another person collecting these samples, not the person wearing the shirt. Surely you don’t need a description of how the Doctor collects the sample, and how it is placed into the specimen container etc? Or do you? having a pee, is nothing like what is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “It’s not about whether he did it, it’s about whether or not Bain has been subjected to due process, that’s it, period.”

    And yet we have prominent law professors coming out and saying that she was right to order a review.

    I think I will trust them over Bob Jones knowledge of the law, especially given the ignorance shown in his article.

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

    Colville (440) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Nice to know you are taking notice.

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

    > then shouldnt they have to show some sort of proof, similary with the shoes

    Rowan, the Crown don’t have to show anything – they are not claiming compensation, David is. So he has to prove he is innocent. Of course he could help his cause by showing all the evidence implicating Robin…but where is that evidence? Robin has none of Stephen’s blood on him, even though the latter’s bed was covered in blood, Robin didn’t have blood on his socks or shoes, he didn’t leave fingerprints on the gun, there is no evidence he changed clothes, or got up earlier than normal.There is no evidence Robin loved David more than the other kids. Where is this evidence implicating Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Rowan
    David Bain may have lied about the shoes he was wearing. He said he took then off in front of a cupboard,which may have been the wardrobe. The lazers he said he was wearing were nowhere near any “cupboard”.
    Those other shoes had blood on them but by the time the police wanted to bring them in as evidence the depositions had closed and David Bain’s lawyer wouldn’t allow them to bring them into evidence because he said he didn’t have time to prepare.

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

    muggins (371) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
    Dr Pryde examined David Bain on the Monday morning of the murders. At no point did he say he strip-searched David Bain.
    ———————

    he may not have verbally stated he strip-searched David Bain, but he signed a document indicating he had.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Again Ross what are the rational actions of a killer? Again how do you know when Robin entered the house? Important in 1995 wasn’t it that David was back in the house before Robin in order to ambush him in the lounge, now that this is discredited Robin was somehow in the Lounge first and turned on the computer first but didnt go into any other rooms, despite footprints that were a good match for his being found in the house, yet he somehow didn’t notice and waited deep in prayers while David hid and shot him, he also changed the magazines while Robin waited!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “174. If the allegations of incest against Robin are difficult to establish, and repugnant to believe, the “trigger” alleged against David is feeble.

    I quote Binnie the ninny above.

    Who says there has to be a trigger. I can think 600,000 reasons for David to plan these calculated murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    …blood smearing all over Robins hands, and also not testing the red blood like substance under his fingernails…

    An excellent photo of Robin Bain’s hand next to one of the gun’s magazine’s is easily available if you go looking for it. This blood smearing and red stuff under the fingernails is the product of someone’s over-active imagination, at least as far as that hand’s concerned. And if the hand in that photo’s been washed recently, I’m a Dutchman.

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

    really do you actually believe that the Bain defence have actually managed to brainwash the privvy council, the jury and now the judge.

    Ah, I hate to point out the obvious, but the jury didn’t say he was innocent. You might recall one juror writing to Binnie and telling him not to compensate David because she didn’t think he was innocent. The Privy Council never said he was innocent either. You keep making these schoolboy errors…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Please remember people, that if the second jury found that David had probably killed his family, then they were obliged to find him ‘Not Ruilty’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Yet it has never been suggested he was wearing other shoes, evidence please of blood on the ‘other’ shoes. Like your never ending speculation about the glasses, which you can’t prove were involved in the crime

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    Should there be any risk for example that some substance from the genital area was transferred to the bottom of the shirt, then there could be consequences.

    Yes. A dirty shirt. Certainly wouldn’t change the results of the swab.

    Your reaching Judith. You don’t have any incontrovertible evidence that Bain was stripped and so you are trying to weave a story where ‘it must have happened’ from unrelated actions. If he didn’t have to remove his shirt for a penile swab, then it is possible that he never did remove his shirt during the examination. On the other hand, if you can convince others that is must surely be necessary, then you can use the penile swab as ‘evidence’ that his shirt was removed.

    Both sides of the argument use this semantic arguing consistently – it is all throughout this thread, not to mention others dating back on KB. I’m sure the same is true on the various pro and anti-David sites.

    If you are going to use semantics (such as 400ml of urine not being conclusive of a full bladder [but is at least 4/5 full for the ‘average’ bladder]) then you have to accept that they will be used in opposition to you also.

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

    > Again how do you know when Robin entered the house?

    How do YOU know when he entered the house? Are you suggesting he set his alarm for 6.32am but got up much earlier?

    It is up to David to prove his innocence…can he prove Robin entered the house earlier than normal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. bhudson (4,770 comments) says:

    ^^ “You’re reaching Judith…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nick K (2,071 comments) says:

    Okay. Bhudson, Muggins, Nostalgia, Ross69, Judith et al prove everything we need to know. We don’t need Binnie’s report, or any report for that matter. David has to prove that it is more likely than not that Robin did it. When one considers the too’ing and fro’ing in this post, it is pretty bloody clear that no one has the slightest bloody clue he can do this. Sure, he can show a bit of doubt to throw a jury off the scent. And, he can throw some straw man arguments at Binnie, but let’s face it – Binnie could hardly interview Robin Bain could he.

    Nah. This post proves if all. David cannot show innocence on he BoP. He can confuse the fuck out of a lot of muddleheaded commenters on a blog, but more likely than not Robin did it. Fuck no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Nick K (2,071 comments) says:

    …..this post proves *it* all…….and there should be a ? after “Robin did it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “The Privy Council never said he was innocent either.

    The Privy Council also recommended he stay in jail until after the third trial. The cheer team try to give the impression that the Privy Council found David innocent. That is far from the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Nick K (2,071 comments) says:

    Yep. And the PC never said there was a miscarriage of justice either. That’s another misnomer thrown about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    No Ross, the only verdicts were guilty and not guilty, there isn’t a verdict of innocence, you present a weak circumstancial case against David and ignore anything that implicates Robin, i.e. the footprints, the Green jersey/ towel etc, As to the suicide it was shown to be easily possible in a number of way by defence experts including Dr Dempster we get contridictory evidence from the crowns own patholigists who don’t even agree with each other and we are expected to believe there unlikely scenario

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “there isn’t a verdict of innocence”

    Which is why Jurors were at pains to point out that they didn’t believe he was innocent.

    And Rowan if you haven’t seen the photo of Robins hand almost touching the spare magazine I suggest you do. I was borderline until I saw that, but the sheer physical impossibility that presents was enough to convince me that it was impossible for Robin to have placed it there.

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

    > you present a weak circumstancial case against David and ignore anything that implicates Robin

    What exactly implicates Robin? Where is the blood from Stephen which should be on his clothes? It’s not there, but it’s on David’s clothes. Why is that? Why is it that there is 20-25 minutes which David can’t account for? Are you suggesting that Robin slaughtered his family while David was having a nap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. Nick K (2,071 comments) says:

    Has no one ever worn a jersey that was too small for them, Rowan? Talk about weak. Why did Robin wear gloves to conceal his fingerprints and therefore his identity but then leave a note to the World telling us it was him?

    As I say above, you just throw doubt out there. You have to prove it was more likely than not Robin did it. That’s impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    The spare magazine doesnt prove anything it could have easily been placed by Robin or David do you really think that the evidence of the spare magazine decides the case for you? Yes the magazine was placed there but thats all the photo shows

    None of the other circumstantial elements are conclusive Binnie at page 65 summarises it very well if the crown could prove them then it was likely that David would have been convicted again. But as he shows they all fail the BOP test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Binnie the ninny goes on about the balance of probabilities. I doubt if he could work out the odds of crapping out if he through a 5.

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

    Rowan mentions the towel. Where’s the relevance? Did Robin go into the bathroom that morning? There’s no evidence he did, and certainly doesn’t appear to have gone to the toilet. Did David go into the bathroom? Well, he says he did. So given the evidence that David went into the bathromm, but no evidence that Robin did, a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that David put any blood on the towel (assuming it wasn’t there previously) and similarly put blood in the hand basin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “But as he shows they all fail the BOP test.”

    He only shows they all fail the BBOP test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    “it could have easily been placed by Robin ”

    It could have been. But then what is the statistical probability of him placing that magazine on it’s edge on the ground, picking up a rifle, shooting himself and then in death his hand landing so that his thumb and forefinger fall so they are within millimeters of where he placed the magazine originally.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body

    Just look at that photo. That is your smoking gun.

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

    > if the crown could prove them

    You really are a slow learner…the Crown don’t have to prove anything. It is David who has to prove that he’s innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nick yes unfortunately due to the inept police investigation yes you cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, I’d just rely more on the legal expertise of the likes of Binnie and co. Had either Robin or David at the time tested postive for gunpowder residue then we wouldnt be debating this 18 years down the track! Who knows what Robin was thinking at the time? and what someone would or wouldnt do if they had committed multiple murder?

    From the privvy council judgement sums it up quite well

    First, it would indicate that Robin had been to parts of the house on the
    morning of 20 June which, on the Crown’s case, he would never have
    visited. Secondly, it would establish that Robin had changed out of
    blood stained socks, since if he made the print he must have been
    wearing blood stained socks and the socks he was wearing when he was
    found dead in the lounge were not blood stained. Thirdly, if he changed
    his socks, the jury might not think it fanciful to infer that he changed
    other garments as (on David’s case) he had. The implausibility of Robin
    changing his clothes if he was about to commit suicide, was a point
    strongly relied on by the Crown, as something a normal and rational
    person would not have done. But the jury might conclude that whoever
    committed these killings was not acting normally or rationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “176. Was there, then, the prospect of financial gain from his parents’ death? The estate, when gathered in by his uncles, was something around $600,000. There is no suggestion in the evidence that money was of any significance to David Bain and much to suggest that his family relationships were of central importance.”

    Here is another gem from Binnie. There also no evidence that $400,000 was of any significance to Binnie.

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

    “it could have easily been placed by Robin ”

    By why would Robin place it on the floor? There was a table right next to where Robin fell to the ground. Why wouldnt he put it on the table? He’d have to bend over, or kneel, to put it on the floor. Of course, he could’ve simply thrown it away, it was no use to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Good to see we have a lawyer in this debate. Nick could you tell us how much study are lawyers required to do on statistics, logic and probability to qualify?

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

    “and much to suggest that his family relationships were of central importance”

    Bain played Binnie like a fool. Binnie could and should have spoken wwith Paul Mullen, Bain’s psychiatrist. Mullen said that in his dicussions with Bain after the murders, Bain would talk about his family in “sickening sweet” terms as if they were the Waltons. 🙂
    Mullen, however, knew otherwise. Of course $600,000 might be chicken feed for someone like Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    I am sure there are different rules for this sort of report than a court case. In court if the police obtained evidence illegally and a jury could not consider it and rightfully so. The are exceptions as we found out recently for major crimes.

    If damning excluded evidence comes out after a person is found not guilt we just have accept a guilty person walks.

    As far as I can make out such evidence can be used in determining if we should pay someone compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross, Bain does have to prove beyond the BOP to get compensation, Binnie has done quite a good job here, I was referring to the trial where it is up to the crown to prove its allegations, Also no blood, I believe about 4 spots only of blood of Robins entire body were tested subsequent to the 1995 trial, yet there were significant amounts which weren’t therefore that noone elses blood was found on him is quite misleading, also there are significant amounts of blood totally inconsistent with his head wound, on his hoodie, behind his right shoulder under his fingernails etc, there is a good post on the brian edwards website under Micheal Reed QC on close up, I’m not going to retype it all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Last post for the night, just for the bain haters, According to the retrial testimony of ambulance officer Craig Wombwell the death of Robin was recent and the bodies of Margaret and the children were warm including Stephen but not as warm as Robin, How is it that on the crowns scenario where they were all killed around 5am that Stephens body although lying naked except for a pair of underpants was still warm considering the temparature was around zero, the house was unheated and he had been lying there dead for over 3 hours??

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

    Wonder why david bain took that expensive motorbike for a test ride , he must have been worried when he wrote it off, I assume Binnie didn’t ask him if he had told his parents.
    Never mind a big windfall would solve his problems.
    No wonder he told his uncle before the family had even been buried , how he couldn’t wait for it to be over so he could get on with his life.
    It must have been a wonderful dream visualising himself riding around town on his big new bike, new tattoo.
    Quite an improvement on the reality of the 22 year old paper boy still living at home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Dexter (587 comments) says:

    Rowan, before asking questions like that, how about responding to the actual crime scene photo that shows Robins hand virtually touching the magazine. I’d explain that if I were you before going off on silly tangents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Scott Chris (7,982 comments) says:

    How is it that on the crowns scenario where they were all killed around 5am that Stephens body although lying naked except for a pair of underpants was still warm considering the temparature was around zero, the house was unheated and he had been lying there dead for over 3 hours??

    Simple. He died slowly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Still one idiot that says he spoke to a cop who said there was no strip search. That’s about the sum total of the case against David Bain, an idiot believing that ‘evidence’ of a conversation he had is somehow evidence of the trial. But wait, he’s going to speak to another cop who is away at the moment ‘later in the week.’

    When you line up with pitchforks and lanterns you line up behind a messenger of hate who persuades you with rumour and ill will. That’s what it is folks a stupid old man v Lord Bingham, 4 other Law Lords, 2Qcs, an International Jurist who, hello, don’t decide anything other by evidence or by what it is claimed was told to a hate merchant by a man who never gave that evidence in Court. The green jersey wasn’t able to transmit scratches, even if had fitted David Bain, and the green fibres being under both nails showed that, but most of all the strip search excluded the scratches anyway, they never existed, and for some jerk to say that a cop ‘told him’ defies all logic because either of those 2 police officers seeing a scratch would have given evidence about it. To say they wouldn’t defies all logic just as does psycho milts ‘cherry picking’ of incorrect facts to convince himself what he doesn’t know about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Scott Chris (4,658) Says:
    December 18th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    How is it that on the crowns scenario where they were all killed around 5am that Stephens body although lying naked except for a pair of underpants was still warm considering the temparature was around zero, the house was unheated and he had been lying there dead for over 3 hours??

    Simple. He died slowly.’

    You’re simple all right, read the pathologist’s report as to the extent of his injuries and how quickly he would have died you half back cookie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    How is it that on the crowns scenario where they were all killed around 5am that Stephens body although lying naked except for a pair of underpants was still warm considering the temparature was around zero, the house was unheated and he had been lying there dead for over 3 hours??

    Speculation doesn’t help much. According to the Crown version, the bodies had been there an hour longer than in the Bain version. How much colder that additional hour would make the bodies is speculation. According to the Bain version, Robin’s body had been there a matter of minutes longer than the others. How much colder those minutes would have made Robin’s body is speculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    Fuck. Should read “How much warmer those minutes would have made Robin’s body is speculation.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Scott1 (1,001 comments) says:

    I think it is impportant to keep in mind

    1) that the procecution was attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. this means they might make arguments, admit points and discard possibilities that a purely truth seeking (this balance of probabilities) approach would not.

    2) Premeditated Murderers are, in general, not irrational (I mean aside from what we think of the act of murder). There should be pleanty we can infer regarding their attempts to cover up their actions, how they did it etc as opposed to just throwing our hands into the air.

    3) normal people’s memory is far worse than we seem to take for granted here. including the memory of witnesses and david. often we discuss things then remember them as if we experienced them.

    4) subtle changes in terminiology can matter. like goat shagging probably doest really reflect what happened.

    5) police error, unless intentional, does not imply the evidence not found was likely to pove one way or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    PM…
    How much warmer those minutes would have made Robin’s body is speculation.

    PM, from my limited knowledge, I believe that it is very common today in forensics to estimate the time of death based on body temperature difference with its environment by using heat transfer equation. There are some publications in varioius literature on this, based on the titles I’ve seen on Google Scholar (if one searches on this topic) but I think that the following is a good reading. It covers the estimation of time lapsed in pigs death, however the thermodynamic properties (conductivity, density, etc,..) of pigs aren’t that much difference from humans.

    Verification of the exponential model of body temperature decrease after death in pigs

    There’s another one I have found here, but only the short abstract available. There’s no free copy available on the net.

    Body temperature as a means of estimating the time of death

    The question to ask, is if the cops used such forensic methods in 1995, when they conducted the investigation for the Bain’s family deaths?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Psycho Milt (3,375 comments) says:

    The question to ask, is if the cops used such forensic methods in 1995, when they conducted the investigation for the Bain’s family deaths?

    They didn’t let the pathologist in until quite a few hours after the bodies had been discovered, apparently because securing and preserving evidence in a crime scene the size and complexity of the Bain house was a long job. So there was no useful body temperature measurement they could use. What Rowan is referring to is the ambulance officers touching the bodies and finding they weren’t cold, and that Robin was warmer than the others. Karam thinks this is significant because Stephen’s naked body in an unheated house in the middle of a Dunedin winter shouldn’t have been warm if it had been there the three hours the Crown alleges had elapsed since David supposedly shot them. Maybe – but even in the Bain version the bodies had been there two hours. If Karam’s convinced that hour’s the difference between what feels warm to an ambo and what feels cold, he could feel free to make a case for it, but really it shows nothing either way, like most of the other speculation around the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Pay Bain, says Chamberlain lawyer

    By Yvonne Tahana
    5:30 AM Wednesday Dec 19, 2012

    First quote

    Mr Tipple said he had followed the Bain case closely. He was aghast at Ms Collins’ criticism of the independent report written by retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie, while keeping its contents confidential.

    Second quote

    She’s actually not accepting the jury verdict – which is: You are not guilty David Bain, you are innocent.

    This lawyer is either total dishonest or incompetent.

    The jury did not find David Bain innocent.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,880) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Lets not forget that the strip search, along with Dr Pryde’s paper work was mentioned and discussed at the second trial. If the Crown had two police officers who could provide evidence that such a search never took place, they would have been called to give evidence. If unable to do that, they would have presented affidavits. None of that was done. Nor have they in 20 years provided statements or publicly challenged the notion of strip search despite it even being mentioned in the first trial.

    The person you speak about clearly raises these sorts of issues, and makes statements regarding his so called phone call conversations merely to inflame public opinion. There are of course at least 500 members of JFRB who believe every word he says. But then there are also members of JFRB who think that putting stickers on cabbages in supermarkets is a great way to defend Robin Bain’s name. There is a bit of irony in that!

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

    Sorry it should be 18 years, not 20.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    Sorry it should be 18 years, not 20.

    That’s OK Judith (Jinny / Ginny) – we accept you’re often confused when it comes to detail… 😀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, yes I do remember you from the Bloggers drink. We’ve met at the bloggers’ drinks on 3 different occasions I think. Were you at David Seymour’s election campaign drinks on Ponsonby Rd (upstairs at the old bar debaz) at the end of last year? I thought I saw you there? Anyway, I’ll drop you a message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    @Chuck: Other articles penned by Yvonne Tahana are about Bain / about Karam / about Karam after the Bain trials / about Karam and some role he had with Sky TV – etc….

    Looks like the cheer squad has been busy….

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

    Never mind a big windfall would solve his problems.

    Well, quite. Binnie asks Bain what the estate is worth and Bain tells him about $600,000. But at the front of Binnie’s report, he complains about the apparent lack of motive! I’m bemused that Binnie criticises the police’s “ineptitude” and “incompetence”, but here is a motive staring Binnie in the face and he doesn’t see it. Now who is inept and incompetent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Rowan
    The police theory that Robin Bain was kneeling on his beanbag when he was shot was only a theory.
    Since the first trial a great deal of new information has come forward.
    David Bain later said his father usually came into the house at around 6.40am. Now if he did that on that Monday morning he could have turned the computer on. Why?
    An Education Board official gave evidence at the retrial that Robin Bain had phoned her on the previous Friday to arrange for some extra funding . He made an appointment to see her on the Monday morning. He had to complete some documentation before he saw her. He could have turned the computer when he entered the lounge so he wouldn’t have to wait for it to warm up later on.
    David Bain said his father was dressed in the same clothes as he was wearing the night before when he usually had his work clothes on when he was praying/meditating. But as he wasn’t going to school first thing that morning he probably didn’t feel the need to put on his working clothes until later on.

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

    > This lawyer is either total dishonest or incompetent.

    Well, she is Australian so I think we can forgive her. 🙂

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

    > David Bain said his father was dressed in the same clothes as he was wearing the night before

    Do you have a link?

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

    muggins (373) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Rowan
    The police theory that Robin Bain was kneeling on his beanbag when he was shot was only a theory.
    Since the first trial a great deal of new information has come forward.

    Strange thing to say? The police, surely, were in receipt of ALL of the information at the first trial. Unless, of course you are telling us that they ‘found’ more information. So, they KNEW what had happened in the first trial, and how Robin was killed, then in the retrial they KNEW something completely different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith
    As I havn’t seen that document you say Dr Pryde signed indicating he strip-searched David Bain was strip-searched I can’t comment on it. But I hope to have a definitive answer before Xmas.
    Only four people know if David Bain was or was not strip-searched.
    [1] Dr Pryde. He has never said he strip-searched David Bain but has apparently signed a form indicating he did.
    [2] David Bain who says he was strip-searched.
    [3]A police officer who was in the room for most of the time and who didn’t see Dr Pryde strip-search David Bain.
    [4] A second police officer who has yet to be asked.

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

    muggins (374) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:12 am

    If you ring and badger enough people they will possibly give you a copy, have you thought of that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Please reread my post.
    That Education Board official only testified at the retrial.
    David’s aunt only testified about the conversation she had with David about those glasses at the retrial.
    The police didn’t “find” new information. People came forward and gave them new information.
    Crikey dick,Karam put an advert in the ODT asking for people to come forward if they had any information,one of those people was Daryl Young who saw Robin Bain coming out of a door that couldn’t be opened.
    You should know all this,Kanz.Obviously you aren’t very well informed.
    Btw,all those photos of Robin Bain were taken before Dr Dempster entered the house,so bang goes you theory that he knocked that magazine over before those photos were taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    I don’t believe I would be allowed to have a copy of that document. But it doesn’t really matter,Judith has already said that Dr Pryde signed a document indicatiing he had strip-searched David Bain,so she must have seen it providing she is telling the truth. She could send me a copy ,of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. SGA (3,988 comments) says:

    @ross69 “here is a motive staring Binnie in the face and he doesn’t see it. Now who is inept and incompetent?”

    Well… as a motive, it is so mundane as to look lame. If being a tertiary student in debt was a strong motive for mass murder, then our streets would be running red. As far as I’m aware, the prosecution chose not to pursue the “motive” angle with any vigour – probably for this very reason.

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

    muggins (375) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:27 am

    None of the information you use as examples altered whether Robin was kneeling and praying, or standing with a foot on a chair when he shot himself. Can you provide the new information that changed that ‘theory?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. David Farrar (1,771 comments) says:

    It’s good to see so many people debating the facts of the case and the merits of the reports. Please however refrain from having a go or attacking motives of other parties such as Joe Karam. Karam has expressed a consistent belief in Bain’s innocence and to his credit has managed to get a favourable Privy Council decision, and a not guilty verdict at the 2nd trial. You may think the jury got it wrong, but this is not a reflection on Karam. So keep teh debate going – but please keep it focused on the evidence and the reports.

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

    “Well… as a motive, it is so mundane as to look lame. If being a tertiary student in debt was a strong motive for mass murder, then our streets would be running red”

    Strange logic, SGA. So all those bank robberies, drug murders, white collar crimes, have no basis in financial gain? Sounds like you need some basic lessons in logic, as does Binnie.

    I didn’t mention student debt. I mentioned $600,000 that Bain could have expected to inherit – maybe that is not much money to you but to David it was possibly a fortune. Of course it would have been worth a lot more in 1994 than it is today.

    Here’s another case where a young man slaughtered 5 members of his family, tried to blame it on a sibling, and was due to collect a healthy payout. He hated his mother.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    David I fully agree with you about Joe. I think he is very genuine. However, I find it very hard to have any respect for my self-promoting compatriot Binnie after reading most of Fisher’s report on Binnie’s report.

    I also find it hard to respectful towards lawyers who appear to have little knowledge of the law like Stuart Tipple. He sounds like he had a tipple before he was interviewed.

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

    muggins (376) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:32 am

    The document in question was presented along with Dr Pryde’s other documents regarding the case, at the second trial under Court direction. Dr Pryde was of course dead, and unable to present them himself. I suggest you go through the copy of the second trial transcripts that you ‘cannot confirm or deny’ you have for reference to Dr Pryde’s information.

    Your statement above is wrong, you say four people can confirm, however then say one wasn’t in the room all the time, and you haven’t spoken to the other one. You will require proof that David Bain was accompanied by police at all times in order to prove your point. You will also require affidavits from those people, as unfortunately your word means diddly squat regarding any phone calls. Even Ms Collins isn’t stupid enough to take that sort of evidence.

    The one other thing you fail to note, or draw attention to, so I will. All the clothes David Bain was wearing, including undergarments were taken for testing and evidence. Think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. SGA (3,988 comments) says:

    @ross69

    The prosecution is not obliged to show “motive”, but if they believe they can bolster their case by showing a strong motive, then they certainly will do so. If they had evidence of such things drug deals gone bad, gambling debts, a history of living well beyond one’s means, then they would have pursued the motive (financial gain) angle with some vigour, U’d guess. You may find it compelling, but it doesn’t look like even the prosecution found it particularly convincing.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,727) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Now why would you call Justice Binnie self-promoting when it comes to this case? Did he ask to sit on this case? Did he approach Powers and say, I will do it for you? Perhaps it was all his idea that a report be done in the first place?

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

    Jeremy Bamber claims two cousins framed him for the murders of his family to shut him out of his inheritance. Yeah just like Robin framed David to deny him any money.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html

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

    > You may find it compelling, but it doesn’t look like even the prosecution found it particularly convincing.

    You’re being a little obtuse. I made the point that Binnie scratched his head because he couldn’t comprehend any possible motive. At the same time he knew that David would’ve been due to inherit a large chunk of money. You’d agree, I’m sure, that Binnie didn’t cover all the bases.

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

    Furthermore, Binnie didn’t bother asking David about his financial position, how much money he made from his paper run, what his outgoings were, if he had any debts, what it would have meant to him to have had a large financial windfall. Those are questions I would’ve asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Manolo (22,078 comments) says:

    ross69’s obsession with this topic deserves medical attention. The old comrade is going bonkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith.
    Why do I get the feeling you don’t want me to contact that other police officer who was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain? I believe there was one police officer who was in the room all the time and he is the police officer I have still to contact. And in my opinion Judith Collins is one smart lady.
    I am aware all the clothing David Bain was wearing was taken for testing and I will be asking that police officer about that.
    Also how Dr Pryde came to see David Bain’s tattoo ,if he didn’t strip-search him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Scott Chris (7,982 comments) says:

    Nostalgia you brainless slug, if you have a point to make, make it dispassionately and then back it up with a link or at least a quote.

    Human beings can survive horrific injuries for varied lengths of time, so what makes you so sure that Stephen died instantly? (well at least after David shot him the final time)

    [No doubt I could shop around for an expert who could testify as to how long it might take to die given the extent of Stephen’s injuries.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    One of the ESR scientists having a fresh look at those blood spots on Robin Bain’s clothing now believes he was more likely than not to have been standing upright when he was shot.
    I mean people can change their minds. Look at Dr Dempster re Laniet’s gurgling.
    Re that gurgling.
    Professor Ferris,Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia,who said he had carried out up to 10000 post mortem examinations of which 700 to 800 related to gunshot wounds testified that he was quite confident that the cheek wound to Laniet’s head was the first wound. He said she would have been able to survive such a wound for a considerable time. He said she would be able to make noises that could be interpreted as gurgling noises to indicate she was still alive. He said a groaning type sound would indicate she was still alive and that the muffling sound like water might be gurgling as air is drawn through blood in the airways.
    Exactly as David Bain described.
    Professor Ferris also said he had never seen a suicide by firearm where a silencer was attached to the weapon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. SGA (3,988 comments) says:

    @ross69 “Furthermore, Binnie didn’t bother asking David about his financial position, how much money he made from his paper run, what his outgoings were, if he had any debts, what it would have meant to him to have had a large financial windfall. Those are questions I would’ve asked.”

    I might be wrong, but I would have assumed that the initial police investigation would have looked at such things very carefully, that they would be be looking for a strong motive. Did they not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    “Now why would you call Justice Binnie self-promoting when it comes to this case? Did he ask to sit on this case? Did he approach Powers and say, I will do it for you? Perhaps it was all his idea that a report be done in the first place?”

    @Kanz

    I call him self promoting because in Canada he was known as an activist judge who seemed to enjoy being controversial and being in the limelight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Just as an aside I was interested to read that David Bain had never seen Laniet smoking until he saw her having a nervous one when he came out of the fish and chip shop on that Sunday night.
    And what about him saying that he couldn’t drive the family car on the Sunday afternoon because he had no glasses and yet he could drive it a couple of hours later without having to wear glasses. How come Binnie didn’t pick up on that?
    I see David said his mother was into self hypnosis. I wonder if she taught David how to do that? Binnie didn’t ask.
    I see David said his mother was into massage. I wonder who gave her those massages? Binnie didn’t ask.
    I see David said he was a hard working guy. I wonder what hard work he was doing in 1992/93? Binnie didn’t ask.
    I reckon I can keep this thread going into the New Year just asking the questions that Binnie didn’t ask.
    I have no doubt Judith will be able to answer them all,although,having said that she still hasn’t come up with an explanation as to how that lens from those glasses that Stephen never wore and had no need to wear came to be in his room.

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

    muggins (379) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 10:31 am

    You can contact whoever you like. I have no problem with you doing it, but you have to agree, unless those people you have spoken to make an affidavit swearing that is what they did and saw, your word means nothing. A so called phone conversation between two people is proof of nothing. You set high standards before you will believe others, try applying the same standards to yourself. I simply do not believe you have these conversations. You use them to enhance your credibility, when in fact, they give reason to question it further. Why don’t these people speak for themselves, go to the media etc? You like the word plausible, well these so called conversations do not reach that measurement.

    muggins (379) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 11:05 am
    I reckon I can keep this thread going into the New Year just asking the questions that Binnie didn’t ask.
    ——————–

    And that sentence sums it up nicely and reveals exactly your level of intelligence.

    No more comment needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Please remember people, that if the second jury found that David probably killed his family, then correctly they were obliged to return a “not guilty” verdict, because “probably” is not beyond reasonable doubt. We have no way of knowing whether the second jury found that David probably killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Longknives (6,413 comments) says:

    “And that sentence sums it up nicely and reveals exactly your level of intelligence.”

    Judith- I wouldn’t get too snarky at Muggins. For the past few weeks he has made fools out of you and your fellow ‘Kool Aid’ -drinking Bain supporters by simply posting hundreds of pertinent questions that Bain supporters refuse (or simply can’t) answer.
    He has figuratively blown you out of the water!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. flipper (5,304 comments) says:

    Well, what a surprise. Ad hominem is still alive and well in this thread.
    That nasty approach has now degenerated to the point where an objective analyst is called ” a slug”, witness Scott Chris @10.34: Nostalgia you brainless slug, if you have a point to make, make it dispassionately and then back it up with a link or at least a quote. ”

    I agree with DPF’s admonition. Keep it clean. The best ways is to stop injecting lies, half truths, twists, imagination, and outright bullshit. Continued advocacy for revision and relitigation is just silly.

    I look at the persistence with which some folk post, how they post, the ever changing grounds for their particular viewpoin (to what useful purpose), and wonder about their sanity.

    I also wonder about mine in attemting to make some folks adopt a reasonable (socratic, comes to mind), approach to the debate, and see sense. 🙂

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

    I see Robin never changed his clothes (davids evidence),

    is that simple enough ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Nick K (2,071 comments) says:

    Good to see we have a lawyer in this debate. Nick could you tell us how much study are lawyers required to do on statistics, logic and probability to qualify?

    The same amount of reading legal texts and analysing judgments that statisticians, mathematicians and philosophers have to do to qualify for their roles.

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

    Ahhhh, Socrates, who could forget,

    To quote: “I made a point in my second book – actually it was a point Socrates made 3000 years – four or 5000 years ago when he said: ‘Don’t worry about why I might be saying something – have a listen to what I’m saying’ and of course what he said laid the foundation for modern civilisation – even though he was hung for it at the time.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. thedavincimode (8,131 comments) says:

    … socratic, comes to mind

    Really? Why is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Truthiz
    But Robin did change his clothes He went to bed in the same clothes as he was found dead in.
    But when he got up he changed into different clothes,then went on a shooting rampage which caused him to get some blood on his clothes.
    Then he removed those bloody clothes and put them in the washbasket and put those old clothes he was wearing when he went to bed back on so as to meet his maker without the blood from his children on his clothes.
    You know it makes sense.

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

    > I see Robin never changed his clothes (davids evidence)

    Have you got a link?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    ross,
    I am having a problem locating that link. And I obviously havn’t got that quite right,I mean David wouldn’t have known what clothes his father went to bed in.
    As I understand it now,and I am still waiting to confirm this, when David was asked what clothes his father was wearing the night before he replied that they were the same clothes he was killed in.
    Actually I am surprised that David Bain’s supporters havn’t had a go at me about this. Where has everyone gone?
    I’m a lonesome cowboy……………

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

    Muggins

    I’m fairly sure that my mental capacity is fine – I’ve got a PhD from Cambridge and everything – but then Brian Josephson was a professor there, and still keeps banging on about the memory of water. And I can’t really help it if calling a retard a retard makes them even more confused on the matter. I’ve read bits of the Bain interview, but not the whole thing. Can you post a link? Wasn’t in the pdf of the Binnie report I downloaded.

    Keep on posting. Although I do really hate the kind of nudge-nudge wink-wink production of “evidence” that goes on around this case. I was in the room, he said, she said, I met a friend of David’s who said that he had confessed to it all, and so it goes.

    I’m growing fond of the extraneous “e”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I’m sorry to be repeating myself, but I have been silent for a long time on this and I’ve been silent on some other important points that others in 18 years have never picked up on. Clearly, none of you commenters can see, just as Binnie didn’t see, the significance of this situation. It requires some above-average lateral thinking – to see the implications.

    Everyone wants to believe that the second jury found that David didn’t kill. This belief is simply unreliable.

    If the jury thought that David “probaby killed”, which I am convinced the jury did find, then they were obliged to return a “not guilty” finding. My person belief is that David probably killed, but I have a doubt or two. I suspect every JFRB-type person would have to admit to some sort of nagging doubt somewhere. The questions the jury put to the Judge suggest that the jury thought David had probably killed, but each of the jury had at least one question of doubt – not necessarily all the same doubt, mind you. But even one reasonable doubt in jury member A, and another nagging doubt in jury member B (and so on), in otherwise unanimity of David probably being a killer, is enough to demand according to law, a “not guilty” vote.

    The significance of this bears on a huge number of the 900 or so comments above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    The point is that if David “probably killed” he was entitled to be acquitted, but he is not entitled to compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Clearly Minister Collins thinks that David “probably killed”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Winston
    PhD from Cambridge and everything,whatever everything means. Golly gosh.
    I thought about going to university,sat the entrance exam when I was 16,but just missed the pass mark.
    I said to my father do you reckon I should have another try,but he said I would probably be better off getting a good job,which is what I did. He said what did I want to go to Universty for anyway, some of those people are more brains than commonsense.
    The thing is Winston,researching the Bain murders has been my hobby for the past three years,so I am reasonably well informed,far more than you ,I daresay.
    That link you wanted. I have already posted it ,refer my post December 16th at 5.37pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    muggins:What do you mean ,size differences?

    I could have sworn I read an article in the last year, possibly on the stuff website, in which some expert stated that goats, or maybe it was sheep, were too small to accommodate a human penis and that attempting to have sex with them resulted in severe injuries to them.

    Of course David Bain never specified what was being done to that goat.

    Frottage perhaps? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    And by severe, I mean that the injuries were severe enough to require the animal to be put down. But I might be misremembering it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Clearly too, Justice Binnie found that David “probably killed”, but he disqualified himself from taking this path. He said wrongly that he was legally bound by the only finders-of-fact, namely the second jury; and their conclusion of innocence. Binnie was pain wrong to limit their “not guilty” to meaning that conclusively, the jury thought that David didn’t kill.

    Binnie fundamentally erred on this basic point of law.

    On this point alone, Collins has no option but to reject the Binnie report on the grounds that it relies on a basic error of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    The debate is going on on another thread.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/where_is_the_expert_analysis.html#comment-1064110

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    To explain further. The second jury might have found in one of four ways:

    a) That Robin killed beyond a reasonable doubt.
    b) That Robin probably killed.
    c) That David probably killed.
    d) That David killed beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In only one of these – (d) – Jury 2 was required to convict. But in only 2 of them – (a) and (b) – David would be entitled to compensation. Which leaves (c). In (c), Jury 2 was required to acquit, but David is not entitled to compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    Damn it Chuck. If the discussion is moving to another thread then how will we get this thread pass the 1000 comment mark?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    We only need another 25 posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Chuck Bird (6,597 comments) says:

    Where is that edit I mean

    We only need another 24 posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (16) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 11:39 am
    Please remember people, that if the second jury found that David probably killed his family, then correctly they were obliged to return a “not guilty” verdict, because “probably” is not beyond reasonable doubt. We have no way of knowing whether the second jury found that David probably killed.’

    They found him not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt. End of story. Binnie found him innocent on the BOP, no more no less. The PC ordered a retrial because he had suffered, an ‘actual miscarriage of justice’ the first trial was ruled a mistrial. Nothing less, Binnie said he was looking behind the verdict because, rightly, that wasn’t his job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. chiz (1,355 comments) says:

    Dotcom: We have no way of knowing whether the second jury found that David probably killed.

    One of those jurors has publicly stated that they didn’t think Bain was innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    The never ending saga of the maybe or maybe not strip-search.
    I have now contacted the second police officer that was in the room,he said Bain wasn’t strip-searched when he was in the room but he was out of the room for a few minutes also.
    However,he says there was another person in the room who was assisting Dr Pryde,and he will check with him as to what happened.
    I am not worried whether this thread reaches 1000 or not but with only 21 posts to go I reckon I might get it there on my own.

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

    muggins (383) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    With all the people you claim to have spoken to, I bet David is grateful that you didn’t have contact details for Justice Binnie. If you had, you could have told him all that you know and convinced him David was guilty…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    Jesus H Christ I have been to the bloody moon and back and this tread is still going. As previously stated Bain is guilty.

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

    > I bet David is grateful that you didn’t have contact details for Justice Binnie.

    Binnie’s contact details are at the top of his report. The Justice Ministry kindly included those so the public could let him know what they think of his crap report. 🙂

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

    ross69 (1,336) Says:
    December 19th, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    But it is too late now, he has decided. I said didn’t, not don’t.

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

    Oh it’s not too late at all. He might want to send another corrected report once he realises all the mistakes he’s made.

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

    3 people in the room, and with all the controversy for the last 18 years, they’ve never come forward to publicly declare what the situation was, but suddenly a stranger phones them and they talk, except they say nothing of value, because they weren’t there all the time. My bet is the third person won’t say anything either – as an assistant to a medical practitioner, they will be bound by dr/patient confidentiality rules too. The answer will be – there is no answer, and the phone stalker will have to focus his attentions on whether the dog spoke to the neighbour’s cat about that morning. I’m sure the neighbour had a phone. I must by shares in telecom, all these phonecalls!

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

    Shame about Davids bloody palm print on the washing machine …

    Such a pity David washed all the killers clothing …

    Shame about the damaged glasses …

    Such a pity, that the killer used all Davids gear …

    Just unlucky that Robins clothing had nobody elses blood on it …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. RF (2,338 comments) says:

    Truthiz.. 12.54am

    Poor old David. He would have you believe there is an innocent explanation for his actions. As I sit here the flying pigs are in formation approaching my bunker.

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

    Pity about the 1,000, not that I’m into numbers, the cheer squad, must given up due to the abundance of actual evidence instead of hearsay.

    But once again I leave them with this thought,

    Robin was died in the same clothes that he was wearing the night before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Actually I do have Binnie’s email address but I havn’t bothered to contact him.
    If I had one of the things I would have asked him was why he kept saying that ten round magazine was empty when it actually had three live rounds in it.
    Had he been aware of that this thought might have occured to him.
    Why would Robin Bain have changed magazines when there were still three live bullets in that magazine?
    Then he might have thought- I wonder if David just put that magazine there as a prop?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Truthiz.
    I have now found exactly what it was that David Bain said re his father’s clothing.
    “On the Sunday he was wearing the tracksuit top and bottoms. On the Sunday he was wearing what I understand he was wearing when he was killed”.

    Understand what he was wearing when he was killed. What a load of old cobblers. He knew what his father was wearing when he was killed.

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

    Didn’t Binnie’s report say that the magazine was empty and the rounds that it had contained were all accounted for in other parts of the house? Do you know how many shots were fired or cleared as a jammed round?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    Judith,
    I bet the dog could have told us a thing or to,trouble is it only barked.
    But hey,have you worked out yet what was being done to that goat? Somebody reckons you can’t shag a goat because the muscles round it’s arse are too tight.
    But what gets me is that Binnie believed that story. Perhaps shagging goats is quite a common practise in Canada. Maybe their goats have bigger arseholes.

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

    I don’t know Muggins,

    I believe the dog told a lot by his actions when David was around, I know mine would attack anyone who he saw hurt any member of the family.

    but back to lunch and the basketball … 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    PaulD
    Neither magazine was empty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Pysch Milt
    ‘Speculation doesn’t help much. According to the Crown version, the bodies had been there an hour longer than in the Bain version. How much colder that additional hour would make the bodies is speculation. According to the Bain version, Robin’s body had been there a matter of minutes longer than the others. How much colder those minutes would have made Robin’s body is speculation.’
    Maybe you should apply some common sense, i think the best explanation so far is the court of appeal judgement “can be explained from Stephens violent struggle for survival” I you can’t apply common sense, why don’t you try an experiment and actually lie on a zero degree floor in your undies and see how long you are still warm for, even due some physical activity to build up a sweat first, you could also try at a swimming pool by measuring the change in temparature hour by hour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. muggins (5,132 comments) says:

    According to one expert it is impossible to determine the time a person has been dead accurately to less than 1 to 2 hours.

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