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?

Tags: , ,

996 Responses to “Dom Post on Binnie report”

  1. Pete George (23,802 comments) says:

    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.

    But unless David did it and one day convincingly confesses I don’t think we will know one way or the other for sure.

    So the legal process comes down to whether the politicians deem Bain to be deserving of compensation in a perpetually divided environment of uncertainty plus certainty based on uncertainties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Danyl Mclauchlan (941 comments) says:

    perhaps an Australian Judge?

    The chances of Collins bringing in another external expert who might reach a decision she doesn’t like and make her look like a fool in the bargain are pretty damn close to zero.

    [DPF: How is she a fool if they agree Bain should get compensation? I don’t think she has ever said he should not. If you can get a high quality report that concludes he is innocent, then I’d expect he’d get compensation.

    But it is not unreasonable to be concerned about a report, when the first thing you read is that he hasn’t even understood his terms of reference.]

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

    David, I don’t think any further report is necessary. All that anybody needed to do was to go through each part of the evidence and look at it on the basis of probability, as proof beyond reasonable doubt is apparently impossible.

    David Bain does NOT fulfill the criteria required to gain compensation from the Crown for wrongful imprisonment. He has NOT been proven innocent by any means. His defence have not proven willful misconduct in a court of law, and he has NOT proven his innocence on the balance of probability. In fact, because of Binnie’s report being so obviously incompetent, he has actually deepened suspicion of his guilt. Robert Fisher’s report highlights many, many issues with Binnie’s report.

    However, one paragraph suffices to illustrate this point.

    A beautiful summary in Fisher’s report:

    para 132: “The jury acquittal was not relevant to the current inquiry. There are several
    reasons for this. First, a person appointed to conduct an inquiry of this kind is asked
    to conduct his or her own inquiry, not to borrow from the view formed by others.
    Secondly, the onus of proof before a Referee is the reverse of the onus that had been
    before the jury. Thirdly, the scope of a compensation inquiry is potentially much
    wider than that of a jury in a criminal trial. Evidence which may be considered by
    the Referee in a compensation inquiry is not confined to evidence that might be
    admissible in a court of law. Nor is the Referee’s inquiry limited by anything which
    the jury might have previously decided. The Referee is free to range into areas which
    are otherwise forbidden by a jury hearing a criminal case. ”

    So, Binnie has presumed that his opinion that the Crown needed to prove David’s guilt, but here, at this point, it is rather that David must prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt and it is obvious that this is impossible, as no such evidence exists. It is also impossible for David to prove his innocence on the balance of probability. At every turn, it is more likely that David committed the crime based on a balance of probability, considering he hoisted himself by his own petard by stating that his father could not possibly have known the whereabouts of the spare trigger lock, because he (David) hadn’t told anyone of its existence. The only blood found on Robin’s pants was his own, and he had no obvious injuries, whereas whoever killed Stephen would have had such injuries, and David had several. Dear Mr Binnie, I would suggest that you stay in your country of origin and retire gracefully.

    If you were a betting person, who is more likely to have been in a fight with Stephen? A person who had injuries to his head and chest, or someone who had none?

    Who is more likely to have been in a fight with Stephen? A person who had traces of Stephen’s blood on him? Or a person who had none? And we aren’t talking about the exterior of his clothes either, we are talking about blood on the crotch of his underpants!!

    Further, if you were talking about probability, who is more likely to have known the whereabouts of the spare trigger lock key (and therefore to have used it): the father, who David, the accused, swore could not have known of its whereabouts, or David, who was the owner and of course knew of its whereabouts.

    The sock prints could have been made by either man, but David did have blood on his socks and Robin had none on his, therefore, again, who is more likely to have committed the crime? Once again, David.

    So, if we look at probability theory, the likelihood of Robin having committed the deeds is more and more remote, and the likelihood of David having committed the crimes becomes more and more certain.

    That is how probability works. Justice Binnie and the jury, I’m afraid, have probably got it wrong, and it isn’t just low probability, it is quite a high probability. I would suspect in excess of a 99.99% probability that David murdered his family.

    This is the summary that the prosecution should have used, even if the judge had ruled it as out of order. It would have clarified a few minds, I’m sure.

    So David, there are many and varied opinions, but most of the people who knew David before the murders took place believe it is him and only those who knew him in passing or met him subsequently seem to think that he was innocent.

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

    Also David, further to my comments:

    The probability of Robin having committed suicide was less than 3%, so on the balance of probability, Robin probably didn’t commit suicide. Source: University of Utah, school of medicine forensics. People committing suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple is 3.3%, and in comparison, more people shoot themselves in the back of the head, 3.8% I would suggest that most people who shoot themselves in the left temple were in fact left-handers and Robin was undoubtedly a right-hander. So, to Binnie, the clock-maker and all of David’s other supporters, I think that maybe, you are mistaken.

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html

    So, Justice Binnnie, you obviously haven’t researched that point very well and you don’t seem to understand probability theory much either.

    FIREARMS TUTORIAL
    library.med.utah.edu
    Page contains images and text for pathology education

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Why do we need a lawyer or a judge? The existing adversarial system is more about interpreting the law than getting to the truth. Evidence about Bain’s fantasy alibi if raped a female jogger was disallowed because it was prejudicial. We can argue about that but it was allowed in Binnie’s inquiry but his dismiss of it on David’s word seems dodgy.

    There would be no reason for David’s former school friend from school, Mark Buckley to make up what David told him because he told another person Gareth Taylor before the murder who then told his wife again before the murder.

    I think this is clear evidence that David told Buckley of his fantasy of raping a jogger and using his paper route as an alibi. If Buckley is telling the truth this would be damning evidence against David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. James Stephenson (2,266 comments) says:

    The chances of Collins bringing in another external expert who might reach a decision she doesn’t like and make her look like a fool in the bargain are pretty damn close to zero.

    Which is taken the politically prejudiced view that it’s the decision she doesn’t like, rather than the sub-standard reasoning used to reach that decision…

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

    I agree with GJKiwi. But I’d go a little further. If the only way Bain can prove his innocence is by referring to an error-prone report, then that does his claim no good at all. If all the errors in Binnie’s report were corrected, would he still conclude that Bain was innocent? Maybe, because he seems like a stubborn old bugger. But could a reasonable person conclude that Bain is innocent? More important, is the Justice Minister convinced that he is innocent? I don’t see how she can reasonably reach that conclusion.

    I also don’t believe another expert opinion is necessary…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    I have 2 words to sum up the degree of respect in which I hold NZ Police, Crown Law and Solicitor General.

    Peter Ellis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    I had mentioned in General Debate –
    Collins –
… He [Binnie] did not have authority to conclude whether there were extraordinary circumstances or to make a recommendation on whether compensation should be paid …
    Fairfax video – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8078128/David-Bains-claim-in-limbo

    I understand Bain himself must establish that there are extraordinary circumstances to allow compensation to be paid.
    If that is correct, when and to whom does Bain do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (10,417 comments) says:

    This guy Binnie appears totally incompetent.

    Didn’t anyone do any checking before he was hired?

    Jesus H Christ- who hired this idiot??

    Whoever did the hiring, if they’re still around, should be fired for such an obvious and massive blunder.

    I wouldn’t hire this guy Binne to review the minutes of a local boy scout meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nick R (522 comments) says:

    I think the Government may have real difficulty finding another senior lawyer who would be willing to advise on this matter now. Even at $400k a pop.

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

    Listening to geofrey Palmer the arguement is “what should he get for the 13 years he spent in jail as a result of a bunged up trial”

    The privy council said that the trial that sent him to prison was a travesty of justice – and the arguement is not about guilt or innocence – iots about a shonky trial putting someone in clink.

    I know the talk is about guilt – and even someone as smart as DPF has falen for that line – but thats not the issue.

    And its why Collins is also on the wrong track – its not about guilt. Its about a crappy process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    You people obviously never read the report.

    What a pack of incompetent clowns. GJKiwi’s laughable understanding of how probability works is particularly risible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    I don’t think Judith Collins would care very much either way what the concluson of the report was, as long as she, a trained lawyer herself (and how snide that nasty man Binnie was about that!) , could justify it to the cabinet.

    Perhaps she could set up a panel of three distinguished persons, including a QC or retired judge, to examine all the reports and make a recommendation whether to pay compensation and if so how much.

    She could then wash her hands of the whole mess. As for the Ninnie Binnie – on the radio he kept referring to Collins as ‘she’ never by her name, office or status. My mother would have said she is the cat’s mother. I say it was revealingly rude of an arrogant old man.

    For the record, I think Bain is as guilty as sin and it revolts me to see him grinning in media photos while his family, especially his young sisters and brother, rot in their graves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “And its why Collins is also on the wrong track – its not about guilt. Its about a crappy process.”

    Judith is right. It is about guilt or innocence. The is what the legislation says.

    You do not compensate a criminal because the process was crappy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    So you like Boy Scouts do you baitey old thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Perhaps she could set up a panel of three distinguished persons”

    How do you define a distinguished person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    I wonder how this would have played out if Bain had been a bow hunter. It would certainly have made the suicide argument more interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    How do you define a distinguished person?

    Grey hair with most of it growing out of the ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    I can think of many NZ people held in great esteem by the public – who would then respect their conclusions.

    I wouldn’t give him a cent – he got several trials, all conducted properly, and has had endless re-examinations of the case. And 13 years isn’t bad considering the years robbed from his sisters and brother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. James Stephenson (2,266 comments) says:

    Jesus H Christ- who hired this idiot??

    Simon “FIGJAM” Power

    Whoever did the hiring, if they’re still around, should be fired for such an obvious and massive blunder.

    I hope you’re not a Westpac customer…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “I can think of many NZ people held in great esteem by the public – who would then respect their conclusions.”

    Name some please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. St Hubbins (26 comments) says:

    Imagine how pissed off Joe Karam would be if David Bain, on his deathbed, admitted “yes, I’m sorry – I did it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    @St Hubbins: really? Surely he’s made the fame and fortune from it that he wanted, irrespective of the truth?

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

    No further reviews or such are needed.

    Simply deny him any compensation at all and let him fade away.

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

    then maybe he will lose it again and take out his new father figure … Now that would be Karma.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    You do not compensate a criminal because the process was crappy.

    Maybe, but first you need a conviction. Bain is not convicted. It may be a travesty, but he got away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. OneTrack (3,362 comments) says:

    Kea is right. Innocent until proven guilty. Bain hasn’t been proven guilty so he is innocent. Job done. Remind me, why do we need all these expensive lawyers and reports for Africa. We must be a rich country since we can afford to throw public money around like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. peterwn (3,333 comments) says:

    There are three bits af applicable common law:
    1. If a person is found ‘not guilty’ of (say) stealing from the till as an employee, it does not preclude the employer firing the employee for taking the money on the ‘balance of probabilities’. Similarly the victim of an assault, rape, etc can still successfully sue the accused for damages despite any ‘not guilty’ verdict. A judge ruled that an insurance company should pay out on an apparent arson as the claim of arson was so serious that it required a higher standard of proff than ‘balance of probabilities’. Insurance company appealed and court ruled that ‘balance of probabilities’ was the appropriate test – payout denied.
    2. Traditionally the State (in England NZ etc) could not be sued regarding acts or omissions of government agencies or courts. It has been possible to seek damages for’unlawful detention’ for many years, but detention does not become ‘unlawful’ because of a subsequent acquittal.
    3. Following the passage of the Bill of Rights Act in 1990, and the subsequent Baigents Case (damages for unlawful search where other remedies not available eg evidence ruled inadmissible), the door has opened a chink.

    I think Sir Douglas Graham recognised this in the 1990’s and proposed a policy on compensation following acquittals to help stop such cases getting a foot in the door in the courts. He originally proposed ‘innocent beyond reasonable doubt’ but this got watered down to ‘innocent on balance of probabilities’. This at least provided a principled and structured way for deciding if compensation should be payable rather than Cabinet considering this case by case. In this regard Cabinet has a free hand answerable only to the electorate and could choose to ignore its policy guidelines completely. This is the area that would be troubling Judith Collins mostly.

    If David Bain does not get compensation he and Joe will probably try to through the courts with Crown Law fighting tooth and nail. Depending on potential political damage, the Government may yield during the process, although if they are wise they will wait until a certain tough old hen is out of the picture. So a short answer to DPF’s question could be the ‘law’ is not settled on this one and will not be unless someone like David Bain tries to run it through the courts.

    Coming back to the first point David was ‘disinherited’ following original conviction and since acquittal has sought to be ‘re-inherited’ – I do not know where things ar at here but last heard the relatives who inherited were seeking legal opinions. the old bogey of ‘balance of probabilities’ or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ wouls arise with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Although it is not the law, the law should be that anyone found to have suffered a miscarriage of justice and either not retried or found not guilty on retrial should get compensation. There should not be an onus upon the individual to prove innocence. That is unless we are afraid that so many miscarriages of justice occur that we could not possibly afford it.

    The fact is you can never know one way or another whether someone is truly guilty or truly innocent. Whether Binnie report is a masterpiece or whether it is flawed does not prove one way or the other whether he is innocent. Ultimately it is merely one person’s opinion vs another. The assumption should be innocent until proven guilty and anyone wrongly imprisoned via a miscarriage of justice should be compensated if their imprisonment cannot subsequently be justified by a retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    GJKiwi,

    The probability of Robin having committed suicide was less than 3%, so on the balance of probability, Robin probably didn’t commit suicide. Source: University of Utah, school of medicine forensics. People committing suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple is 3.3%…

    That appears a fallacy. On what basis do you equate “the probability of Robin having committed suicide” with the probability of “People committing suicide…”.

    That’s like saying 50% of criminals are Maori therefore any Maori charged with a crime is 50% likely to have done it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. onsos (3 comments) says:

    If Fisher’s critique is damning, it can only be on the basis that his criticisms are valid. A critique is not damning if it is not valid. Otherwise he is simply howling in the darkness, like most of the rest of the commentators. If you can’t assess whether his criticisms are valid, you can’t assess whether his critique is damning or not.

    David is announcing his ignorance when he writes the following: “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.” The second sentence invalidates the first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    DPF,

    There is no dispute that Binnie got his brief wrong. He has admitted this.

    I understand his brief was given verbally by Simon Power. Surely he can be forgiven. Binnie says Judith advised him he wasn’t to make a recommendation and so he amended his report. It doesn’t change the merits of his analysis and so it is telling that some people are making so much of this trivial and inconsequential point. Whether or not he made a recommendation did not bind the government and this appears like just another smear against a man whom the government hired and is now trashing for political purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    DPF,

    I think it is clear a second report is needed.

    Well that was clear before his report was even peer reviewed… such is the need to shop around for the opinion you want. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. iMP (2,456 comments) says:

    My two bob worth, cutting to the chase…

    Collins has no obligation to give the Justice Binnie report to the ‘Bain camp,’ and can accept a judicial peer review if she likes.  This is not giving it to Bain’s ‘enemies.’  This is a political decision and would be ex gratia. Let’s get this right:

    ex gratia |eks ˈgrā sh ēə|adverb & adjective (esp. with reference to the paying of money) done from a sense of moral obligation rather than because of any legal requirement : [as adj. ] anex gratia payment.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/reed-karam-the-trial-is-over/

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

    Fisher was appointed to offer an impartial opinion. Whatever the merits of that process, Collins has compromised the perception of impartiality of that opinion. Before releasing the Fisher opinion, she gave an opinion of the Binnie report which presumed an expertise she did not have. She has produced an environment where the following claim has a strong degree of credibility: “Fisher was appointed by Collins because she had strong reason to think he would produce an opinion consonant with hers.”

    This perception is quite damaging. If she had not spoken, had not given her opinion, things would look much more impartial. Whatever the merits of Binnie and Fisher’s positions, and the process of peer review, Collins has produced an environment where it looks like she could be meddling with the process for her own reasons.

    This is an uncharacteristic misstep by a usually effective cabinet minister.

    I say this from a position of not having an opinion on the relative merits of the two reports. I can’t tell you which one is more robust.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Weihana

    The brief was written.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “I understand his brief was given verbally by Simon Power.”

    If that is true then Power was incompetent. Where did you hear this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    St Hubbins

    Nice ending – a bit like Resevoir Dogs. Maybe Quentin Tarantino should the movie instead of The Hobbit hobbit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. catwoman (98 comments) says:

    Did David Bain tell the truth to Justice Binnie. The transcript quotes him as saying he would not harm an animal, much less his family. So what did he use his much talked about gun for – cutting his toenails??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (10,417 comments) says:

    If that is true then Power was incompetent.

    Yes he was, not only in this but in so many other things.

    An excellent example of the legendary clueless bungling politician, it was so good to see this small town tin pot ambulance chaser resign.

    Should never have been there in the first place. As this clusterfuck demonstrates so well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘GJKiwi (88) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    Also David, further to my comments:

    The probability of Robin having committed suicide was less than 3%, so on the balance of probability, Robin probably didn’t commit suicide. Source: University of Utah, school of medicine forensics. People committing suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple is 3.3%, and in comparison, more people shoot themselves in the back of the head, 3.8% I would suggest that most people who shoot themselves in the left temple were in fact left-handers and Robin was undoubtedly a right-hander. So, to Binnie, the clock-maker and all of David’s other supporters, I think that maybe, you are mistaken.’

    Sorry to burst you comfortable bubble but try 97% likely suicide. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2008, by Vincent J. Di Maio, in conjunction with Kimberly Molina, Di Maio is considered to be the leading international authority on gunshot wounds.

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

    Fisher didn’t conduct an impartial review of Binnie’s report – he was handed a hatchet by Collins and did a hatchet job on it. As instructed.

    For Collins to even SUGGEST that Fisher “could” be commissioned to do the new report, is laughable. How could anyone trust Fisher to be neutral?

    We don’t need another report. Binnie’s should have been submitted to Cabinet, wants. Compensation then to be granted or denied.

    Then move on, and put this sorry indictment on the NZ banana republic legal system to bed once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. flipper (4,331 comments) says:

    It would be fun, DPF, to engage an Australian Judge… perhaps like Williams who chaired the Thomas RC.

    He (supported by Gordon and Johnston) told Muldoon to deal with the whining NZ legal fraternity, period, or he was off, back to Aus.
    RDM dealt to them, telling them to “bugger off”.

    So, please, bring on an Aussie and get him to also require the flat earth societry to appear befiore him. That would make leonardo da’s day.

    Oh. Anorher thought. This was sent to me by a Wellingtonian:

    A Tui Billboard – “The superb performance of Parata and Collins is a strong argument for equal pay and gender balance. –

    Yeah Right :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Fisher:

    ‘First, a person appointed to conduct an inquiry of this kind is asked
    to conduct his or her own inquiry, not to borrow from the view formed by others.’

    Bonkers and this from the man who recently said that extraordinary circumstances could be police or prosecution malpractice. In his inquiry he even ignored all the evidence – clever man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Nostalgia: 97% likely to have shot himself in the left temple when he’s right handed? Hmm

    Weihana: your preconceived bias is showing. I really don’t think that those convicted with that conviction later overturned should automatically get compensation. There is a lot of ground between “this case is no longer proven” and “this person is innocent.” This is a political question, and I don’t think the average NZer is OK with taxing the person stocking shelves in a supermarket to pay compensation to somebody that is reasonably likely to be guilty, had been convicted, and then overturned on a technicality. That’s why this is treated as an ex gratia.

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

    David Bain told Binnie he was against having the house burnt down. In fact he agreed with it being burnt down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    PaulL Long arm rifle, contact wound, upward trajectory – right handed even in a conventional right hand shoulder shot uses the right hand to support the weight of the rifle, as would a left hand temple shot. But read up on it yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,075) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Weihana

    The brief was written.

    My mistake. Quite right, I just checked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Why this Minister and Fisher are confused about the extraordinary circumstances:

    but the Minister (Power) notes that “the test of extraordinary circumstances is inherently open-ended”6.

    So if Power didn’t place restrictions, in fact said it was open-ended – how can Collins and the person paid to support her, say otherwise. Fisher is wrong, and has written to a contrary opinion of his current decision, earlier, as to what extraordinary circumstances might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    It seems we have in this case high expectations of all parties involved and noone is able to live up to all of those expectations.
    Binnie seems to have misjudged the type of critique his report was likely to recieve.
    Which is a little ironic in that one of the things he is critiqued for is his expectations of official behaviour in the case and the inferences he made from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    PaulL,

    Weihana: your preconceived bias is showing.

    Really? I think I’m probably one of the few kiwis who has never really taken an interest in David Bain.

    There is a lot of ground between “this case is no longer proven” and “this person is innocent.”

    I agree, but I believe the burden should always rest with the Crown and if they have imprisoned a man on the basis of a miscarriage of justice then compensation should be automatic in my view unless they are able to obtain a proper verdict following a retrial.

    This is a political question, and I don’t think the average NZer is OK with taxing the person stocking shelves in a supermarket to pay compensation to somebody that is reasonably likely to be guilty, had been convicted, and then overturned on a technicality. That’s why this is treated as an ex gratia.

    People are free to disagree of course. But in my view “reasonably guilty” or “probably guilty” or any variation thereof that falls short of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” does not justify imprisonment and therefore in my view the burden should be on the state to have to either justify that imprisonment in retrospect via a new trial or to pay compensation. Otherwise, in effect, a man has been locked up without the state meeting its inherent burden.

    Personally I consider it a matter of principle that protects the shelf stacker at Countdown as much as it protects anyone else. Anyone could be on the receiving end of the state’s incompetence and a miscarriage of justice and it is surely a small price to pay to ensure the state lives up to proper standards. If the price is too high then that is only more reason to be worried that miscarriages of justice are so common.

    We certainly shouldn’t judge the matter based on our personal opinions about one case. By that reasoning why do we have courts at all? If our argument is going to be premised on “Bain is guilty so he shouldn’t receive compensation” then why not a step further “Bain is guilty, therefore lets lynch him”. If people are presumed innocent then I fail to see why that principle does not extend to claims of compensation after wrongful imprisonment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Weihana – I meant your bias against Collins. But I understand what you’re saying, and it makes some sense. But ultimately I think we’ll have a problem if we’re paying substantial amounts of money to people that most NZers think are guilty. I understand the lynch mob mentality that implies, but the reality is the current law doesn’t provide for this. Changing the current law involves convincing most NZers that it’s a good idea. I don’t see it, particularly with cases like Bain as a poster child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    PaulL (4,967) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Weihana – I meant your bias against Collins.

    Ahh. Ok I won’t deny it. :)

    And I agree the rules won’t change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Weihana if you haven’t already, read the Binnie report. It’s extremely clever, particularly in the way it neutralises ‘controversial’ assertions either not proven, or considered to be significant, by either side, to the flow of facts and their possible meanings. It’s wounded some of my arguments but I think it is a master piece toward logical reconciliation of the case Queen v Bain.

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

    There’s a few comments I’ll make on Binnie’s interview with Bain. Here’s this one for starters. The extract is taken from Binnie’s report.

    Q. And then he comes up with his three possibilities that we’ve already discussed. Now on Wednesday there is this session at the Clark home in the early hours of the morning and it is said at that time that you said you hated your father and this is Val Boyd giving evidence this time. “He talked about the family situation so while he talked about his father, he talked about that he hated his father. He said he was sneaky, he used to listen in to conversations that had nothing to do with him.” Did you have that conversation with Val Boyd?
    A. I do believe so. I do believe so.
    Q. Right. And this is somewhat at odds with the picture of a healthy relationship that you described this morning.
    A. Mmm. Well it, it, this is, to me, this is only natural considering what it was I was trying to accept had happened to my family. I put myself in the situation where I was you know, here I was that there’s a father that I respected and spent a lot of time with and you know, as I described earlier on , and then trying to accept that he’s just killed my entire family. What’s your reaction going to be? Naturally your emotions change and…
    Q. Emotions change but the, the idea that he was sneaky and used to listen into conversations and so on –
    A. Well, yeah but that’s –
    Q. – that relates back to an earlier period?
    A. Yeah, it does and that, that’s, yes it’s a factual aspect of who he was and it’s just one of those things that, okay, you don’t talk about all the, all the bad things that happen in your own particular family. I’d not wanted to talk about any of that to – you know, in this entire investigation. It’s been forced on me.

    Despite Binnie putting words into Bain’s mouth, seemingly to try to assist him (WTF?), Bain doesn’t adequately explain what the truth is. Did he hate his father? He apparently told Val Boyd that he did. But he initially tells Binnie the opposite. However, at the end of the above exchange, he seems to accept that, yes, he didn’t have a great relationship with his father. He says “It’s been forced on me”. Hmmm is he complaining that he’s had to tell the truth? That still doesn’t explain why he’s lied to Binnie (nor why he lied to the International Justice Conference earlier this year when he said his relationship with Robin was hunky dory). If I had been in Binnie’s shoes, the alarm bells would’ve been ringing loudly.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ

    I have to admit there are things in that report that I have found absolutely shocking. To find that Michael Bain tried lying to the court, until a portion of his own diary was read out to him, is unbelievable. It can be found on page 58 of Binnie’s report and is from the retrial transcripts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Get a life ross.

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

    Here’s another interesting exchange:

    Q. When you discovered your mother in the position she was, did you touch her?
    A. No, not to my knowledge.
    Q. Did you – why didn’t you, at that point, call emergency?
    A. I’m sorry I can’t give you any rational answers from this point on.
    Q. This is the break point in the memory.
    A. Yes, Sir.
    ….

    Q. So the sequence, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that you come in the house, you go into your room, take off the shoes and the bag, you go downstairs, go into the laundry, come back upstairs, go into your mother’s room –
    A. No, my room.
    Q. Yes, I ‘m sorry. First, your room, then your mother’s room, then Stephen’s room , then across the hall to Laniet where Laniet was sleeping, then downstairs to Arawa’s room –
    A. Yes .
    Q . – and then back upstairs to the lounge where you found your father?
    A. Yes.
    ….

    Q. So what, what you’re telling me is that you remember the sequence?
    A. I remember the sequence, absolutely.

    So, David has a mental block for quite some time after he finds his mother’s body which he states more than once to Binnie. David doesn’t know what he does after finding her body. But later on in the exchange he says he remembers the sequence of events AFTER he’s found his mother’s body. How can he be so sure, given that he says he blacked out and cannot account for 20-25 minutes and why the inconsistency?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I’ve been re-reading the final draft and haven’t seen that Kanz? A different pg number, or a deletion perhaps?

    If Ms Collins was concerned about such information being included in the report you’d have to wonder why she released the preliminary drafts of which some material was objected to, maybe she was having a bad day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Enjoy driving yourself nuts ross, no charge for that.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ, try the bottom of page 51, I am having trouble negotiating it. It is certainly still there.

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

    Binnie recounts a conversation that Bain had with his aunt days after the murders when Bain seemed unsure if he might have committed the murders. Binnie reminds Bain what he told his aunt: “If it was my father I could never forgive him, and if it was me – “. Bain then responds to Binnie:

    “Yeah but then of course at the time, that had been also been (sic) put to me to try and explain why there was a missing twenty minutes”.

    The problem with that answer is that nothing has changed between then and now. Bain still cannot explain what he did for a significant period of time. But he is absolutely adamant that he didn’t kill his family! He tells Binnie several times he didn’t kill his family, but at the same time can’t account for a period of 20-25 minutes. So why, in the days after the murders, did he seem to think he might have been the killer? Binnie does a lousy job following up on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Found it Kanz.
    Something that has been obvious for a very long time sadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Read on ross, you’ll be less confused.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,759) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Found it Kanz.
    Something that has been obvious for a very long time sadly.

    It has been a suspicion. But to see him firstly deny it to the court (what would be said about David doing that?) then only admit it when shown the proof in his own hand, is disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    If David Bain does not get compensation he and Joe will probably try to through the courts with Crown Law fighting tooth and nail. Depending on potential political damage, the Government may yield during the process, although if they are wise they will wait until a certain tough old hen is out of the picture.

    Peter, sage words. She can’t yield now. She’s been a bit stupid IMO in closing the door to yielding since her “body language” has been doing that since day one and you don’t do that and keep doing it by accident. It’s always wise to keep one’s options open. After all Bain transitioned from exclusively legal to a combination of political-legal many years ago, only an idiot fails to get that and if you’re working in politics and one fails to get that then crikey. And my reading of this since day one is her position which is shared by many others is against the politics.

    Ever since the doco of his first trial aired a few months after his conviction in which his counsel was shown to be weak and his witness, Laniet’s boyfriend wasn’t allowed to testify that Robin abused her, despite the reason for his non-appearance on the scheduled day was out of Bain’s control, the politics has been against “the system” in my reading. Since then I’ve watched “the system” conduct itself in its usual obdurate way with respect to matters such as these and the political opposition against the conviction kept growing as each move unfolded. IMO the tipping point where supporting “the system” became more unpopular than popular came sometime between the PC and the second trial. Sometime in that interval over 50% of us started thinking, this is a bit unfair. And this proportion has kept growing, with move after move.

    Why Collins can’t see this, I don’t know. Cut the losses and close it down quickly, was the only sensible thing to do years ago. It just keeps getting worse. How come she the other politicians and pundits on her side who think this is a terrific idea, don’t get that.

    And for those who think the question of “did he actually do it” is relevant, it’s not. It never has been. barry @ 1:55 nails it. This is why I used “the system” rather than “the Crown.” Because this is about and always has been about systemic process and its efficacy thereof in this particular case. Whether he did it or not is not germane to that question.

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

    OMG,

    Here’s another interesting exchange:

    Q. When you discovered your mother in the position she was, did you touch her?
    A. No, not to my knowledge.
    Q. Did you – why didn’t you, at that point, call emergency?
    A. I’m sorry I can’t give you any rational answers from this point on.
    Q. This is the break point in the memory.
    A. Yes, Sir.
    ….

    Q. So the sequence, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that you come in the house, you go into your room, take off the shoes and the bag, you go downstairs, go into the laundry, come back upstairs, go into your mother’s room –
    A. No, my room.
    Q. Yes, I ‘m sorry. First, your room, then your mother’s room, then Stephen’s room , then across the hall to Laniet where Laniet was sleeping, then downstairs to Arawa’s room –
    A. Yes .
    Q . – and then back upstairs to the lounge where you found your father?
    A. Yes.
    ….

    Q. So what, what you’re telling me is that you remember the sequence?
    A. I remember the sequence, absolutely.

    So, David has a mental block for quite some time after he finds his mother’s body which he states more than once to Binnie. David doesn’t know what he does after finding her body. But later on in the exchange he says he remembers the sequence of events AFTER he’s found his mother’s body. How can he be so sure, given that he says he blacked out and cannot account for 20-25 minutes and why the inconsistency?

    Yeah right, TUI …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    This is a post from the other day that explains why it’s not germane.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/binnie_responds.html#comment-1060612

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

    Then of course back to his original statement to police, about only seeing his mum and dad dead …

    Now its going to laniet and Arawas room before sensing his dad dead …..

    yeah right …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Oh look, some moron has found some startling new information. Hold the sailing to Disneyland.

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

    > If David Bain does not get compensation he and Joe will probably try to through the courts

    Great, will David testify? Presumably he’d be happy to do so given that, you know, he’s innocent and all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    He’s already testified rossy, you’ll get the point some time.

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

    > He’s already testified

    Did he hate his father or not? He seems rather confused by that question. He told Binnie he didn’t hate his father but later on in the interview recanted. Christ, if he can’t get his story straight after 18 years, what hope is there for him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    In terms of comprehension much more hope than you ross.

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

    “Sorry to burst you comfortable bubble but try 97% likely suicide. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2008, by Vincent J. Di Maio, in conjunction with Kimberly Molina, Di Maio is considered to be the leading international authority on gunshot wounds.”

    He may be an expert, but does that make you an expert? How do you determine that it was 97% likely suicide, when in fact it took 2 days for the so-called expert to demonstrate how Robin might have killed himself by holding the weapon against his left temple, when in fact most people would have shot themselves elsewhere, e.g. under the chin, in the back of the head is more likely. Robin, being a right hander is far more likely to have shot himself elsewhere. And has Vincent J. Di Maio considered this case? I somehow doubt that. Also, are you aware that Mr Joe Karam requested a report from the Victorian police about whether this was likely, and found, much to his dismay that it was quite unlikely that this was a case of suicide.
    A member of the prosecution team discovered this by chance, but was unable to present it as evidence in the case, as it came from the “poisoned chalice.” Meaning that of course it was discovered by the defence that detrimental to their case. So, this documented evidence, unable to be presented at the retrial would have been extremely damning to the defence case. I think therefore, your supposition that it was 97% likely that Robin committed suicide is complete and utter twaddle. You, as with Mr Karam, are of course entitled to your opinion.

    Weihana: “That’s like saying 50% of criminals are Maori therefore any Maori charged with a crime is 50% likely to have done it.” Really? How so? As right handers are most likely to use their right hand to pull or otherwise activate the trigger, they are therefore most likely to hold the barrel against their head with their left hand, hence it being most likely that Robin, if he wanted to commit suicide, would have thus done so, or held it otherwise. Try holding something with your right hand against your head, then attempting to activate it with your left, and remember, this was a rifle with an extension on it, meaning that it was longer than normal, which is hence why it was so difficult for the witness employed by the defence to demonstrate this. Much simpler, and elegant for Robin as a right-hander to have held the muzzle against his head with his left and activated it with his right. In any case he would have almost certainly left his finger prints in the very fresh blood on the stock and the silencer of the rifle. The suicide theory is therefore highly implausible. Leading to the next point that of course someone else’s fingerprints were found on the stock of the rifle, a certain Mr David Bain. I discussed this matter with a police officer who offered the following opinion. If the finger prints were made some months earlier, the blood of the imprint would have faded and flaked thus not leaving a clear impression. Likewise, if the impressions had been made in gun oil, they would have very quickly faded. Thus it is only plausible that the imprints were made in fresh blood, which was quite likely, as there was some blood on the rifle, which was Stephen’s, hence that it was highly probable that they were made during the murders. Did David then move the rifle, something he claims in his statements that he never did? If so, then David has perjured himself, which is not a good look. The really damning thing is that David kept and keeps changing his evidence in light of whatever he thinks is the right thing to say at the time, as noted above, when he stated to Binnie that he never agreed to burning down the house, when in fact he did. Again, not a good look, but lots of people seem to conveniently ignore this about his behaviour.

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

    To be fair, Binnie does realise that Bain’s answers re his father are inconsistent:

    Q . But the question a t the moment i s the consistency between these pictures.
    A. Yes.
    Q.You’re presenting o f you r father a t d ifferent stages o f this narrative and
    how they –
    A. Okay.
    Q. – can be integrated .
    A. Consistency, well , I – I ‘ m not perfect in my retelling . That’s obvious. And this is one of those situations where they were asking me questions about you know the relations in my family. I was doing my best to tell them, and it – you know, the most amount of information that would be helpful possible. Here’s a private conversation that has been taken, you know, from what I considered to be a private, you know, situation and a confidence type of situation and now related it against me. I – that – telling my aunty what my father, father’s behaviour was like, there’s nothing wrong with that in my view. My mother was nutty. I accept that now looking back in hindsight. There were relationship issues between the two of them . I accept that now looking back in hindsight. My father was reacting to this breakdown in his relationship with his wife of 30-plus years, 25-plus years if she is, and how he behaved wasn’t all explainable. I was a 22 year old kid trying to get on with my own life , doing my best out there in tte world and just, and having a ball and having a lot of fun . I’m not a counsellor so trying to explain – or a psychologist who can do assessments on people. These are just some of the things that I observed . Okay they might be slightly
    incongruous because here I was showing up this picture of a wonderful , up – you know, upstanding man as my father. Well isn’t that exactly what you would try and portray to the world? That you come from a perfect environment? And then in a private situation where I’ve ridden by grief and , you know, anger and all these other emotions and something comes out that is negative, the two aren’t mutually – aren’t exclusive. You know, they don’t – they can’t – the two can’t still be in , you know, equally true.

    So David essentially admits to lying to Binnie (who doesn’t seem to care), rambles on and on to try to bamboozle the old geezer, and then claims that at 22 he was a kid! You’ll notice he actually lies again when he says “Well isn’t that exactly what you would try and portray to the world? That you come from a perfect environment?” Ah no, David, because we all know you didn’t come from a perfect environment. So why, after 18 years, are you still trying to bullshit everyone that you were one big happy family?

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

    Nostalgia: you are quite correct, and he damned himself in his first trial. This evidence was strangely not presented in evidence at the retrial, despite it being made under oath.

    Oh, and David claims he would never harm an animal. Not what I have heard, and not what he has stated at an earlier time. He used to shoot rabbits and possums, sometimes from Robin’s caravan, which probably explains the ammunition there. Also, according to a person who knew him in PNG, he once went AWOL and came back all covered in blood after hunting cats. Interesting that he has conveniently either forgotten that, or perhaps is blatantly telling a lie. Nostalgia, I take people at face value all the time, until they discredit themselves. David has done so on numerous occasions, so the this increases the probability of him lying about the murders as well. You may conveniently wish to ignore all of this damning evidence, but I for one will not let it lie.

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

    The above exchanges illustrate perfectly why Michael Reed QC and Joe Karam didn’t want Bain to take the stand in his own defence. The guy can’t lie straight in bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Hi Ross, I have the report but not Binnie’s interview of David. Would you have the link please?

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

    I think the transcripts Ross brings up are actually quite valuable. The fact that Nostalgia keeps attacking everyone on a personal level is a bit ironic though given his history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one. Whilst I sit on the fence as to Bains guilt, if I was pushed, I’d side with the opinion of a layman with an enquiring mind and broad life experiences, over the mind of any member of the legal fraternity any day. Id doubt whether any Judge in NZ has read the entire evidence word for word, let alone have the investigative skills and the enquiring mind that Karam possesses

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. RF (1,490 comments) says:

    Dexter 10.22pm. Would I be unkind to suggest that the person called Judith and Nostalgia are brother and sister. Both are very anti common sense.

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

    Judith seems reasonable. One look at Nostalgias blog though…..

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

    Broad life experiances ? Ask him about POWERPLATE and see what happens …

    and no RF, Dexter is referring to Nostalgias previous life …. he may well of reformed, but judging by his hate blog, I would doubt it.

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

    Then there’s this exchange:

    Q. … first of all the gloves which were found in the bloodied condition in Stephen’s bedroom after the murders and as I understand it, you left them in your drawer and had not used them since this ball for which they had been purchased fairly recently, is that right?
    A. Yes. Been about two weeks prior.
    Q. And do you have any explanation at all as to how those gloves could possibly have wound up in Stephen’s room?
    A. No , I can only provide postulations.
    Q. Well, the postulation would have to be that if Robin was the murderer, then Robin got a hold of the gloves and took –
    A. Well that’s –
    Q. – them into Stephen’s room?
    A. – that’s assuming, yeah that’s assuming that the gloves were used in the murder.
    Q. Well they were covered in blood.
    A. And so was the carpet and so was, you know, Stephen’s t-shirt and so was, you know, a thousand pieces of evidence that were found in that room , his mattress. I mean all I ‘ m saying – I’m not saying that, that they weren’t produced, you know, that Robin didn’t come in and take the gloves from my drawer and use them but then in saying also that Stephen could quite possibly have, ‘cos he was well-known for coming in to, and borrowing stuff of mine just because he looked up to me as his big brother. He liked getting dressed up in the things that I had like the scuba gear, you know, so there’s two possibilities there . That’s all I’m saying, without ruling both out but as for, no, I have no other ideas that I can come up with.
    Q. So you’re not satisfied as a result of what you’ve heard in that they were actually established to have been part of the murder fight? Is that right?
    A. That’s correct.

    So David reckons Stephen might have taken the opera gloves and reckons they might not have even been used by the killer. Does he seriously think he’s going to get compo when he comes out with such nonsense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Can anyone recall the name of the dodgey copper who was involved in the Bain case.?.He was a detective who had been having sex with prostitutes instead of charging them. He knew Laniet Bain..He got into trouble over something at his house then after the trial he resigned from the police force..
    Some Dunedinites believe Laniet was about to spill the beans on this copper and others and that the police were involved with the killings.
    I know someone who went to school with the Bains..He said they were all weird..

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

    Joe is that you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    I just found the interview of David. When asked about telling Mark Buckley about his alibi idea years before the murder he claims he caught Buckley having sex with a goat and that is why Mark made up the story. It still does not make sense. Buckley retold David’s story about raping a jogger and using his paper run as a alibi long before the murders. If he wanted to tell nasty lies about David there are plenty of other he could have told. This alibi story seem far too much of a coincidence. What do other think?

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

    OMG

    Q. And do you have any explanation at all as to how those gloves could possibly have wound up in Stephen’s room?
    A. No , I can only provide postulations.
    Q. Well, the postulation would have to be that if Robin was the murderer, then Robin got a hold of the gloves and took –
    A. Well that’s –
    Q. – them into Stephen’s room?
    A. – that’s assuming, yeah that’s assuming that the gloves were used in the murder.
    Q. Well they were covered in blood.
    A. And so was the carpet and so was, you know, Stephen’s t-shirt and so was, you know, a thousand pieces of evidence that were found in that room , his mattress. I mean all I ‘ m saying – I’m not saying that, that they weren’t produced, you know, that Robin didn’t come in and take the gloves from my drawer and use them but then in saying also that Stephen could quite possibly have, ‘cos he was well-known for coming in to, and borrowing stuff of mine just because he looked up to me as his big brother. He liked getting dressed up in the things that I had like the scuba gear, you know, so there’s two possibilities there . That’s all I’m saying, without ruling both out but as for, no, I have no other ideas that I can come up with.

    what was wrong with Binnie ….

    gawd they should of videoed this sh*te

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    we should be aware that most peopel cant string together a completely coherent set of actions that they did reasonably recently let alone many years ago. this is mitigated by that this was a major event in his life.. but that also creates the possibility that he remembers discussing the events rather than directly remembering the events and thus eronious details might come in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Binnie asks David about the alibi

    A. Um, I’m sure there are yes . Um, Mark Buckley was, became a fairly
    good, well , a close friend of mine after I started in , at
    Bayfield High School in sixth form, 1 989.
    Q . 1 989, yes? And d i d you – were you close enough friends to exchange
    confidences?
    30
    Q. Ah , yes , I guess so, later – you know, after obviously a settling in period .
    Did this discussion that he related to the police ever take place?
    A. N o .
    What reason would he have for coming up with an untruthful anecdote?
    A. Because our friendship had ended . Ah , at the, pretty much the end of,
    or faded out and then ended towards the end of the , o u r seventh form
    yea r and we essentially, you know, I – just, it all ended on bad terms.
    Q. So it was more than drifting apart?
    5 A. It was actually – N o , n o , i t ended on bad terms.
    Q . And what was the – why was that?
    A. I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our p roperty and I had
    witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation . I ‘ m not, I
    wasn’t completely fooled but it was certainly, you know, looked stupid
    1 0 and obviously embarrassing for h i m. Ah, and as we know you have to
    do to take, get the blame away from yourself is point it at somebody
    else, “It was h i m, it was h i m . ” So what happened is and you can see,
    can see in this, in the yearbook for my last year at high school –
    Q . Yes?
    1 5 A. – he made comment –
    Q . Why don’t you just read the comment into the record?
    A. Well under my photo he says well there’s several different things there,
    all totally innocuous but, “Known by friend as Dirty Dave ,” which was the
    first time I’d ever heard that phrase used and then later on , “Most
    20 embarrassing moment – ask Mark Buckley,” and finally, “Most wanted
    thing on a desert island ,” is, “Goat,” so he was quite obviously trying to
    put, you know, shift the blame of the , that situation onto me when it was
    him who performed this, you know, silly act.
    Q . And when silly act you ‘ re talking of – act of a sexual nature with the
    25 goat?
    A. Yes . So that’s what ended our friendship and anything that he has to
    say, I mean, it’s totally untrue.

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

    “When asked about telling Mark Buckley about his alibi idea years before the murder he claims he caught Buckley having sex with a goat and that is why Mark made up the story. It still does not make sense.”

    Much of what David says doesn’t make sense.

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

    No wonder they didn’t want to put David Bain on the stand, why on earth would he state he doesn’t like hurting animals, does he not count killing them as hurting them.

    As for suggesting Steven might have taken the gloves how ridiculous.

    Karam and Reed must have been having heart failure listening to this crap and wondering how on earth this would convince Binnie, thank god for Judith Collins having common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    he didnt say sex, he said a sexual act.
    I take it he is then implying either rubbing up against it – or getting it to lick him… the latter, while it might sound like the better idea to the young fellow, would probably be painful…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    Perhaps Judith could take David out on the piss, ply him with truth serum, then pop the question and see what he says? Its all really that simple and underscores the fiasco and the absurd nonsense this matter is. Maybe even a lie dector test? Only David knows the truth. All else is just opinion and heresay.

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

    Nostalgia: further to your claim about di Maio

    http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

    I cite the section Suicide due to Long Arms

    “While the vast majority of individuals who shot themselves
    in the temple with a centerfire rifle shoot themselves in the right temple
    compared to the left (11 to 1), in the case of shotguns, the difference as to
    which temple is selected is significantly less (7 to 4).
    2
    For both rifles and
    shotguns, most right handed individuals who shot themselves in the right
    temple use the left hand to steady the barrel.”

    So, nothing specific, but his sample size is much smaller than that of the University of Utah Forensic section, but still supports my hypothesis. It was very unlikely that Robin shot himself based on the fact that only 1 in 11 people do so when using a rifle. And I would hypothesise that most of those would be left handers. Robin, of course, was a right-hander. But silly me for looking at actual information.

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

    Well, I personally think that Mark Buckley has an extremely good case for defamation of character, the Barbara Streisand effect notwithstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    I think what Judith should do is give David a job in her office doing filing or something, to help him out while he waits for the inevitable compo package that has finally fallen due during her watch and which she refuses, like King Canute, to acknowledge.

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

    Nostalgia: further on, he states about the percentage of suicides that aren’t contact wounds, as follows:

    “While most suicidal gunshot wounds are contact wounds, a small (1 to
    3%) but significant number are of intermediate range (Figure 14.1). Occasionally,
    one encounters a distant wound. The latter situation was illustrated
    by an individual brought to the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office
    with a self-inflicted intraoral gunshot wound. At autopsy, the bullet was seen
    to have entered the dorsal surface of the tongue, traveled straight backward
    into the vertebral column severing the cord. There was no soot, powder
    tattooing, or powder on the face, in the mouth, or on the posterior pharynx.
    Powder tattooing was present on the inner aspect of the wrists, however. The
    weapon was a 2 in. barrel .38 Special revolver. Testing of this weapon and
    the ammunition in it revealed that powder tattooing extended out to 12 to
    18 inches. The deceased held the weapon at arms length, opened her mouth
    and discharged the weapon, firing a bullet into her mouth. The range was too great for powder tattooing of the face. Powder escaping out the cylinder
    gap produced the tattooing of her wrists.”

    He goes on to say that:

    “In firearm deaths, the individual may attempt to make the suicide appear
    to be an accident. This generally takes two forms. The first of these is the
    “gun cleaning accident.” The individual is found dead of a gunshot wound
    with gun cleaning equipment neatly laid out beside them. The proof that
    one is dealing with a suicide and not an accident is usually the nature of the
    wound — contact. An individual does not place a gun against the head or
    chest and then pull the trigger in an attempt to clean the weapon. The author
    has never seen a death caused by a self-inflicted wound incurred while “cleaning”
    a weapon that he believed to truly be an accident.
    The second way an individual may attempt to make a suicide appear as
    an accident is the “hunting accident.” Here the individual goes hunting and
    is subsequently found dead of a gunshot wound. Again, the nature of the
    wound (contact) will indicate that one is dealing with a suicide.”

    The point here is that the chief indicator of suicide as opposed to an accident (or being shot by someone else at a distance) is the nature of the wound, that is, it is a contact wound.

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

    Reid: you think he deserves compensation then? On what grounds? He has done nothing to demonstrate that he deserves it and he most certainly does not fulfill the criteria laid down. Now he has begun to slander people in his own right. Charming boy. And he doesn’t understand than killing animals is harming them.

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

    And of course Nostalgia, you forget that the only pathologist to have seen the wounds first hand was the original examining pathologist, and his verdict? They were not self-inflicted. Therefore Robin obviously didn’t commit suicide. Other opinions don’t really count, even the person who had reputedly seen 20,000 such wounds. He didn’t see those ones first hand. And corroborated by someone from whom Mr Karam asked for an independent report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    On what grounds?

    On the grounds evidently there’s been a systemic failure. If there hasn’t been a systemic failure then what the hell has happened to explain this history?

    Therefore it’s not a question of whether or not he did it for this is not a test of the system’s efficacy in doing this, it’s a test of the system’s efficacy in applying all its principles and that’s all it is. And by all system principles Bain’s won in every arena, with great difficulty.

    Now how could he have done this if the case is made up of thin air that one of you genuises above could demolish in two seconds while sipping your martini? Do any of you seriously think that this has arisen because of some trivial oversight(s)? Does it occur to any of those who persist for some reason in picking apart that which has been gone over a thousand times already by real experts, that maybe just maybe all this may have arisen because there may be something in it?

    And since the PC thought so, that personally carries the case for me. Why all of you people think you’re wiser than any of those Law Lords who actually sat on the case, is beyond me. One subtlety of such minds is to never allow a guilty man to escape. The PC strikes down a CA Commonwealth judgement with great reluctance and never without the deepest of thought. That’s why they watered it down. To show respect.

    But the NZ system chose to bar its teeth and history has ensued.

    And what’s being gained? A Bain-favourable decision is inevitable. The politics have overtaken the legalities of this issue and they did a long long long time ago. If Key doesn’t realise that a Bain denial will eat away at him like sulphuric acid as he rolls into the 2004 election, he’s a complete political novice. I suspect he hasn’t realised that yet, but it will. The lefties are already making it their cause celebre. You watch them continue to milk it. This risks becoming a conservative-liberal schism. That would be a shame if that happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Keeping Stock (9,380 comments) says:

    Weihana said

    I understand his brief was given verbally by Simon Power.

    You understand wrong Weihana. Binnie’s own report refers to his letter of engagement from the New Zealand Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    GJKiwi you’ve added a lot of nonsense, none of which advances your argument.

    Binnie effectively deals with the ‘rape’ alibi belated Crown shore-up with obvious fact; that the intended victim was never located. Even somebody will an abiding hunger to enlighten the rest of us would admit that the intended ‘rape’ required that the event would require the particular woman to be following the same route, that’s the very essence of the fantasy – yet the police could neither find her, nor any one that ever saw him. So try whistling with that one.

    Keeping Stock

    If you’ve read that you would have to admit that what Collins and Fisher have said about him going beyond his brief are lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    GkKiwi If you going to lecture others on the facts try to make sure you’re at least partially right, read the report or read the evidence. Dempster in cross-examination seen that suicide was feasible and quite likely. Read the report and do yourself a favour, next you’ll be ending up like some of the nutters who want to go on and on about the glasses, overlooking the fact that in 2003 they were ruled by the COA to not be significant evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Crikey:

    Just read Chuck’s entry. Buckley apparently had some affection for goats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘GJKiwi (95) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    Nostalgia: you are quite correct, and he damned himself in his first trial. This evidence was strangely not presented in evidence at the retrial, despite it being made under oath.’

    Keep making a fool of yourself GJKiwi. The evidence was read at the second trial. Basic stuff which shows you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    We have had Turei, Chauvel making silly, fatuous comments about this and now Peter Dunne joins the fray with a tweet that shows a total lack of comprehension of what this is all about.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10854137

    Dear Peter

    The jury did not find him innocent!

    Will you compensate every acquitted defendant based on this principle? If so, whose money will you use?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Bogusnews (414 comments) says:

    Have to agree with Dexter that Ross has provided some very good information the Davids own comments. It certainly shows why they would not let him testify in the second trial. Pleasing to see Ross was big enough not to rise to the silly posturing by Nostalgia.

    GJKiwi – I think your points are very relevant also. I think too that the lack of fingerprints on the rifle from Robin is damning. I know that Joe will talk about how in many suicides fingerprints are not left behind on the weapon, but this was not a suicide. This was a MURDER – suicide, and there is a huge difference on how the gun is handled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Keeping Stock (9,380 comments) says:

    Quite so Nookin. I’ve just posted the following on Nick Kearney’s FB post about Peter Dunne’s extraordinary tweet:

    All the jury in the second Bain trial decided was that the case against Bain was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But even Peter Dunne should know that the law on compensation requires a higher standard of proof, and that the burden of proof is on the applicant. It’s not one of Peter’s finer hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. SGA (1,255 comments) says:

    @ Belinda 11:23 pm “No wonder they didn’t want to put David Bain on the stand, why on earth would he state he doesn’t like hurting animals, does he not count killing them as hurting them.”

    Do you think people go hunting because they like hurting animals? As odd as it sounds, there would be a quite a few hunters who would sincerely tell you that they don’t like “hurting” animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    It’s extremely clever, particularly in the way it neutralises ‘controversial’ assertions either not proven, or considered to be significant, by either side, to the flow of facts and their possible meanings. It’s wounded some of my arguments but I think it is a master piece toward logical reconciliation of the case Queen v Bain.

    Nostalgia, whether you think it is clever or not, it does not do what is required to do for these purposes which is to approach the matter on the basis that the onus is on Bain to prove his case and not on the Crown. One of the predominant impressions in reading Binnie is that he equates doubt around Crown evidence as comprising positive evidence in favour of Bain. Fisher emphatically rejects Binnie’s approach as being incorrect. Such an approach does not reflect Bain’s positive obligation to demonstrate his innocence on the balance of probabilities. You might feel that in the circumstances it is unfair on Bain but those are the rules. Binnies rear-guard action in his emotional email doesn’t alter what he wrote.

    As for being a masterpiece, it is not. Binnie was not even capable of interpreting unambiguous written instructions. Binnie cherry picks the way he deals with evidence (both for and against Bain) and the pejorative treatment by him of some witnesses’ evidence yet places reliance upon Bain detracts from his report and also underscores his complete lack of experience in dealing with witnesses at trial. An example that springs to mind is his dumping on the witness who commented regarding fingerprints being highlighted by luminescence. The response from the witness concerned was perfectly understandable and yet Binnie was openly critical. Similarly evidence regarding the footprints.

    The most that can be said for it is that it summarises competing arguments (not that that isn’t a useful endeavour). But as an exercise in doing what he was actually asked to do it is an abysmal failure. As a piece of advice it is negligent. As a basis for awarding compensation in accordance with the cabinet rules it is completely fucked.

    As much as anything, the quality of Binnie is measured by his public responses which are cringe-worthy. The emotive style of response was alarmingly unprofessional and hardly worthy of a former Supreme Court judge; irrespective that he was a political appointment direct to that Court. He could have made his points quite objectively and dispassionately, as would be expected, but instead had what was nothing more than a hissy fit – and even resorted to shouting in capitals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    davinci.

    You’re intent to attack Binnie because of how you think he should have acted or what his brief was. He did what Power asked and went no further, he accepted Cabinets role exclusively. I have no thoughts about the spate for the reason that Collin’s instigated it. I think she hoped he wouldn’t respond and she’d have all her own way. She was in some respects his employer on this. She should have worked with him. There is no bias, there is much that is unpalatable to the Applicant as what there is to the Crown, but significantly Binnie puts aside the rubbish in every step of his journey through the inquiry and the evidence. This morning I’ve been reading Weir’s testimony to him, something that further explains the way he inquired into his brief of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Overall it’s an excellent translation of the evidence, a bit difficult to accept the approach of putting some stuff aside that a person such as myself thought was critical – but, I can see the logic in it toward a resolution. I note that Crown defend the investigation but the investigators admit that such facets were a shambles, that a pyramid of control wasn’t in place, that inexperienced officers were giving jobs and left to it.

    In your lengthy post you haven’t demonstrated any failure of Binnie’s appreciation of the evidence, and this inquiry is about evidence or ‘factuality’ that would determine innocence on the balance of probabilities. It divorces the stupid arguments about the magazine being up right and deals with what’s known, it explains the ‘missing time.’ The list goes on. It only makes a recommendation, it doesn’t take on Cabinet’s responsibility but it distisl the competing arguments clearly and recommends on those – exactly what Ian Binnie should have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    Do you think there is anything in Binnie’s report that would change the mind of anyone who was already sure that David Bain was guilty?

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

    “Do you think there is anything in Binnie’s report that would change the mind of anyone who was already sure that David Bain was guilty?”

    Well, I thought he was guilty before reading Binnie’s interview with Bain but after reading a transcript of that interview, I am just as confident. Bain provided Binnie with inconsisent and misleading information – maybe a Bain supprter would like to explain why he would do that, seeing as he is meant to be innocent. Typically whenever a witness says something negative about Bain, he either says the witness is wrong or claims to have no memoery of doing what the witness alleges. Does he seriously believe that approach is going to be a winner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ

    Binnie effectively deals with the ‘rape’ alibi belated Crown shore-up with obvious fact; that the intended victim was never located. Even somebody will an abiding hunger to enlighten the rest of us would admit that the intended ‘rape’ required that the event would require the particular woman to be following the same route, that’s the very essence of the fantasy – yet the police could neither find her, nor any one that ever saw him. So try whistling with that one.

    When I am wrong I am happy to say so. I was a David Bain supporter. I bought and read Karam’s books and was impressed by Karam. I was pissed off that Clark dumped the PC and thought their finding would show that it was a mistake. When the trial was going on I debated this with a woman who was sure he was guilty. After the verdict and the suppressed evidence I certainly changed my mind.

    How is the crown expected to find a woman jogger years after the evident? The idea that David caught Buckley having sex with a goat is absurd. Binnie should have pursued this more instead of accepting David’s word. For arguments sake let us say David’s story is true. Would someone caught out having sex with a goat want upset the person who caught him?
    Buckley did not go around and tell everyone about David’s alibi story or plenty of people would come forward. However he did tell Gareth Taylor before the murder and Taylor told his wife as a warning to be careful because she was involved in a play with David.

    Nostalgia-NZ, I have a couple of questions for you. Firstly, what motive would Buckley have for telling Gareth Taylor about David’s fantasy alibi. Secondly, why do you not use your real full name?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ross69 Whatever Bain did or didn’t say didn’t put him in the house when the computer was turned on. Nor would it have removed Robin’s footsteps in blood from throughout the murder scene. Concentrate on something that matters. Binnie found him credible ross, he wrote the report – your job is to make something out of sour grapes and you’re not making any progress.

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

    > Buckley apparently had some affection for goats.

    Well, if you believe David, and it’s clear you hang on every word he says. Pity he’s a liar. Why would an innocent person need to lie to Binnie in order to get compo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Okay Chuck. I’ll try to answer that but first you would have to confirm that the information wasn’t given to the police years earlier. I think it was but at the moment I’m not sure. Images of attractive women joggers tend to remain for a long time, Dunedin is not a big place and I’m absolutely sure this person, if they existed, has been searched for extensively. However, The Court ruled on it as inadmissible for very good reasons. In that respect Binnie has been very clever, analysing it before dismissing the unproven allegation. Two other examples: he agreed that the retrial should have gone ahead, that I don’t is no secret. Then he comments that the Crown have to live with the consequences of that – obviously the not guilty verdict. Secondly the Crown conceded at the PC if it was found that Robin’s footprints were about the murder scene it would be fatal to their case, and so it has happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    It isn’t a question of how I think he should have acted or (if this is what you mean) what I think his brief was. His brief was that which is described in clear and unambiguous terms in Power’s letter. He did not do what he was asked to do. It is as simple as that. Putting aside that not insignificant shortcoming, his approach to dealing with the onus of proof, both in terms of burden and standard was emphatically rejected by Fisher as being incorrect. Fisher has set out, in considerable detail, the basis for the correct approach and explained, again in considerable detail, where and how Fisher went off the rails. As to the summation of the evidence, Fisher makes the point that Binnie has done a good job at that. It is the way he dealt with it that is at issue.

    If you contend that Fisher is wrong and that his interpretation of Power’s letter and the scope of the cabinet discretion and underlying rationale for it is wrong, then you should explain why that is rather than just getting cranky and making unsubstantiated and perjorative assumptions about Collins’ motives. It is self-evident that Binnie did not do what he was asked to do.

    As to my views on Binnie’s behaviour, I am entitled to those just as you are entitled to disagree. But I not only stand by what I said, I would even go further and suggest that his unprofessional responses caste significant doubt on whether he was ever capable of dealing with the Bain case in a dispassionate, objective and impartial manner. They represented an extraordinary and unprofessional hissy fit and I doubt that any lawyers commenting here would see it otherwise. There is a very good reason that quality lawyers don’t behave that way in public. It’s bad for business and reputation and is counter-productive to what they are trying to achieve. That is not to say that robust and forthright comment is never required, but really, you have to wonder just how pissed and dewey eyed Binnie was when he wrote those emails. Shouting in capitals – good grief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    whatever ross.

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

    > How is the crown expected to find a woman jogger years after the evident?

    Well, quite. There are plenty of crimes that are never solved. The killer or rapist is never found. By Nostalgia’s reasoning, the crimes never took place!

    The more important question is, why would Buckly and Taylor lie? Why would Ms Koch – who said that Arawa had told her that David was intimidating the family with a gun – lie?

    Once again, all the witnesses who say anything negative about David are all wrong. David is the only one who is telling the truth.

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

    > whatever ross.

    So you cannot explain why an innocent person would feel the need to lie? Me neither.

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

    > Nor would it have removed Robin’s footsteps in blood from throughout the murder scene.

    How much blood was on Robin’s socks? None. He was one clever guy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I think you need to read the brief davinci of terms of engagement.
    Even if Fisher was right, and Binnie’s 5 page reply answers to that better than I can; it was posted by Flipper yesterday – the Minister shouldn’t have been sharpening an attack on Binnie for 3 months without telling him. She is out of line. Fisher himself has earlier reported what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ might be – exactly what I see Binnie as having set out. The very kernel of those circumstances and how they were ‘factualised’ might be an issue for the Courts if necessary. Something the Minister might consider, because sure thing it needs to be sorted out, and I think it will be. In fact as I’ve written earlier every effort should have been taken to reconcile this privately, Binnie for his part did – taking advice from a Professor of Law from Auckland University. The same University where probably Collins and Power were trained. We all need to think about that advice being sought and given.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “The more important question is, why would Buckly and Taylor lie?”

    Ross. This is very important and should be pursued. I hope Mark Buckley hears David’s allegation that David caught him having sex with a goat and gets motivated to speak out more. Buckley should have been interview by that incompetent self promoting fool Binnie. I hope he is if there is a new report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Well, quite. There are plenty of crimes that are never solved. The killer or rapist is never found. By Nostalgia’s reasoning, the crimes never took place!’ Well ross, there was no crime here, no complaint, no complainant – you gave give it mouth to mouth for as long as you like but it still doesn’t exist.

    Which socks are you talking about ross. You are slipping off the edge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    More suppressed evidence that Binnie should have looked at.

    Intimidation quote withheld from Bain jury
    By Jared Savage
    4:00 AM Tuesday Jun 16, 2009

    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
  130. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    If there is another report would it not be better for it to be done by a researcher with an open mind than a lawyer whose job is to only argue things that support what he wants to convince a jury of? I think David Ferguson would be one of the best researcher’s in the country but I am sure there would be others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    It would have been on the file Chuck, there was an actual hearing.
    Binnie even researched the Counterspin site, where not only this stuff exists but also ‘confessions.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Could you please identify the particular paragraphs of Power’s terms of engagement that requested Binnie to do what he did.

    Is there some reason that Dr Fisher QC, former senior High Court Judge, part time Court of Appeal Judge, who is sufficiently recognised for his expertise in criminal law and the law of evidence to not only be invited to present papers to the Law Society on point, but has also recently been gushed over by two Law professors recently in this context, might be wrong? Please share.

    Can you explain how it is that Collins has been “sharpening an attack” on Binnie for 3 months when he has known that she wanted a peer review since September and the reasons for it. Can you also explain why it is that Collins ought not consider someone of Fishers professional standing as someone to review a report that bore no resemblance at all to what was requested? Are you aware that in the professional world, it is every client’s right to seek alternative advice when they recieve advice that appears, at even the most cursory glance, to be severely fucked? Can you explain why in such circumstances, a client is obligated to continue to deal with such an adviser?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “It would have been on the file Chuck, there was an actual hearing.
    Binnie even researched the Counterspin site, where not only this stuff exists but also ‘confessions.’”

    @Nostalgia

    Please use quotes or the time of my post. I am not sure what you are referring to.

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

    Another exchange from Binnie’s report:

    Q. On the 28th of June, Michael says that he attended to see you at the prison with some others . He says, “Another member of the family had posed the critical question. I took it on myself then used the words, ‘Did you do it?’ Meaning did you commit the offence that’s been alleged against you?” Question, “What was his reply, if any?” Answer, “He didn’t answer he did it. He did not say he didn’t either. The words that he used from memory were, ‘ I told my side of it to the police and I’ll stick to that.’ That’s what I remember vaguely that he said or words to that effect.” What do you remember of that conversation?
    A. I don’t remember that conversation .
    Q. Mhm. This is the Tuesday after the funeral. Had you, at that time, become somewhat suspicious of your uncles or was this before suspicion set in?
    A. It was before suspicion set in. I think the suspicion actually came, came about later on in the piece. You know I’m talking as in a few months.
    Q. It seems a very odd response that you were asked by a member of the fam ily by the brother of the deceased , Robin, “Did you do it?” And to get the response, ” I told my side of it to the police and I’ll stick to that, ” it doesn’t –
    A. It doesn’t seem overly certain that that is what I said . I – I mean it’s well known that he’s, he – right from the start had believed that I was guilty.

    Once again, David is suggesting that a witness is wrong because that witness said something negative about David. But what if the witness is correct? Why would David say that he’s sticking to his police response? You would’ve thought that David would’ve been screaming “I’m innocent” from the word go. Michael’s evidence is similar to the aunt’s who suggested that David was unsure if he’d committed the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Thanks for that ross69.

    At least I’m comforted by the knowledge that you won’t be posting quotes from Karam’s books or Binnie’s emails.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    To Nostalgia or any other David Bain supporters

    Do you believe David was telling Binnie the truth or lying when he told Binnie that he saw Mark Buckley the man who spoke about his fantasy alibi having sex with a goat?

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

    Robert Fisher did not technically peer review Justice Binnie’s report. A peer review does not involve a single person. Perhaps had Ms Collins followed the process of the peer review, she would have received some very different answers. But then I suspect she knew that, which is why she didn’t follow the procedure of a proper peer review.

    Due to the manner in which Ms Collins has treated the report and allowed only certain parties access to it, she has effectively invalidated both Justice Binnie’s report and Robert Fisher’s. Both reports have errors, none of which are fundamental to the outcome, which regardless of the items of discontent that can never be proved either way, still dictates that due to police ineptitude, and mishandling of the crime scene and evidence, there are extra-ordinary circumstances.

    The only solution has to be a review conducted in such a manner that politics and public opinion have no influence on the outcome. Initially had public opinion been allowed to effect the Thomas compensation, he would not have received a cent. It was not until the Commission of Inquiry that the majority of New Zealander’s opinions changed.

    If people want someone to blame, then look to those, who charged with finding the evidence to solve the crime, made such a bungled job of it, and then acted in a completely irresponsible manner by allowing important evidence to be destroyed, and destroying some of it themselves, that no-one will ever be able to solve this case with absolute certainty. For that reason alone, David Bain should be paid. He is unable to prove his innocence with absolute certainty due to those actions. And we should learn from this and campaign to make sure the mistakes are never repeated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Judith, how about answering my question from December 15th, 2012 at 10:18 am?

    “Do you believe David was telling Binnie the truth or lying when he told Binnie that he saw Mark Buckley the man who spoke about his fantasy alibi having sex with a goat?”

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

    Right on cue, the cheer squad changes gear – on TV last night there was a report about someone wanting to meet with the Minister! And apparently there is now some jaundiced (exclusive!!!) article in one of the weekend rags….

    Newsflash to the cheer squad: This is not a negotiation. Any decisions by Cabinet are just that – by Cabinet. Any decision whether Bain has proven his innocence, will not be negotiated either. And any payment (shudder) would be discretionary – most definitely not negotiated.

    What the cheer squad has forgotten is that advice sought by Cabinet was provided via Binnie’s Report. But the original Binnie Report contained fatal flaws and so the Minister asked for it to be peer reviewed by Fisher. [And for the sake of the cheer squad – note that Binnie was aware of Collins’ concerns about his original report, as it is on record she told Binnie about them when they met in September. Indeed, Binnie has acknowledged this. So to now suggest Binnie was somehow surprised / hijacked by Fisher’s peer review is just bollocks. And so it came to pass that Binnie provided the Minister with two unsolicited revisions – in an attempt to address flaws in his original Report.]

    What has become very clear is that the cheer squad has suddenly twigged that Binnie’s Report has actually damaged their claim – apart from the fact that Binnie exceeded his mandate, the Report contains so many (major) errors of fact that it has to be discarded.

    And for my money, that’s why the cheer squad media machine has suddenly changed gear…. expect them soon on TV telling anyone who watches: ‘Oh, this is so unfair…’ Pffttt….

    Try telling that to the victims…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    As David Bain has never attempted to elevate his cause by making any adverse comment about his father, there’s no reason not to believe him. But the real point is that it doesn’t matter, first of all about Buckley or what Buckley claims which could anyway effect the fundamentals of the evidence.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,670) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:30 am
    Judith, how about answering my question from December 15th, 2012 at 10:18 am?

    “Do you believe David was telling Binnie the truth or lying when he told Binnie that he saw Mark Buckley the man who spoke about his fantasy alibi having sex with a goat?”

    ————————
    Mark Buckley is a southern man right? According to folk law, it’s sheep for the north and goats for the south.
    Having three adult son’s and listening to their chatter over the years when socializing with their mates, I quite believe that as an young adult male Mr Buckley may have talked about such a thing, and I suggest that many young men talk about all sorts of sexual things with great bravado, but with no intention of actually doing what they say. I should also add that one of son’s friends is now a Police Detective, oh how I would love to tell about some of the things he used say he was going to do!

    So, was David telling the truth, yes I believe he was. Should we take anything from what was said, certainly not. If we did we would have to lock up half the male population of NZ, and provide the other half with dresses.

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

    This from page 33 of Binnie’s report:

    “He [David] thus risked (on the Crown’s theory) the chance that Robin would come into the house a bit early by the downstairs
    door, discover the bodies and raise an emergency alarm with the Police prior to David’s return. In fact, the Crown Law Office accepts that Robin had collected the newspaper from the letterbox and brought it “inside the house” (para 208), indicating Robin had entered the house before David got home, but not raised any alarm.”

    Firstly, David might have assumed the risk that Robin would find the bodies as being slim. But he might also have assumed that even if Robin did find the bodies, David would have an alibi and would thus be able to blame his father for the murders. So he might have reasoned that at the very least, Robin would wind up in prison (in the worst case scenario).

    Second, I am bemused by Binnie’s comment that “Robin had entered the house before David got home, but not raised any alarm.” How does he know that David wasn’t waiting for Robin inside the house? Binnie makes the remarkable assumption that David was still in the process of doing his paper run when Robin entered the house. He of course has no facts to back up that assumption.

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

    “As David Bain has never attempted to elevate his cause by making any adverse comment about his father, there’s no reason not to believe him.”

    Try reading Binnie’s report. Bain admits that he hated his father. But not before he’s told Binnie that they were one big happy family…kind of like the Brady Bunch. :)

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

    “Second, I am bemused by Binnie’s comment that “Robin had entered the house before David got home, but not raised any alarm.” How does he know that David wasn’t waiting for Robin inside the house? Binnie makes the remarkable assumption that David was still in the process of doing his paper run when Robin entered the house. He of course has no facts to back up that assumption.”

    There are no facts to back up your assumptions either.
    However, we know Robin’s alarm which was set to go off at 6.32 am (every morning) was still sounding when the police got there. Had that alarm woken Robin, why didn’t he turn it off? Had he remained in the caravan until after David’s return, then he would have had plenty of time to do that. Therefore, it is more likely that Robin was either not in the caravan when the alarm went off, or left it within a short time of that happening. Either way, David was most certainly on his paper round at that time because he was seen.

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

    Binnie insinuates

    “It will be noted that many of the more “bizarre” comments attributed to David Bain
    came from his relatives particularly Janis Clark (Margaret’s younger sister) and Michael Bain
    (Robin’s younger brother).” (152)

    It’s about time Binnie dropped the pretence, put on a skirt, got himself a set of pompoms and joined in with the David Bain cheer leading squad, along with Karam and those other assorted nutjobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Davinci.

    Your capable of reading the report. It is set out within the first few pages what Power asked for.

    Fisher and Binnie have both made their arguments. I prefer Binnie’s – he took independent advice, and he’s wholly more experienced.

    If Collins wasn’t sharpening up an attack she would have looked to reconcile points of difference with Binnie, or indeed his advisor on NZ Law. She didn’t do that, Binnie had no idea of what she was doing, probably the idea of the Minister working against him in this way was inconceivable to him and unprecedented in that he had previously served as a deputy or assistant Minister of Justice, also had experience in dealing with applications for wrongful imprisonment. Meanwhile the report was surrendered to both the police and Crown Law, but not Reed. Material was linked, apparently to get the crows crowing.. A campaign was under way, intensifying before the report was released and an attempt to over to shadow it with the Fisher report, a denial of natural justice. As Karam has said, if Binnie’s report had been critical of Bain would they have been given a copy for comment, excluding the police and others. Even the most biased would know the answer to that. It remains Collins didn’t get the report she or Bill English wanted, so they got another and deliberately chose to attempt to shred Binnie’s report before it was released, and before he was even told of their objections. She even went as far as proposing that he’d written 3 reports, when in fact two were amendments, and spoke about not ‘paying him.’

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

    It is also worth noting that Bain was denied legal aid to make his compensation claim. So Joe Karam, his son and Michael Reed have worked on this claim pro bono. Out of interest, are they in line for a payout if Bain is compensated? It might be useful if they clarified this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ, do you understand anything about probability? What percentage of the NZ population has sex with goats? I would suggest it would be pretty low. There have been a few cases of some having sex with sheep but I have not heard of anyone having sex with a goat. I would say the chance would be around one in a million. I would also think that someone that way inclined would try to be a little discreet. It does seem a little bit of a coincidence that someone who has said something that would undermine David’s newspaper alibi would be that one in a million and David would conveniently catch him.

    I have never seen anyone having sex with a goat. If I did I am sure if I did not report that person I would say something to someone. Has David keep this secret all these years and just remembered it when questioned by Binnie.

    “first of all about Buckley or what Buckley claims which could anyway effect the fundamentals of the evidence.”

    I do not case about the fundamentals of the evidence but I do care about the truth and logic. If David told Buckley about his fantasy rape alibi it would of course be very relevant.

    You go on about convicting David with insufficient evidence or flawed evidence but are prepared to believe someone committed bestiality solely on the word of David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,228) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:50 am
    “As David Bain has never attempted to elevate his cause by making any adverse comment about his father, there’s no reason not to believe him.”

    Try reading Binnie’s report. Bain admits that he hated his father. But not before he’s told Binnie that they were one big happy family…kind of like the Brady Bunch.’

    Where ross, you’re full of it. An absolute liar.

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

    ross69 (1,229) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:55 am
    It is also worth noting that Bain was denied legal aid to make his compensation claim. So Joe Karam, his son and Michael Reed have worked on this claim pro bono. Out of interest, are they in line for a payout if Bain is compensated? It might be useful if they clarified this issue.

    ————————-

    And what issue would that clarify, other than they received payment? Is it unusual, a sign of guilt, behaviour associated with a psychopath or some other unusual behaviour to pay someone who does you a service?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ross, feeling the pressure?

    ‘How does he know that David wasn’t waiting for Robin inside the house? Binnie makes the remarkable assumption that David was still in the process of doing his paper run when Robin entered the house. He of course has no facts to back up that assumption.’

    Because the computer was turned on, and because Robin’s footprints were found around the murder scene. It’s obvious he killed the family otherwise he would have rung the police when ‘finding’ the bodies. No wonder you swallow Fisher’s crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    Judith
    You very carefully avoided answering Chuck’s question — by distorting it.
    Here is the question

    ““Do you believe David was telling Binnie the truth or lying when he told Binnie that he saw Mark Buckley the man who spoke about his fantasy alibi having sex with a goat?”.

    Here is David’s comment to Binnie

    “I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our p roperty and I had
    witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation ”

    The question you answered was whether Buckley disclosed fantasies about goats. You respond by stereotyping NZers and the habits of acquaintances of your family. Hardly evidence. More sheer prejudice. The question here is, “do you believe that David found Buckley screwing a goat?” And, if you are so close to the scene, was this deviancy pointed out to the Court of Appeal when they were arguing admissibility? If not, why not? I mean, it would have been an appropriate response to an admissibility issue would it not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. flipper (4,331 comments) says:

    Well, well, it seems that the amateur sleuths are still at it.
    But they continue to tilt at windmills. Tests in comprehension and remedial reading might help . But the Don would have long since shafted davinni da da da . :)

    Good morning Nostalgia. Is your patience wearing thin? :)

    This morning the Weekend Herald treads where the other MSM have thus far feared to tread. For fear of calling Collins and Fisher liars? Perhaps not. Anyway, the net version of the WE Herald has good coverage of:
    • Lindy Chamberlains NZ born lawyer describing Bain’s treatment by the NZ judiciary and Collins as “worse than Chamberlain”, and
    • Karam “slicing and dicing” Collins, particularly her duplicitous post report receipt dealings with Crown Law/Police.

    Yesterday I was accused oif cutting and pasting Joe Karam’s books (which I did not. Have never read them.) However, Joe Karam in this morning’s WE Herald is worth mentioning. He sets out what Binnie asked of him (Bain/Reed/Karam Jnr) and of the Crown. ( This paraphrased and summarised.)
    • Both parties were asked to place before him all evidence (in support of their respective position) that they wished
    • Nothing was excluded, including any NEW materials that either side wished to present.
    • In all, Binnie had some 10,000 pages of material to study.

    Binnie records (in his report(s) ) that he went beyond that data and, to ensure that he had “covered all bases”, he read journalistic comment from various persons presenting views for and against Bain – including those expressed in the anti-Bain blog sites.

    For those who believe Binnie should have conducted a “third trial”, please try to understand he was engaged in a civil process (He likened it, to some extent, to the O J Simpson civil trial where he (OJ) was found “guilty”.).

    And for those who continue to question Binnie’s understanding of the finer points of NZ law, please note that on that he was assisted by Rishworth, a Professor in Law at AU.

    There is also the CV issued (by MoJ/Collins) in respect of Fisher. It reads impressively, and would be fine, except that it omits the reasons that he (Fisher) is no longer on “The Bench.” ( I make no judgment. I simply note the omission.)

    Finally, for the benefit of flat earthers like muggins, davini da da da, rossi and GJK, et al) I am sorry to tell you that you have all failed to identify the real culprit – the dingo. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Judith, I asked you if you believe that David saw Mark Buckley having sex with a goat not if he made some sort of goat shagging joke to his mates. Below is a quote from David.

    A. I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our property and I had
    witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation.

    I take it you like Binnie actually believe that David see Mark Buckley have sex with a goat only on David’s word.

    I am outraged that Binnie got paid $450/hr for his stupid report.

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

    Nookin (2,283) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:04 am

    ———–
    Sorry I actually read the question as Mark Buckley having the fantasy.

    Do I think Mark Buckley had sex with a goat? Factually how would I know? But I do know that it does and has happened, and probably more times than one would care to think about. It is possible, and I see no reason for David to lie. Lies are usually told for some advantage, and there was no advantage to anyone in that situation, so yes, I’d say I believe David.

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

    “However, we know Robin’s alarm which was set to go off at 6.32 am (every morning) was still sounding when the police got there.”

    And the radio was turned on? What you seem to be suggesting is that Robin awoke at approximately 6.32am, turned on the radio and listened to it for an indeterminate time, entered the house, not forgetting to bring the newspaper with him,obtained the trigger lock, got the ammo and the gun, found the opera gloves, put them on, then proceeded to slaughter his wife and three youngest kids, partially cleaned up the scene, got on the computer (which took some time to warm up), cleaned himself up, got changed, and then killed himself. All in the space of about 10 minutes!!! And of course, there was the risk that David would finish his paper run earlier than normal and catch Robin in the act….

    You’ll recall that the prosecution didn’t think David could have killed his family, cleaned up, etc, in the missing 20-25 minutes. But your case is that Robin did all of that in just 10 minutes. I think you’ve just made the case for the prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Morning flipper.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,672) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:09 am

    ——————

    Then check the hourly rate Fisher got paid, and you’ll probably boil over.

    Why should Justice Binney not ask David Questions regarding Mark Buckley and the alibi, and try to establish they type of behaviours and actions conducted by them as young men? I would say it would have been rather remiss of Justice Binnie not to establish the kind of relationship the two had, and the type of behaviour they were involved in. In fact, I’d say that line is questioning was exactly what I would expect from someone conducting the report. There was a need to assess the degree to which Buckley’s claims were relevant to the assessment.

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

    ross69:

    Out of interest, are they in line for a payout if Bain is compensated? It might be useful if they clarified this issue.

    At some stage it was reported (Listener?) that Karam was to receive 50% of any proceeds from any films / compensation etc. Not sure whether that’s still the case.

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

    ross69 (1,230) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:13 am
    ———————-

    That was not what I was suggesting at all. I do not believe Robin was in his caravan when the ‘alarm’ which was an alarm/radio unit went off at 6.32 a.m. as confirmed by the police.

    Robin was noted as being in the habit of replacing light bulbs with smaller ones to save electricity and being obsessed about the waste of power. I cannot see him allowing a unit that required power to continue to run with him not being present, therefore, he either left the caravan before it sounded, or was in such an unusual mood that he didn’t follow his usual habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    ” Lies are usually told for some advantage, and there was no advantage to anyone in that situation, so yes, I’d say I believe David.”

    The reason David told the lie about the highly improbably likelihood of Buckley having sex with a goat was to discredit someone whose testimony could undermine his phony alibi.

    The outrageous thing is that appears that Binnie seemed to believe him without evidence.

    Collins should ask him for a refund.

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

    To clarify, the radio was the alarm. It turned on automatically at the time set of 6.32 am.

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

    > Where ross, you’re full of it. An absolute liar.

    Oh I thought you’d read Binnie’s interview with Bain. I see you haven’t. You should do so before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

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

    > To clarify, the radio was the alarm. It turned on automatically at the time set of 6.32 am.

    Whether that’s correct or not, you agree with the rest of the defence case, that Robin Bain (aka Usain Bolt) sprinted between murders and risked being caught in the act by David?

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

    The suggestion that this issue has ‘divided’ or ‘polarised’ New Zealand, is bollocks. Just one example:
    When Joe Karam was interviewed live by Michael Laws on Radio Live, listeners were asked to vote whether they thought David or Robin was the most likely killer. The results:

    12.00pm: The full time whistle blows – it’s all over. Both men have wrapped up and concluded the debate. Brent Impey has presented the results of the online poll. Thousands took part; 83 percent voted that David did it, 17 percent that Robin did it.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Bain-Debate-Karam-vs-Laws/tabid/423/articleID/169318/Default.aspx#ixzz2F4FCdV5j

    So, 83% believe David was the killer.
    And 17% believe it was Robin.

    Polarising? Nah….. get real.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,673) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:21 am
    ——————-
    Where does Binnie say he believes him?
    The alibi offers nothing to the task Binnie was charged with. If offers nothing to crimes. Even if David had some sinister ideas years before hand as many young men do, how does that relate to the murders/suicide of his family?

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

    Elaycee (3,150) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:28 am
    —————-

    You should have been on facebook JFRB, I was. The call went out for the members to go and vote, and even gave instructions on how to vote many time. I believe there are copies around of the comments made.

    Consequently I think we can safely say, those statistics are not at all reliable, given the amount of times the members came back and stated they had voted. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    he’s wholly more experienced.

    That statement is simply laughable and in any event, irrelevant to the point, being why Fisher’s analysis is wrong and how it could be that Binnie actually complied with the terms of his engagement.

    Instead, unable to address the point, you resort to allegations regarding Collins’ motives. You raise your argued “points of difference”. There were no “points of difference”. These were Grand canyon sized differences. You haven’t been able to explain why she should have any confidence in his ability to do the job properly (ie fix it up) and yet you impute some non-existent obligation to her to give him a second chance. I’ve stopped short of accusing Binnie of deliberately setting out to construct an argument that suited his own agenda but there is far more evidence of that to be gleaned from his approach, including the self-serving opening 20 paragraphs, than there is of Collins setting out to screw Bain over an issue that will be controversial whichever way it finally goes and that represents a trivial amount of money to the Crown.

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

    > At some stage it was reported (Listener?) that Karam was to receive 50% of any proceeds from any films / compensation etc.

    That might explain why he is grumpier than usual. He probably realises that Binnie’s ineptitude has just cost him and his walking ATM machine any chance of a payout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    “Lies are usually told for some advantage, and there was no advantage to anyone in that situation”

    The obvious advantage, as in the elephant in the room, is to discredit a prejudicial witness. Interesting that it only surfaces in a non-contestable environment. David was not cros-examined an Buckley was not given the opportunity t comment.

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

    ross69 (1,233) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:35 am
    ———————–

    That is false and probably sourced via counterspin who incorrectly insist on stating there is an agreement where Joe Karam receives 50% of anything David receives.

    The agreement, which dates back to when Mr Karam first started writing about the case, was that he would give David 50% of any profits made from books, interviews, etc. It is not a two way agreement, and David is not obliged to give Karam any moneys from that agreement. I am in no doubt that David probably owes Joe some money for costs etc he has footed, but the legal agreement is not as KP and others like to insist it is.

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

    David Bain compares himself to international opera singer Joanthan Lemalu:

    “Mr Lemalu is now engaged two years in advance and is singing all over the world. In 1992, my singing teacher told me when I started lessons that I had a wonderful voice and that I could one day create a valuable career for myself.”

    I have to agree with Bain’s singing teacher – he does have the opportunity to create a great career. But it won’t be as a singer, it’ll be as a comedian. :)

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

    Nookin (2,284) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:40 am
    ————-

    There were many people not given the opportunity to comment. If you have issues with that, you should see the Crown representatives, who were given the chance to put forward the names of any people they wanted interviewing by the judge, and didn’t put forward Mr Buckley.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    flipper

    I see that you are still relying upon other people to do your thinking for you. That’s probably wise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    Because nobody had the foggiest idea that David would spontaneously accuse Buckley of screwing a goat . If a witness is to be discredited then the witness must have the chance to rebut. Isn’t that fair?

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

    Nookin (2,285) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am

    ———————-

    Yes, that is fair and I’m sure we all await a media report from Mr Buckley, or the goat!

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

    Thank you Judith / Jinny / Ginny…
    IIRC, it was actually in an article in the Listener, but yes a similar comment was written on the site you named:

    “As a result of an agreement made in 1996, Joe Karam will receive half of any compensation paid out to David Bain. He may be on a campaign for justice but he is also lining his own pockets in the process, thank-you very much to you, the taxpayer. In many ways Joe Karam has made David Bain a career strand and is endeavouring to make as much money out of the case as he can.”

    Thanks for pointing this out. :D

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

    Nookin:

    ….screwing a goat. …the witness must have the chance to rebut.

    Heh…. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    The Police spent time and energy before the 2009 trial trying to identify the “mystery female” without success. There is no evidence such a person ever existed. In any event, David stated in my interview with him that he and Mark Buckley had once been friends but had experienced a very bitter and acrimonious falling out while still in school. He testified that Mr Buckley’s story was complete fiction.

    Judith, the above is a quote from Binnie in his report para 148. That indicates to me that Binnie accepts David’s word on an extremely serious allegation that is highly unlikely.

    “Even if David had some sinister ideas years before hand as many young men do, how does that relate to the murders/suicide of his family?”

    If Buckley had some sinister idea how to get away with murder that did not involve an alibi using a paper run you would have a point. However, David told how he would deliver most of his papers early but make sure he was noticed at a couple of houses when he did the remainder. This appears what happened as witnesses testified that he made a point of being noticed. It would appear that David forgot telling Buckley of his plan or felt certain Buckley would not join the dots. If David really had an acrimonious falling out while still in school he might have been concerned that Buckley held a grudge.

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

    Wow, Nostalgia,

    6.20 am … way to start the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    ” But it won’t be as a singer, it’ll be as a comedian.”

    It won’t be as an actor either – Lundy is far better.

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

    “However, we know Robin’s alarm which was set to go off at 6.32 am (every morning) was still sounding when the police got there.”

    Judith (81) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:22 am
    To clarify, the radio was the alarm. It turned on automatically at the time set of 6.32 am.

    So big fuss about the alarm blaring away, but the reality .. it was just the radio

    You are full of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    davinci

    ‘That statement is simply laughable and in any event, irrelevant to the point, being why Fisher’s analysis is wrong and how it could be that Binnie actually complied with the terms of his engagement.

    Check from pgs 69 -74 which include that ‘factual evidence’ is required on the BOP to prove innocence, the Civil rules and several NZ Law reports on the matter as well as McMechan on Principles on The Law of Evidence 7th ed 1984. It may help you understand why your up the wrong creek. So much for the amateurs hope that Binnie was blundering ahead blindly in the way Collins tried to display.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Nookin (2,285) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am
    Because nobody had the foggiest idea that David would spontaneously accuse Buckley of screwing a goat . If a witness is to be discredited then the witness must have the chance to rebut. Isn’t that fair?’

    Of course, but Collin’s released it.
    While all the other stuff remains, no crime, no woman found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “So much for the amateurs hope that Binnie was blundering ahead blindly in the way Collins tried to display.”

    It is not a matter of hope but fact. Why did Binnie not call Buckley in? Binnie must have know the report including his interviews would go public. We now have the nutty fringe of David’s supporters saying if David say Buckley screwing a goat then as David never tells lies then we believe Buckley was screwing a goat.

    Binnie is a self-promoting idiot who gets his rocks off by being the centre of attraction and controversy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘As stated earlier, the prosecutor’s own notes made in preparation for his closing address to the jury included the annotation, “there are the [Luminol] footprints – stocking feet – [too] big to be the father’s” (emphasis added). Mr Hentschel’s opinion formed part of the evidentiary basis on which the conviction was obtained that put David Bain in jail for 13 years. It is too late in the day for the Crown Law Office to characterize Mr Hentschel’s methodology as too imprecise to be fit for the purpose of excluding David Bain as the killer. If the methodology was probative enough to help convict him, it is probative enough to help exclude him.
    2. The Crown Alleges That The Crime Scene Evidence Makes Suicide’

    This stuff is more relevant than goats Chuck Bird. Why be angry. The footprints in the murder scene were too small to be Davids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I think you will find that Fisher addressed that issue specifically (paras 57 to 62) and identified it as another thing that Binnie got wrong.

    You forgot to mention how Binnie complied with the terms of his engagement.

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

    There is no doubt David Bain has convicted himself in that interview with Binnie.
    First he says he couldn’t drive the car without his glasses,then he says he doesn’t need glasses to drive the car.
    Then after saying he saw his mother’s light on before he went downstairs and thought he would make her a cup of tea he now says he was going to make her a cup of coffee.
    After telling the police he estimated it would take him 2/3 minutes to get home from where he looked at his watch,he now says it would have taken him longer because the dog slowed him down. Kaycee was a five year old keeshond,similar to a husky and was probably quite capable of going round that paper route again. It would be David Bain slowing Kaycee down ,not the other way around.
    And I see he is saying he saw Mark Buckley with a goat. Tell you what,if he can’t prove that then if he does get any compensation he might just as well hand the cheque straight over to Mark Buckley. He is in deep sh*t If he can’t prove that.

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

    > now says it would have taken him longer because the dog slowed him down

    Why did David even take the dog on his paper run? He could have left the dog at home, couldn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “This stuff is more relevant than goats Chuck Bird. Why be angry. The footprints in the murder scene were too small to be Davids.”

    The size of the footprints was and is a matter of contention. Incidentally, I did not dream up the story about goats as you put it – David did. I would be very interested if that was the first time he raised it. When his counsel was challenging the admissibility of Buckley’s evidence was it raised then – I doubt it?

    “David Bain tells Binnie he saw a potential prosecution witness having sex with a goat” would make a nice headline.

    He certainly appears Binnie accepted this wild tale.

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

    Chuck

    If this scene had occurred in Christchurch it was more than likely he actually did see one of the citys residents being with a goat in the biblical fashion. Hope it wasn’t one of those gay goats though?

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

    > certainly appears Binnie accepted this wild tale

    He accepted other wild tales, so what’s another wild tale between friends?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    I think it would be great to have Mark Buckley and David Bain debate the issue on Campbell Live. Does anyone know if Mark Buckley is in NZ. I bet he will be pissed when he finds out David is saying he saw him shagging a goat. He should have a right to defend himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Hope it wasn’t one of those gay goats though?”

    Binnie should have asked him if it was a Billy.

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

    Elaycee (3,155) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:53 am
    ———————

    You will find that is incorrect and probably based on information that was put out by the JFRB group and Counterspin and is still available on their site, but is incorrect.

    Do you really believe everything you read in the media is fact ?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,679) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    —————-

    So you are saying that you don’t actually know whether it is true or not, but are arguing from the point that it isn’t, anyway?

    As you say we don’t know and never will unless there was a third party involved, (other than the goat) because I am sure Mark is not about to admit to a crime even if it was true, which leaves us, exactly no-where. Does it prove David killed his family, NO. Should it effect compensation in any way, NO, because at this late stage there is no evidence to prove whether the act was committed or not and even if it wasn’t, it doesn’t provide evidence related to the Bain deaths.

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

    Muggins,
    “First he says he couldn’t drive the car without his glasses,then he says he doesn’t need glasses to drive the car.”

    I don’t need my glasses to drive a car, and would be able to even with a blind fold on but no one would be safe if I did.

    He couldn’t drive the car without his glasses, because would probably hit something and his licences stipulates he must not unless he wears glasses or corrective lenses.

    Semantics Muggins. Your point is invalid.

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

    At [129]. According to Ms B, on 23 June, the appellant told Ms B he had lied to her about something and that was whether he had a tattoo. She had apparently asked him the previous month whether he had any tattoos and he had said he had not. In fact, he did have a tattoo. The appellant told Ms B he had had it done a year and a half ago after Sasha, his pet, had died. He said he had been walking past a tattoo shop in South Dunedin while he was feeling depressed after his pet’s death and had gone in and had it done.

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

    I wonder why David Bain lied about not having a tattoo? I also wonder why that outstanding Canadian jurist, Justice Binnie, didn’t ask David why he lied…

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

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    Do you really believe everything you read in the media is fact ?

    Er…,No, I don’t. Thanks for pointing it out. I don’t believe everything I read in the media.

    Especially articles penned by Karam. :D

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

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny:

    …his licences stipulates he must not unless he wears glasses or corrective lenses.

    (my emphasis)
    Gosh…. Bain has two licences? Or three? How many? Why would he have more than one? Does he have others in another name? And where does it say he had more than one licence in the evidence?

    Or did you just make that up?

    Semantics, Judith / Jinny / Ginny. Semantics.

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

    Judith,please.
    After dissecting you into small pieces re the ownership of those glasses I am going to have to dissect you into even smaller pieces. Soon there won’t be anything left to dissect.
    David Bain told Binnie that he couldn’t drive the car to his rehearsal on the Sunday afternoon because he didn’t have any glasses. But then he said that when he drove down to get those fish and chips later on that day he didn’t need glasses to drive the car. I am not aware that he hit anyone. I am aware that he shot a few people,but that was the next day.
    I sure as hell hope than when I send a list of all David’s contradictions to another Judith that her understanding is better than yours -which I have no doubt it will be.
    PS. For some unknown reason Binnie didn’t pick up on that contradiction,why am I not surprised.

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

    Mark Buckley is out of the country at the moment but when he gets back I reckon the proverbial is going to hit the fan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “So you are saying that you don’t actually know whether it is true or not, but are arguing from the point that it isn’t, anyway? ”

    No, anything almost is possible. However, I am saying the chance of it being true is remote.

    “Should it effect compensation in any way, NO, because at this late stage there is no evidence to prove whether the act was committed or not and even if it wasn’t, it doesn’t provide evidence related to the Bain deaths.”

    If the act was not committed it does provide evidence related to the Bain deaths by the fact that David has lied yet again.

    You and the rest of David’s supporters appear to know a lot about laws of evidence that do not apply to an inquiry. It does not appear that any of you know much about probability. The goat story on it own will not prove anything but the alibi story carries a lot more weight and David knows it that is why he concocted his stupid story to try and discredit Buckley. What reason would Buckley have to make up such a story and just tell one of his close friends, Gareth Taylor about David’s weird fantasy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. flipper (4,331 comments) says:

    Elaycee…
    “Especially articles penned by Karam.”

    Please specify, and produce a “peer review” of your position.
    Oh, it may be that if you ask the crusher she will ask the ” **** judge” to help. :)
    You can contact crusher at

    office@judithcollins.co.nz

    That address will, initially anyway, by-pass the MoJ/CL/KGB (sorry, police) minders in her ministerial offiuce. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. flipper (4,331 comments) says:

    Sooner or later the revisionists will come to the realisation, albeit reluctantly I concede, that the third, fourth or fifth trials they seek are not an issue and that all of what they now raise is simply revisionist crap.

    If you all feel so convinced of your floating (from one minutiae to aniother when each one issunk) position, challenge Reed/Karam to a public debate,. The admission fees could help reduce crown costs.

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

    flipper:

    If you all feel so convinced of your floating (from one minutiae to aniother when each one issunk) position, challenge Reed/Karam to a public debate,. The admission fees could help reduce crown costs.

    There has been a debate already – best check the comment 11.28am. [Do keep up] Karam and Michael Laws. Radio Live. And callers could (and did) pose questions. And the result of the phone in poll (not scientific but just a reflection of public opinion):

    83% believe David was the killer.
    17% believe it was Robin.

    Says it all, really.

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

    muggins (263) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    —————-

    you aren’t dissecting anyone. The quote you make is different to the question I answered. If David said what you have quoted, then yes he has given conflicting statements. That still doesn’t prove the glasses were worn by the murderer or that David was the murderer. It proves his statement is conflicting and even that he may have lied – you lie, everyone lies, it doesn’t prove murder and it doesn’t add to the balance of probabilities in any way.

    In order to be relevant you have to prove those glasses were worn by the murderer. Where is the evidence that the murderer wore the glasses, whoever that murderer was? Where are the finger prints, where is the blood splatter, (if hands pushed them from the face then there would be blood on them, where is the evidence that? Where is the evidence of fingerprints from the person who wore those glasses and obviously used their hands to place them on – give me ONE piece of evidence that puts those glasses on the murderer, because without it, they do not prove anything. and therefore cannot be used in any decision regarding compensation.

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

    Elaycee (3,158) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    flipper:

    If you all feel so convinced of your floating (from one minutiae to aniother when each one issunk) position, challenge Reed/Karam to a public debate,. The admission fees could help reduce crown costs.

    There has been a debate already – best check the comment 11.28am. [Do keep up] Karam and Michael Laws. Radio Live. And callers could (and did) pose questions. And the result of the phone in poll (not scientific but just a reflection of public opinion):

    83% believe David was the killer.
    17% believe it was Robin.

    Says it all, really.

    ——————
    Just as the transcript from the facebook of JFRB says it all. The transcript of comments from the time of that interview show JFRB members discussing how they had gone to that poll and placed multiple votes each. They also tell each other on how to do that, and congratulate each other for placing multiple votes. In short, the results say nothing, because the poll was tampered with.

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

    actually a mistake above, they aren’t transcripts, they are directly copied using screen shots – can’t be denied! :-)

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

    Judith / Jinny / Jenny:

    In short, the results say nothing, because the poll was tampered with.

    Whaaat?
    You state that a Radio Live poll was “tampered with”? And you can prove that because you saw something on Facebook?
    Did you complain about that to the BSA?
    What was Brent Impey’s reaction?
    And that of Michael Laws?
    How many votes were replicated?
    What was the outcome of your complaint?

    And I don’t see a link either – did you forget it?

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

    Judith.
    If you care to look at Binnie’s interview with David Bain you can see those conflicting statements for yourself.
    It is probably fair to say that everybody lies,but very few people would lie as much as David Bain,although you tell quite a few porkies.
    David Bain wore those glasses that were in his room,although he told Binnie he didn’t think he would have told his aunt that,inferring that she was the one who was lying and not him.
    The missing lens was in Stephen’s room. That means David Bain was wearing those glasses when he was in Stephen’s room.
    They don’t have to have any blood on them to say they were Stephen’s room. They don’t have to have a little tag on them saying “The wearer of these glasses shot and killed Stephen Bain”.
    As I have already said, you would say that Robin Bain wore those bloody gloves,and I would reply there was no blood on his watch.
    Perhaps you would like to give me one piece of evidence that points to Robin Bain committing four murders and then committing suicide.

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

    flipper,take a pill.
    There will be no third,fourth and fifth trials, Robert Fisher will sort it out,don’t you worry about that.

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

    > Robert Fisher will sort it out,don’t you worry about that

    Well, I think there are enough false and misleading statements from Bain in his interview with Binnie to put the kybosh on his compensation claim. Judith Collins should announce that there won’t be any more reviews and the process has come to an end. If she feels particularly generous she could throw him a bone due to the police investigation being less than perfect, but that would a discretionary matter.

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

    “The next morning I went on my paper round. When I came back to the house afterwards I noticed Mum’s light was on so I thought I will bring her a cup of tea” (David Bain, March 2012)

    “Well I had the thought, I believe, of making her a cup of tea and because I saw her light on, assuming she would say as soon as she was awake and she normally did wake before I left to go to the university anyway so I mean it was j ust one of those things that I would have done. I mean, sorry, not a cup of tea, a cup of coffee. She’d preferred coffee in the morning.” (David Bain, July 2012)

    Hmmm you’d think after 18 years, David could get his story straight.

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

    A. …you gotta remember, I didn’t have my glasses. I couldn’t drive, as – the way that it worked out was I was at rehearsals on the Sunday –
    Q. Well you drove on the Sunday night to go and collect the fish and chips?
    A. That’s correct, yes. With Laniet in the car with me.

    Justice Binnie – the great legal mind from Canada – didn’t ask David to explain why he’d tried to pull a swifty.

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

    Elaycee (3,159) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    ———————-

    Why would one make a complaint, anyone that seriously thinks online polls that are able to be tampered with by multiple voting are an indication of public opinion, seriously needs ‘their head read’ and deserve their fantasy world. They should be left to live with their delusions.

    What remains of the conversations that weren’t removed is still on JFRB, which you can view if you join up. Fortunately I joined before Kent made his declaration that one must believe in Robin Bain’s innocence to join. I believe there are CD’s of the conversations on JFRB, I’m sure someone can tell you where to get a copy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    muggins, do you think a lawyer is the best person to sort things out?

    I think a researcher with an open inquiring mind would be better. Lawyer tend to only look for what suits their clients.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Winston (43 comments) says:

    I’m sorry Mr Farrar, but this whole business is completely despicable, and the Dom Post’s comment is just as half-witted as you would have expected, if you’d lived in Wellington for more than five minutes, and had half a brain. You say, “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.” Well, either David Bain did it or he didn’t. I’ve read the Binnie report several times, and found it compelling in its conclusion that David Bain didn’t do it,on the balance of probabilities.
    I’ve also read Fisher’s comments, and they seem to me to be utterly pathetic, nitpicking, and having no bearing on the question of guilt or innocence. And the concept that a person’s guilt or innocence should be decided by whether some petty rules in a pissy little country’s inbred legal system have been followed to the letter is just repugnant to natural justice. Wanking on about how the important issue is whether Binnie exceeded his terms of reference is just despicable. Please give me as many demerit points as you like, but this whole business is just shameful and disgraceful.

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

    Judith / Jinny / Ginny,

    So what you’re trying to say is that you have no proof at all to support your bullshit. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Despite you first suggesting it was a transcript and then correcting yourself to announce it was a screenshot!

    You’re totally full of crap, Judith – just like your alias ‘Jinny’ etc. You try and discredit anything that doesn’t fit in with your own fantasy version of events. Your antics and tactics are clearly based on obfuscation and bluster – all hiss and wind but no substance.

    I guess we should all be grateful that the Minister has been able to sift through the crap to see the obvious….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Yes I remember Kent telling his members they could multi vote, I probably still have that some where. But anyway most listening to a Laws show no doubt agree with their host and Justice isn’t delivered by radio polls except in Texas maybe.

    Interesting to note that the Minister’s objections about some individuals not being able to answer were reason to contest the Binnie report. That might have been arguable until the Minister herself released the material. I can see that proving a big difficulty in the future. Also that Fisher objected, if not exclusively, then almost exclusively in favour of the Crown whose role requires some consideration as to it’s appropriateness beyond submissions. I think he has another problem trying to argue probative value of some of the material Binnie set aside in ‘factual’ search, because Binnie, unlike Fisher wasn’t exclusive of one side. He’s also in the cart with his failure to recognise the balance of probabilities test doesn’t apply where the Crown have said one thing in the past and want to say another now, because that is going back to reasonable doubt territory that applies at a criminal trial. Where he recognises that Cabinet make the decision regarding compensation that works against the view that Binnie shouldn’t have made recommendations. In all circumstances in Binnie’s report recognises that, so really it isn’t in conflict.

    Stepping back from it all there’s no doubt that the Minister set out to undermine the Binnie report because she was exclusive of David Bain in every way. There was no element of fairness, he only received the report minutes before it was made public, yet the Minister and Crown had sat on it for months. With the Minister deliberately excluding David Bain’s counsel, something Binnie never did – he didn’t exclude anybody and it wasn’t the Crown’s application so why would the Minister be be cahoots with them. One shining light was Fisher’s arguments regarding Judicial Review, he made arguments of behalf of those that hadn’t had an opportunity to reply to the report, yet it was the Minister who controlled that, not Binnie. Binnie didn’t release the report as it wasn’t within his brief. So what Fisher argued that Binnie was doing (but hadn’t done because he didn’t control the release of the report) the Minister actually did. The result of that was those that it was argued had a right of reply suddenly had none (even though I prefer Binnie’s take that it was public territory already – maybe apart from the goat nonsense.) With that swift blow not only had the Minister removed that objection to becoming a reality, she at no point had offered the same consideration to David Bain. If there was any vulnerability to Review it is no longer a potential one.

    If there were a review it could be argued that was advice that the Minister took, the possibility of Judicial Review, in fact the reason for not releasing the report and a few other things. So I can’t see how she could now argue against a review, thought no doubt she would. Nobody other than the Minister created this situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    The trials are over and the verdict is in. Not guilty.

    He served 13 years on unproven charges. He should be compensated.

    I think he is guilty, but we need to bend over and take it, in order to maintain the credibility of our legal system. Give him a million bucks and move on, I say. We have a reasonably good system, but we can not get it right 100% of the time. What we should not do, is tamper with the system because we do not like this result. Some terrible legislation has been passed due to emotive cries for the government to “do something”. Bain is a manipulative little creep and he got away with murder.

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

    Winston
    A second report is needed.
    I will give you one reason why.
    Binnie says that the location of the frames and glasses is unexplained.
    He cannot be serious!
    Those glasses were a pair of David Bain’s mother’s which he said he had worn before when his were unavailable.
    He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend because his were in being repaired. They weren’t perfect,he said,but they got him by. Clue for Binnie. When David Bain said his glasses were being repaired that means they were unavailable.
    He told his lawyer at the first trial that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were in his room.
    And yet Binnie says the location of those glasses in David Bain’s room is unexplained.
    What does it take to convince Binnie that the reason those glasses were in David Bain’s room was because David Bain had been wearing them?
    Bring on Robert Fisher. I am sure he will understand why those frames and glasses were in David Bain’s room.
    I mean it is so bleedin’ obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “even though I prefer Binnie’s take that it was public territory already – maybe apart from the goat nonsense”

    Are you saying David was talking nonsense when he told Binnie he saw Buckley shagging a goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Good on you Winstone. This crap reminds of a steward at the Samoan airport who required embarking passengers to go around a cone but only on one side, the cone was not connected to a cord or divider of any type, just as Fisher’s report is not connected to the guilt or innocence of David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Of course I’m not Chuck Bird, I’m saying it’s release is very questionable. Have you got that link again, I think you may be doing a ross and taking liberties on what was actually said. ross still hasn’t returned the quote that David told Binnie he hated his father. I can’t find it, and I think ross is telling nellies. Just like the nellies we got for years about no strip search.

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

    Kea,it is David Bain that needs to bend over and take it,as you rather crudely put it.
    I for one,and I am sure there are many other people who feel the same way,would consider any payment to David Bain would make a mockery of our legal system.
    I say give him nothing.

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

    Elaycee (3,161) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    I have no idea who Ginny is, I have said very clearly on the other thread that I used to post as Jinny, but are unable to access it due to forgetting the password, and no longer having the email address I signed up with. As you will note, I am not using that identity, and it hasn’t been used for sometime. I don’t see how that is a problem. I am not using two identities at the same time.

    You clearly have anger issues, I incorrectly typed transcript instead of screenshot, but clarified it as soon as possible, You may note the edit function is not working, so couldn’t do it immediately. ? you’ve never typed the wrong word? Oh to be so perfect.

    If you seriously believe any internet polls are an indication of public opinion, you are deluded. They are neither representative, or scientifically conducted, not to mention the fact most can be voted on more than once by the same person. Your faith in them says a lot about your experience and skills.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,784) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    I think some are muddled up with the statement David made something along the lines of that if his father did this, I would hate him for it. A perfectly reasonable statement to make at the time.

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

    I see a certain poster is still saying David Bain was strip-searched.
    I say to that poster ,for the umpteenth time,prove it.
    And don’t tell me it was because Dr Pryde saw that tattoo. David Bain’s aunt saw that tattoo and she sure as hell didn’t strip-search him. What’s more ,when she asked him why he got it he lied to her. He said he got it when his dog died[it was put down for anti-social behaviour,actually] but his dog died in 1993 and he didn’t have that tattoo done until a week before the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    It’s quite obvious that Bain’s defence did the right thing by him not letting him take the stand in the retrial…crikey looks pretty obvious that he’s stuffing himself good & proper in the reported interviews with the Binnie ninnie. The groans & head shaking from the Bainiac camp must be a sight to see & hear right now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    If I make it to 95 I hope I have more than the word ‘glasses’ in my vocab. I’d be happy with maybe glasses, what Mrs Laney said and the Commer van door. Along with “I’ve got low blood pressure so I can’t be mad.” Cuckoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ

    There is the link – for everything I beleive.

    http://justice.govt.nz/search?SearchableText=bain

    BTW – why should David’s yarn about the goat been blacked out? Many of us think David rebuttal of Buckley relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    I have been doing a bit of reading about Binnie. He is a social engineering activist Judge from way back. I came across this little gem:

    The accused admitted stabbing his wife 47 times but claimed to have done it while in an automatistic state brought on by nothing more than his wife’s insulting words. http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr2-290/1999scr2-290.html – fortunately two of the three judges upheld the convictions. Justice Binnie disagreed !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Judith (90) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ (1,784) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    I think some are muddled up with the statement David made something along the lines of that if his father did this, I would hate him for it. A perfectly reasonable statement to make at the time.’

    ross wouldn’t lie would he?

    I see you have a stalker.

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

    According to Binnie (338)

    “I conclude that the evidence, such as it is, establishes on the balance of probabilities a
    6.43 am computer turn on time being the number put forward by Mr Cox at the 2009 retrial.”

    This statement is a nonsense. What I suspect Binnie means is that 6.43 am might be the most likely turn on time, and not, say 6.42 am or 6.44 am. But there is no way Binnie can conclude that the probability of a turn on time of 6.43 am is greater than the sum of the probabilities of all other possible turn on times, which is what is implied by his use of the phrase “balance of probabilities”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Automatism is an accepted defence Kea. I doubt Binnie or any Judge would accept such a defence without strong proof and supporting clinical evidence, hard to tell from cherry picking. We do know he’s just been honoured in his own country and that he has an international reputation, with experience in this field. Of course you look for anything to discredit him, that’s the way of the Internet. Find any objections to Fisher?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Thanks Chuck. Couldn’t copy the exact text could you. I’ve been having trouble finding it again. I read it yesterday somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    These files are over 200 page long each. If you email me at chuckbirdnz@gmail.com I will email you the two files I have downloaded. It is only fair both sides have the same info.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    Find any objections to Fisher?

    Yes a big one. Bain was found not guilty.

    It does not matter what I, Fisher, or anyone else now thinks. He was found not guilty and should get compensation. As I have said a number of times.

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

    Kea,
    You do not receive compensation by being found not guilty. You might get compensation if you are found innocent on the balance of probabilities.
    Also,re that case you linked to.
    I think there were nine judges and that Binnie spoke for the four dissenting judges.

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

    The computer turn-on time was between 6.39am and 6.49 am according to one expert.
    But it doesn’t really matter because I could put a case for either David Bain or Robin Bain turning the computer on.

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

    > He was found not guilty and should get compensation

    So was Ewen McDonald. I guess you’ll be setting up a fund for him. Not that he’s getting out of prison any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    would consider any payment to David Bain would make a mockery of our legal system.

    Is that the same legal system that found him, not guilty, or is it another legal system I don’t know about ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    Is not the most important questions here…,
    Is Fisher correct that “Correct principles should now be applied to the evidence afresh.”?

    If a report is recieved that lays out the report in a series of “findings” in an attempt to make a convincing argument as opposed to as an attempt to dispasionately investigate the data to determine a series of probabilities that are to be combined at the end (it would be interesting to see exactly how this would be done in a case like this) do we reject it?

    What would be highly relevant to that discussion would be the standard to which we have held previous such reports and the form in which they have been written (which if I had been Binnie would have been the first thing i looked at).

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

    Nostalgia, wow 6.20 am … determined or obssesive …. likely stalker eh ?

    Julia, wow big shout about Robins alarm still going, but the reality… just his radio …// desperate or what


    but best of all, the newly revised visits of david, now its Mum, Stephen, the girls then dad ….

    Forget the last ten years of Mum then sensing dad ….

    ”’
    But what he has now done is give you the order of the executions …. brilliant …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    ross69, McDonald did not spend 13 years in prison.

    The only facts we know for certain are:

    1) He has no conviction.

    2) He spent 13 years in prison.

    If that is not grounds for compensation, what is ?

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

    “But there is no way Binnie can conclude that the probability of a turn on time of 6.43 am is greater than the sum of the probabilities of all other possible turn on times, which is what is implied by his use of the phrase ‘balance of probabilities.'”

    Yeah reading Binnie’s report, it’s obvious that he places huge weight on the computer being turned on, in his opinion, at 6.43am and of David arriving home at 6.45am. But both times are potentially flawed. Denise Laney, who witnessed David returning from his paper run, says he might have gotten home at 6.40am. If that is the case, he could have turned on the computer and murdered Robin. Joe Karam was so pissed off with Laney’s recollection, he hung up the phone on her. Binnie of course is adamant that Bain is innocent, so a 6.40am timeline is no good to him, which might explain why he didn’t bother talking to Laney. One wonders why, being the huge intellectual mind some claim him to be, he wasn’t more circumspect with the evidence.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440698/Bain-witness-says-evidence-misinterpreted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I know contrary views are not fashionable but here Don Mathias makes the case that Binnie would have considered the overall picture frequently when considering the probative value of individual points. He also points out that Fisher, sadly for some, hasn’t disagreed with Binnie’s decision. I think there is something said in Fisher’s preamble about that, to the effect if Binnie used another approach he would have, or may have reached the same conclusion.

    Anyway nothing like some objectivity: rather than drowning in drivel.

    http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/bain-binnie-fisher-bayes-how-should-judges-reach-conclusions/

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

    > If that is not grounds for compensation, what is ?

    When he can prove he didn’t slaughter his family…thus far he’s told lie after lie and he’s impugned witnesses who had the temerity to testify against him. I seriously doubt that is a winning strategy.

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

    Kea (1,092) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
    Find any objections to Fisher?

    Yes a big one. Bain was found not guilty.

    It does not matter what I, Fisher, or anyone else now thinks. He was found not guilty and should get compensation. As I have said a number of times.

    —————

    I agree, despite what these unqualified and inexperienced sleuths would like us to believe, the fact remains he was found not guilty and therefore spent 13 years for a crime that could not be proven against him.

    For that reason, regardless of all others, he should be compensated. Anything short of that makes a mockery of the justice system. Whilst there are arguments that not all the evidence was heard, it has to be noted that there was also evidence that points very strongly to Robin that was not presented.

    More importantly to me is the fact that police ineptitude resulted in no-one being able to prove this case against either of the two proposed suspects. Of course, no one seems to have ever investigated any other possible suspects, and I agree it is unlikely there was one, but we shall never know, because of the destruction of important evidence.

    The most valid point being the police did not follow prescribed procedure as per their own manual. They were sloppy with timing, care of the scene, recording the evidence and caring for the evidence and not questioning people with information to offer or following up certain leads.

    Not to mention quickly destroying evidence despite knowing the matter was being referred to the Privy Councils. Again, none of those matters were of Bain’s doing. If David cannot prove his innocence to the satisfaction of everyone, then the Police must hold responsibility for that. Their acts have also prevented Robin being proven innocent, if that should be the case.

    We should all be concerned, regardless of our individual stance on ‘who dun it’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,243) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    “But there is no way Binnie can conclude that the probability of a turn on time of 6.43 am is greater than the sum of the probabilities of all other possible turn on times, which is what is implied by his use of the phrase ‘balance of probabilities.’”

    Yeah reading Binnie’s report, it’s obvious that he places huge weight on the computer being turned on, in his opinion, at 6.43am and of David arriving home at 6.45am. But both times are potentially flawed. Denise Laney, who witnessed David returning from his paper run, says he might have gotten home at 6.40am. If that is the case, he could have turned on the computer and murdered Robin. Joe Karam was so pissed off with Laney’s recollection, he hung up the phone on her. Binnie of course is adamant that Bain is innocent, so a 6.40am timeline is no good to him, which might explain why he didn’t bother talking to Laney. One wonders why, being the huge intellectual mind some claim him to be, he wasn’t more circumspect with the evidence.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440698/Bain-witness-says-evidence-misinterpreted

    Missed the boat there ross, again. The police checked Mrs Laney’s clock and found it to be advanced 5 minutes. So 6.45 it is, bad luck on that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    He’s been found by a Jury to be not guilty ross. Now he’s proved to Ian Binnie that he’s innocent on the balance of probabilities, something Fisher didn’t disagree with in his report. Try reading Don Mathias’s take. Newspapers are unreliable as your last link showed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    > If that is not grounds for compensation, what is ?

    When he can prove he didn’t slaughter his family

    No your wrong. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did what they say he did. The onus of proof is on the person making the accusation.

    This has all been decided. He was found not guilty of “slaughtering his family”. That is a fact, not an opinion. Yes he got away with murder, but we need to maintain the integrity of the system. You want “justice” but what you are seeing is law.

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

    > So 6.45 it is, bad luck on that one.

    Yeah that’ll be why she says she saw David between 20 to 7 and quarter to 7. Comprehension isn’t your strong suit.

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

    “The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did what they say he did. The onus of proof is on the person making the accusation.”

    David is claiming to be innocent…the onus is on him.

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

    From the link above for the Bain cheer squad:

    However, Laney said Karam had read too much into her evidence. He had wanted her to be a defence witness but she told him she did not know how fast the digital clock was, and she believed she was not late for her start time of 6.45am.

    When she saw Bain he was further up the street than normal and it caused her to worry that she was late.

    “I thought: ‘Oh God I’m running late’, but it was misinterpreted. I tried to get it across in the courtroom I was not late; every day was pretty much the same.

    “As I said to Joe Karam . . . I said: ‘Look, the best time frame I can give you is somewhere between 20 to and quarter to seven and he just hung up in my ear’.”

    So the LATEST time she saw Bain was 6.45am but it could’ve been earlier, as early as 6.40am.

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

    Laney says David was “further up the street than normal”, which ties in with evidence from other witnesses that he was early. Of course, according to David all those witnesses are wrong, and he is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    The Privy Council found the first trial ‘unsafe’
    The second trial found insufficient evidence to convict Bain as guilty.
    Had the second trial actually been the first, David would not have been sentenced to prison.
    Why is the first ‘unsafe’ trial not the extraordinary grounds required for compensation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    David is claiming to be innocent…the onus is on him.

    You did not think that comment out very well did you ross? But I will play along with you and lets see where it leads us. I will go first:

    Did you kill the Bain family ross69 ?

    If you say yes. Your guilty.

    If you say your innocent, then your also guilty, until you prove your not.

    So either way, your stuffed.

    Fortunately that is not how our system works, which of course you dam well know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    David is claiming to be innocent…the onus is on him.

    When did he claim to be innocent?
    Claiming to be innocent is very different to denying specific guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. big bruv (14,218 comments) says:

    “He’s been found by a Jury to be not guilty ross”

    True, and he was also found guilty by an earlier (and far more intelligent) jury

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    Why is the first ‘unsafe’ trial not the extraordinary grounds required for compensation?

    Why is the lack of a conviction, after doing a 13 year lag, not extraordinary grounds ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    Kea will give us detailed critique of the Cabinet rules for compensation in such cases. Any minute now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    big bruv, so what ? You can not simply reject those parts of the legal process that do not result in the outcome you prefer. The law is an artificial construction. It is not handed down by some higher power. It is made up by ordinary people like you and me. If you want to ignore law and legal process, then so be it. But do not then try to use the law to remove someones liberty for the legal wrong of murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Words like “livid” and “clawing” and “grabbing” are highly emotive, and indicative of obvious wounds. Yet no such scratches or marks were noted by Dr Pryde, who as stated was nothing if not meticulous in recording any injuries or blemishes during his 20 June strip search.’

    That pesky strip search, again.

    Go ross, you’ll convince somebody with your newspaper reports.

    Nothing to do with intelligent juries big bruv, the first didn’t hear all the evidence. Like Mrs Laney seeing David going through the gate at 6.45, so it was in fact a mistrial.

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

    Binnie places huge weight on both the computer turn on time and the bloody sock prints. Indeed, as far as I can tell, having quickly perused the report, these appear to be the only pieces of evidence that could have possibly lead him to a conclusion of factual innocence on balance of probabilities. Unfortunately, both these pieces of evidence are muddied to such an extent that, unless you are already a believer, it is unlikely you will be convinced by Binnie’s report. The Binnie report lacks scientific rigour. I cannot understand how he was able to reach the conclusion that the bloody sock prints were most probably Robin’s, or that the computer was turned on at 6.43 am. It’s interesting to note that on a number of occasions in his report Binnie uses the idea that the killer was not acting normally or rationally in an attempt to explain away some of the odd actions of Robin, had he been the killer (e.g the changing of clothes and wearing David’s opera gloves), yet uses the opposite argument to defend David e.g. leaving the murder scene open for an hour while he did the paper run is not what a calculating killer would do. I don’t believe there is a need for another report. Unless new evidence is found, it is not possible to conclude that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities. That Binnie has done so in his report only confirms that Binnie is a clown. To say Binnie’s report was underwhelming is an understatement. $450 an hour was it?

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

    Kea
    That not guilty verdict made a mockery of our justice system. To pay Bain compensation would make an even bigger mockery of our justice system.

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

    The reason why Dr Pryde didn’t see those scratches and /or bruises on David Bain’s torso is because he didn’t strip-search him.
    If the defence were so sure he had been strip-searched they would have asked those police officers who were in the room when Dr Pryde carried out that examination.
    Not one David Bain supporter,nor David Bain himself,have been able to explain those marks.
    I will give them a clue. Stephen Bain had fibres from the killers jersey unner his fingernails meaning he clawed at the wearer of it. David Bain had scratches and/or bruises on his chest. Robin Bain had no scratches and/or bruises on his chest.
    I have been saying this for three years and I will keep on saying it every time a David Bain supporter says he was strip-searched by Dr Pryde.
    And the same goes for those glasses. If a David Bain supporter says he wasn’t wearing them I will show then the evidence that proves he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Thanks for the quick perusal Dean Papa, you give your argument a lot credit by not knowing what you’re talking about.

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

    Yvette,
    The big difference between the retrial and the first trial was that David Bain exersised his right to silence at the retrial. Had he not done so he would have almost certainly been found guilty,going by his interview with Justice Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Oh heck look..

    266. ‘At the 2009 trial, each element of this argument was challenged. David Bain told the Police on June 20, 1994 that he had not used the gun since hunting the previous summer. He provided the same testimony at the 1995 trial. His evidence was read into the record at the 2009 trial. He told the same thing to me.’

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/8078285/Binnie-appears-to-be-captured-by-defence
    He was captured by the defence all right.

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

    muggins (273) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    You appear to have studied this case in great depths. You must, then, be able to show conclusive evidence to the fact that those glasses were being worn during the shootings. Perhaps something of a forensic nature, DNA, blood? Can you please provide that? If only to satisfy my curiosity.

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

    Another thing about all of this I don’t get. Why on earth would Binnie be biased towards the defense? Surely he was being paid by the prosecution, and being paid the same whatever his recommendations. After all, if he found against Bain he may just stand a chance of getting more work in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    Kea
    That not guilty verdict made a mockery of our justice system. To pay Bain compensation would make an even bigger mockery of our justice system.

    I do not intend to sound trite, but two wrongs do not make a …

    Don’t forget I think he did do it. I am not a supporter of Bain, but I do respect proper legal process. We lock a guy up for 13, with no conviction, we have to give him some remedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Perhaps something of a forensic nature, DNA, blood?

    Crikey Kanz, you’re not a vampire are you?

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

    I see one poster has just pointed out that David Bain lied three times about not using that rifle since the previous summer.
    But at least he was consistent.
    Not like that tea/coffee episode. Not like “I can’t drive the car without my glasses/I can drive the car without my glasses”.
    Even Judith agreed that one of those statements was a lie.
    And Binnie didn’t pick it. I say throw Binnie’s report in the rubbish binnie and let’s start again from scratch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    I am not a supporter of Bain, but I do respect proper legal process.

    Well hoo fucking ray Kea, I was beginning to suspect I was the only other one.

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

    Kea,
    Bain was locked up for 13 years because he was found guilty of killing his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    Dean,
    regarding the footprints his evidence is that the footprints are of a certain length. he appears to take it as implausible that a person with a larger foot would (consistantly?) leave bloody footprints of a smaller size. I guess it is possible that they might but the question for binnie is how likely is that and he seems to ahve determined it was highly unlikely, it is possible that a person sufficiently knowledgeable on that might say that that conclusion is obvious.

    I admit however that this being such a critical part of the report deserves more attention. ie references to literature on what the size of a footprint is likely to be, what factors effect it etc from outside the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    Bain was locked up for 13 years because he was found guilty of killing his family.

    And then he was found not guilty three more times muggins.

    Hooray!

    Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Give it a break Kanz, forensic evidence like blood on the glasses instead of dust. Next thing you’ll be claiming there was a strip search that showed scratches on Bain’s chest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    Kea,
    Bain was locked up for 13 years because he was found guilty of killing his family.

    I agree. It is also a fact that the same system, that locked him up, latter declared him not guilty of the crime. He has no conviction. He has a clean slate and is a model citizen, on paper.

    You and I may have other ideas, but our opinions are not relevant here. It is question of legal principle. He was deprived on his liberty and was wronged. He should get his bloody money for murdering his family and getting away with it.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,795) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    “Give it a break Kanz, forensic evidence like blood on the glasses instead of dust. Next thing you’ll be claiming there was a strip search that showed scratches on Bain’s chest.”

    Well, was there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    ” To say Binnie’s report was underwhelming is an understatement. $450 an hour was it?”

    It must be acknowledged Binnie is not totally stupid. He gets $450/hr on mainly on self promotion and getting in the limelight.

    He is not much better that a conman. Judith should at least ask him for a refund.

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

    Kea,
    I understand what yoiu are saying,but the way I see it two wrongs don’t make a right.
    The retrial jury got it wrong and Binnie got it wrong.

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

    Reid,
    Arithmetic doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

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

    Kanz
    There was no strip- search.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “The retrial jury got it wrong and Binnie got it wrong.”

    Muggins, I do not agree with you on that. The retrial jury was not told all the facts. However, even if they were they may and I say may have found him not guilty. The important point is they are two different criteria – reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities.

    I say all the David Bain supporters could do him more good if they started a fund for David as he will not get any of our money.

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

    Bain was found guilty, then the Privy Council quashed that conviction, he was subsequently found not guilty, and Judge Binnie has recommended he be paid compensation, that on the balance of probabilities due to extraordinary circumstances, he is innocent. Even on the basic numbers, the wrongful conviction wins.

    Now Muggins, I eagerly await the factual evidence that places those glasses on the murderer of Stephen. I’ll even give you a chance by not requesting you prove beyond any doubt who that murderer was, just that the murderer wore them. Remember of course, it must be factual, and not circumstantial according to your possible scenario. The glasses on the face of the murderer during the fight with Stephen. Solid factual evidence that proves its.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kanz.

    How could a fool with no proof be wrong. Oh that’s right, he spent 1000s of hours in the outhouse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    I wonder if the are any legal experts here or maybe DPF who are good at elementary statistics or probability. Since we are talking suicide here is a question. Someone decided to play Russian roulette with a six gun with one bullet each time before he spins the cylinder. If he has three goes what are the chances he will be alive after the third try?

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

    Kanz
    Re those glasses.
    We know David Bain was wearing them. so you tell me how you think that lens got into Stephen’s bedroom?
    I mean the Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when in a struggle with Stephen was a strong one. They didn’t seem to be to worried about the fact there was no blood on that lens.
    But talking about forensic evidence. Could you please tell me where is the forensic evidence that links Robin Bain to any of the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    muggins, I agree with you. But our legal system disagrees with both of us. The law says he is not guilty.

    We have a good system, but it is not a perfect one. This time they stuffed up and we have to accept that. The Police will be more careful in future and would have learned from all this. No law changes, or other tinkering, is required or desirable. He got off, shit happens. People get away with things more often than you may think. Its frustrating, but the correct approach is to re-group and learn from it.

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

    Judith.
    Refer my post to Kanz re those glasses.
    And you might also like to try to answer the same question that I asked him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    flipper:And for those who continue to question Binnie’s understanding of the finer points of NZ law, please note that on that he was assisted by Rishworth, a Professor in Law at AU

    Has anyone in the media asked Rishworth his opinions on Binnie and Fisher now that both reports are out?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,686) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
    —————

    “Our money” – it is not just your money, I’ve contributed a fair amount of it over the years, and I say he can have as much as the rules allow.

    The fact is, neither you, nor I should have a say. The law should never be politically biased. The total evidence in this case is no longer available, due to the incompetence of some officials. There are conflicting views on the evidence, and therefore, under normal situations it would be reexamined. Due to the actions of some, that can’t happen. It can never be solved to the satisfaction of everyone. Because of those mistakes, whether guilty or innocent, Bain is entitled to receive compensation and as a country we have to take it, like it or not, and accept that the people we employed to do a job, didn’t do it according to the rules. That’s what rules are for, and when they are broken, people pay, in this case, we do. The trick is to ensure they don’t stuff up again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    9 years since the COA said the glasses were of no consequence, there’s a parrot still squawking about it. What a surprise. A parrot with blood pressure.

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

    Kea,
    I agree that the law says David Bain is not guilty.
    But the law also says that a person has to be proved innocent on the balance of probabities to receive compensation.
    Having read Binnie’s report it si obvious he was “captured by the defence” so we have to throw that report down the dunny and get someone else to write one. If that person also finds that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities then Bain should probably receive compensation.

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

    I see a David Bain supporter is teliing porkies again.
    The Court of Appeal said that those glasses were of no use to Robin but could only have been used by David.

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

    I honestly don’t know what David Bain’s supporters are bleating about. If they are so sure David Bain is innocent then they won’t mind another report being written. Surely the writer will come to the same decision as Binnie.

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

    Muggins, I have answered your question about the links to Robin many times, e.g. blood splatter etc.

    I take it from your answer that you cannot produce any solid evidence that places those glasses on the killer.

    How you think that lens got in the bedroom is immaterial, you have to be able to prove it, and you can’t. You have one view, I have another. Both are entirely plausible. Neither can be proved. You can harp on about the glasses but as neither of us can prove our suspicions, and in fact, neither could the police, it can only be classified as unexplained.

    In my opinion the fact that the glasses had no evidence on them, in the way of blood or fingerprints, is evidence that they were not worn and involved in the struggle, as the fluid involved, either in the form of blood or body fluids/sweat, would have left evidence.

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

    muggins (284) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    ——————
    Providing the investigative writer is unbiased to begin with, that is exactly what would happen.

    Using Fisher would be like getting you to write it, there is no way you would read any evidence with a rational objective.

    I know, they could get you and me to do it, now that would be interesting !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    Chuck bird:I think it would be great to have Mark Buckley and David Bain debate the issue on Campbell Live.

    It would be even better if Buckley sued for defamation. Either Bain settles out of court and admits he told a porky or … he gets cross-examined by a lawyer in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    So lets run a score card for the disaffected. Not guilty, followed by innocent on the balance of probabilities. Not much to write home about at this point.

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

    Lets run a scorecard, 2 dead 5 stabbed .. eh Nostalgia

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

    Lets run thru those other murders,

    MUM, STEPHEN, LANIET, ARAWA, DAD …

    sounds right davey ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Kea (13,567 comments) says:

    Ok Nostalgia,

    Here is my view:

    From what I know of the evidence: Guilty

    Balance of probabilities: Guilty

    ——————————————
    Legal view:

    Finding of the Court: Not Guilty

    Finding on the balance of probabilities: Not Guilty

    Do these findings support a compensation claim: Yes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    “….that on the balance of probabilities due to extraordinary circumstances, he is innocent.”

    That is not the test. First Bain has to prove innocence on the balance of probabilities. If he does that then he must establish extraordinary circumstances justifying compensation. The issue of that extraordinary circumstances arises because he is outside the normal guidelines for compensation cases. Bain might well establish his innocence (and this is clearly a matter of conjecture) but still receive no compensation because of the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Binnie’s report is ‘innocent’ Nookin.

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

    muggins (284) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    It seems you are saying there is nothing to link those glasses to the murders, simply that you think they may have been linked. I don’t think that would stand up to any type of scrutiny, do you?

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

    “I honestly don’t know what David Bain’s supporters are bleating about. If they are so sure David Bain is innocent then they won’t mind another report being written. Surely the writer will come to the same decision as Binnie.”

    The Bain cheer squad realise that Bain got lucky. I mean, what are the chances of lightning striking twice? Karam can see the $$$ passing him by. Oh well, he’ll just have to write another book. David Bain: How I Got Away With Murder. It’s bound to be a best seller.

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

    ross69 (1,248) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    The shame of it all is, I don’t think this is over yet. Not by a long shot. What I am having trouble seeing is, how on earth are they going to be able to find another unbiased and qualified person to do another report? After all, until he gave his completed report to the Minister of Justice, that is what Binnie was seen as. That perception only changed after he furnished his conclusions.

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

    > If you say your innocent, then your also guilty, until you prove your not.

    Hmmm but I can prove I’m not. Remember, it was either David or Robin. That means that you’re in the clear too. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I honestly don’t know what Robin’s supporters are bleating about. The PC report, the trial verdict and the BOP didn’t support them.

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

    > The shame of it all is, I don’t think this is over yet. Not by a long shot.

    Oh I agree. David is a walking money machine. Karam hasn’t finished milking him yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Reid (16,700 comments) says:

    After all, until he gave his completed report to the Minister of Justice, that is what Binnie was seen as. That perception only changed after he furnished his conclusions.

    What about this don’t some get?

    The conclusions were in fact in line with the majority of opinion.

    Newsflash.

    This is yet another injustice, in the eyes of most.

    What about this clear and present fact is hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    And you have finished bsing yet ross.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,800) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    It seems those 3 were wrong. There is a counterspin site that has been mentioned above, and it says Bain is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    “Binnie’s report is ‘innocent’ Nookin”

    Yes it is. The next issue would have to be extraordinary circumstances. Binnie found that they exist but I gather that this was not his brief. You have to remember that Binnie is not an adjudicator. He is an advisor ( which makes his public spat all the more perplexing and unseemly). Cabinet is the entity that must be satisfied. Collins says that the process adopted by Binnie was so flawed as to be unreliable. She has strong support for that view — not only Fisher but a couple of professors as well. I have no real view yet. Some of his reasoning appears flawed and he appears to have looked unduly kindly on David. That does not necessarily make him wrong but then again I would not put $2m on it. Right at the moment I have umpteen other decisions to read and assimilate before the end of the week and so I will not be plowing thru these reports anytime soon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Fair enough Nookin. Binnie makes his finding, Fisher questions his method but doesn’t disagree with his finding. Fisher argues Binnie’s report could lead to review if released, then Collins releases it.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,802) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Robin’s footprints were found? Really, as I understand it, the person who originally measured stated that he measured them from the point of greatest pressure, so that really, they could have belonged to either David or Robin. However, Robin’s socks were not coated in blood, whereas David’s were, and there were only one set of footprints, so therefore, if David had wandered around the house, as he claimed, and Robin had also been around the house, there would have been two sets of footprints. So, that only leads to one conclusion, that only David walked around the house. Or do you have another brilliant reason? Yes, correct, David’s evidence was read aloud by Michael Reed. But David wasn’t allowed to be cross-examined? And why was that? In the UK, a judge can make an call on inference of a witnesses refusal to testify. Here, sadly that is not the case. However, the reason I would deduce is that David could never keep his story straight, as was the case in the original trial, where, unexpectedly he changed his story. I say unexpectedly, as Michael Guest was caught unawares. It has been told to me by a third-party that Michael Guest made the statement that he believed David was guilty. Now why would he, aware of all of the evidence, say a thing like that? Unfortunately, that can’t be used as evidence in a trial.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,802) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    I honestly don’t know what Robin’s supporters are bleating about. The PC report, the trial verdict and the BOP didn’t support them.

    Actually, the Privy Council report didn’t say that they thought David was innocent or guilty, and they ordered a retrial. Their main statement was they found, according to what they had read, that there was a miscarriage of justice. Well, actually, I agree, David should have been incarcerated for much longer, but, oh well, that is the state of things in New Zealand. As I understand it, if 11 jurors in a New Zealand trial say the person is guilty and one not, then the verdict must be not guilty, as it is pointless to say otherwise. The guilty verdict has to be unanimous. So, 11 out of 12 might have thought David was guilty, but David would still have been acquitted. As I understand it, there was definitely an argument about things. One juror didn’t want to miss his pre-booked holiday, so didn’t want to have to discuss things too long, so would probably have agreed to anything at that stage. Therefore I wouldn’t be so sure as to how innocent or guilty David was from that point of view. Such is the nature of trial by jury.

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

    Also, please read these links about Binnie.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/robinbain/permalink/10151093808291841/

    A bit of an eye opener really, the connection to Helen Cull QC and the spats that are occurring because of similar issues people have with Binnie’s administration of justice in Canada.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/robinbain/permalink/10151124391791841/

    So, interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    GJKiwi
    Where is the bit about Binnie and Cull and problems with Binnie at home?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “It would be even better if Buckley sued for defamation. Either Bain settles out of court and admits he told a porky or … he gets cross-examined by a lawyer in court.”

    Chiz, would he be able to? David did not make the remark publicly and even if he did on the stand I do not think one could sue a murder accused for something they say on the stand in there defense. Maybe some lawyer on this blog could comment if I am right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but it would depend on the status of Binnie’e interview with Bain. I’m not sure such an interview would attract the same privilege as statements in court, or the same sanction of a perjury prosecution for lying in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Bogusnews (414 comments) says:

    Kea you are incorrect.

    a person being acquited is not necessarily grounds for them to be compensated at all. When on trial a person has to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the onus is on the crown to do that.

    When going for compensation, the onus is on the individual. He must prove his innocence. Has Bain done that? No, the kindest thing you could say is that it’s 50/50 he is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    Bogus
    I think that’s nearly correct. The Law Commission recommended an independent tribunal to review such cases and decide on compensation. The requirement to establish one’s innocence on the balance of probabilities comes form the Cabinet’s own guidelines for making decisions on compensation.
    The current fuss perhaps demonstrates that the Law Commission’s recommendations should have been heeded. As it stands, compensation in such cases means that the decision becomes a political one, so Binnie’s report placed Collins in a political quandry – one that she hasn’t been able to manage very effectively at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    I was at the start a supporter of David Bain. I thought it was open and shut. Robin had an incestuous relationship with his daughter and believed it was going to be made public. I thought the police reconstruction that David killed his mother and siblings and did his paper round and then came back and murdered his father was ridiculous. I have of course since changed my mind as more evidence came to light.

    I wonder if any of David’s supporters ever thought he was guilty but changed their mind as new evidence came to light.

    How many on this blog who at least believe David is guilty on the balance of probabilities originally believed he was innocent because of botch ups the police made and Joe Karam’s book and/or lobbying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    I was asking yesterday how many people have had their minds changed by Binnie’s report. I would suspect that most people with an opinion formed that opinion some years ago and that they are unlikely to change their minds now.

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

    GJKiwi (98) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:48 am

    ——————

    David’s socks were not ‘coated’ in blood as you state, but had a small amount of blood on them, that was not consistent with the amount required to have left the foot prints, and could have been transferred simply by being in any room where there was blood from the victims. As there was socks in the wash, it is highly probable that they were worn by the killer, and blood evidence removed. Both David and Robin wore the same size socks, which would not have altered the footprint, but would mean that once washed, it was impossible to know who had worn them.

    Good to note you are a member of JFRB, it places you in that special catagory of people for which much can be said about.

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

    GJKiwi (98) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 1:18 am

    That link won’t work.
    I am always very suspicious of people who make outrageous claims to shore up their position, then link to an unworkable site as proof of those claims.

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

    ross69 (1,250) Says:
    December 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    ———————

    You wonder why David Bain lied about having a tattoo? Get real. 20 years ago tattoos were not as common as they are now, and often frowned upon by older generations, as they still are by some. David not telling his Aunt he had a tattoo is certainly not a big deal. They were not particularly close. I know adult children with tattoos that still have not told their parents. Your argument is pathetic and proves nothing.

    That he was still grieving for a pet he loved is quite understandable, and anyone who had a dog they loved that had died would understand that sentiment entirely.

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

    Kanz (72) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:01 am
    ——————

    It doesn’t work for you, because you are not a member of the Justice for Robin Bain group, which has some members currently being sued for defamation in the Courts.

    It appears GJkiwi is a member of that group, and possibly Nookin, has he indicates he can access the site but can’t find the part about the judge. He obviously doesn’t know that the does such things to test who can read the comments and who can’t.

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

    insert ‘group’ between ‘the and ‘does’ in the last sentence. Where is the edit facility?

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

    “I would suspect that most people with an opinion formed that opinion some years ago and that they are unlikely to change their minds now.”

    Well, I’m certainly more confident that I was of Bain’s guilt after his interview with Binnie. There’s no good reason why an innocent person would provide Binnie with false and misleading information and make contradictory statements. Then there is his attack on Mark Buckley. That shows what sort of guy he really is – nasty and vindictive. So to all those who say that Binnie’s report was a waste of money, I disagree. It’s revealed what sort of person David Bain really is, and illustrates why the Defence didn’t want him to take the stand in his own defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Nookin (3,566 comments) says:

    “and possibly Nookin”

    You have now completely destroyed any semblance of credibilty that you ever had as far as I am concerned.

    For your information, I have seen the site linked by GJKiwi on on occasion only — this morning when I saw a link in GJKiwi’s post. I am not a member of the group. I don’t follow the group, and I doubt that I will return to the site. If I need anything I will look for an official report. I certainly won’t be looking at your posts for any info or balance, either.

    If you were to pull your head out of the cloud and think for a minute, the suggestion that I am a member if a group based on the fact that I could not find my way round its site and asked the poster where the info was has about as much logic as your conclusion that Buckley screwed a goat because acquaintances of your family have weird fantasies.

    I invite you to point to any single post where I have asserted one way or another that David is guilty. I have certainly taken you to task, and others, because your reasoning process is so driven by your preconceived conclusions that they add nothing whatsover to the debate.
    The rest of your comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.

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

    ross69 (1,251) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:32 am
    —————-
    so what say you about the type of people Doyle and Weir are, and the lies they have told, and the contradictory and misleading information they supplied. Does the same judgement apply to them to, or are you selective in your choosing and excuse the discrepancies of Crown witnesses, just not David Bain?

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

    Nookin (2,289) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:33 am
    ———–

    if you note, I said and possibly Nookin! with the emphasis being on possibly because you ask ‘where were the posts’. Had you clicked on the link and were not a member you would have seen if was a closed group, and in my opinion would have pointed out you could access the link, as Kanz did. I would have thought you’d noted the ‘possibly’ but obviously not.

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

    > David not telling his Aunt he had a tattoo is certainly not a big deal.

    Oh I agree. The trouble is, it’s not the only lie he’s told. He lied about saying that he didn’t hate his father. Look at his final comments to Binnie, which of course Binnie quotes in full in his main report (Binnie accepts the comments uncritically):

    “The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly. The last thing that I could possibly have done is to take their lives. I find it difficult hurting an animal, but to take a person’s life, let alone my own family’s life is unimaginable and not only have I served 13 years in prison for doing this, I’ve also served the so-called sentence of being labelled a convicted killer and a murderer and you know, a monster, and being told on a daily basis that I’m a psychopath and I was psychotic and all these various, you know,
    horrible, you know, psychiatric issues and all this sort of – I’ve had all of this to deal with and so the pain and the anguish that I have felt has been, you know, from the original mourning (sic) has been compounded time and time and time again. I want to assure you that the last thing I could have done if we strip away all those immaterial aspects of things and all the names I’ve been called, the last thing that I should be called is a murderer ‘cos I did not kill my family.”

    We were extremely close and loved each other dearly…I find it difficult hurting an animal? Goodness, David is wasting his obvious talents as a comedian. He should be on the stage. David continues to lie. I guess he thinks that’s the only way he might get compo.

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

    I do note however in your post nookin you state you have ‘seen’ the site link, then the you doubt you will return to the site – you can’t get into the site at all, unless you are member. Pointless ‘returning’.

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

    I agree with Ross69, Binnie’s interview with David is especially revealing. Binnie can claim that he thinks Bain is a credible witness but on that matter we, as observers, are equally qualified to make our own opinion on his credibility and this interview provides plenty of material.

    With respect to the comments about Mark Buckley, Binnie makes yet another grave error. He should simply have not included the details of this in the report. It’s not as if this information is crucial to David Bain’s defence, because Binnie doesn’t make much of it. It is just Bain’s attempt to discredit someone’s very incriminating evidence against him. Now the slight against Buckley is published to the world. In terms of defamation, both Binnie and Bain are legally liable but so are all the sites that published the report, including the MoJ, which probably should have blacked it out. In terms of defamation, the accusations against the police are of a different nature, because they refer to professional competency and not to something personal and the police are officers of the Crown while Buckley is not. Collins did say that they were hesitant to publish the report because of potentially defamatory material but the pressure was on them to release it. What a mess!

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

    ross69 (1,252) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Again you are taking the quote that David Bain said about hating his father out of context. David Bain NEVER said he hated his father before the deaths. He did however state after them, when told that the police suspected either him or his father, that ‘if his father did this he would hate him for it’.

    Therefore, his statements regarding the type of family he thought they were is not misleading, or even the slightest bit dishonest on his part. Obviously they weren’t that type of family, but then David Bain wasn’t the first person to describe them that way. Even extended family members stated they thought the family was a tight happy unit.

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

    “so what say you about the type of people Doyle and Weir are, and the lies they have told, and the contradictory and misleading information they supplied.”

    I wasn’t aware they had murdered 5 members of their family. David insists he’s innocent. So why does he need to bullshit everyone about what happened? Do you really think that’s going to help him get compo?

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

    Regarding the animals. David had pets, dogs in particular, which he looked after and cared for and was attached to. His comment regarding ‘animals’ was no doubt in reference to them. The ability to shoot possums, a pest, can hardly be compared as not having a love for animals. Many a farmer loves his dog, but happily shoots possums, and other pests, even his prize cattle, if the need arises. I think you are fishing and being some what desperate on this point.

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

    “With respect to the comments about Mark Buckley, Binnie makes yet another grave error. He should simply have not included the details of this in the report.”

    Kent, I’m not sure I agree. Certainly, the comment shows what a creep David is. From that perspective, it illustrates the lengths he’ll go to to if someone pisses him off. Let’s hope he doesn’t have access to a gun.

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

    “David Bain NEVER said he hated his father before the deaths. He did however state after them, when told that the police suspected either him or his father, that ‘if his father did this he would hate him for it’.”

    You are wrong. Go and read Binnie’s interview with him. It is all there.

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

    ross69 (1,253) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:49 am

    —————-

    I see that David has contradicted himself over things like cups of coffee/tea, and other things that are of little consequence to his innocence or not and the 20 years time gap of course would make some memories different. IF he recited his testimony word for word and answered the questions in exactly the same way, then you would have something to worry about and I would also be extremely worried. His lapse of memory, inability to recount exactly the small details is perfectly acceptable. Try bringing AAT in and see if you get the same story in exactly the same way from him now.

    Regarding Buckley, who would know, but even if David was hitting back at someone he thinks lied about him, does that make him a murderer? Does that provide any solid evidence that he killed his family, or even come close to it? It could be argued his hitting back at Buckley is evidence of his annoyance that Buckley lied.

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

    ross69 (1,255) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:57 am
    ——————

    You are talking years after the events. I am quite sure in David’s mind, knowing now that if he didn’t kill his family, his father must have done it, that he would now distance himself from any feelings he had towards his father and replace them with hatred. But at the time, that is in the same year as the murders and therefore the most relevant, David Bain made no statements that he hated his father in any way, or felt any animosity towards him, other that the one statement regarding if he had done it or not. David has had years of torment because of his fathers actions, anyone in that position would grow to hate the person responsible.

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

    Kent Parker (401) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:49 am

    ________________

    What a joke, you now advocate that Justice Binney should have omitted things from his report.
    If he had done and you’d found out they had been said, you would have criticised him for not including them.

    I would have criticised him harshly for not including the details, because there a two ways that information can be perceived, but also because they were said, and therefore must be included, and commented on, regardless of which way they are interpreted.

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

    Kent Parker (401) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:49 am

    ———————–

    Actually you are completely wrong. Binnie and Bain are not liable, given the context of the report and the context in which the information was given. It was not Binnie who published that information, Binnie’s report was to the Minister of Justice, who then published it. She could have removed that part, she didn’t, the responsibility lies with her.

    You need to brush up on your defamation law, it appears you don’t have a very good understanding of it, but then, we knew that, didn’t we?

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

    Judith,re that cup of tea which has now morphed into a cup of coffee.
    Back when you were Jinny I asked the question why would David Bain not have first asked his mother if she would like a cup of tea because she might have already have gotten one for herself.
    You replied that when you had visitors you always took them a cup of tea first thing without asking them,being the gracious host that you were. But wouldn’t they be a bit pissed off if they were all coffee drinkers?

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

    muggins (285) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:11 am
    ———————-

    My visitors are friends and people I know. Knowing them as I do, I also know their tastes in beverages. As David has said, his mother liked coffee in the morning (many people don’t drink coffee at night because it keeps them awake).

    So David said cup of tea instead of cup of coffee – under the duress of all that he was experiencing, including fronting the press at a media conference in Perth, and being interviewed by a Judge, he said tea instead of coffee, and YOU argue it is a sign of murder. Keep it up Sleuth/Muggins/etc etc, you make your argument more ridiculous by the day.

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

    I can’t wait for Mark Buckley to get back from overseas so I can find out if it was he that was shagging that goat or if it was actually someone else. I would ask the goat but it has long since died .

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

    “I see that David has contradicted himself over things like cups of coffee/tea, and other things that are of little consequence to his innocence or not”

    You are again wrong. Read Binnie’s report! David said he couldn’t drive a car without glasses. That was a lie. He said he didn’t wear his mother’s glasses that weekend but his lawyer (and other witnesses) say he did wear them. He told Binnie that he had no memory for 20-25 minutes after he found his mother’s body, but later proceeded to tell Binnie that he went from his mother’s room to Stephen’s room, etc. He told the International Justice Conference in Perth this year:

    “I do have marginal recall of then going from room to room trying to help or to find out what was going on, calling to my family as I went. I found my brother Steven curled on the floor in his room. I saw Laniet in bed and Arawa also on the floor of her room. Twisted into an unnatural position. I then remember finding Dad on the floor of our lounge and my impression of black hands taking away my family came at that time.”

    That’s quite specific for someone who has only marginal recall. He didn’t tell Binnie he had marginal recall. He had no recall.

    Q. When you discovered your mother in the position she was, did you touch her?
    A. No, not to my knowledge.
    Q . Did you – why didn’t you , at that point, call emergency?
    A. I ‘m sorry I can’t give you any rational answers from this point on.
    Q. This is the break point in the memory.
    A. Yes Sir.

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

    muggins (286) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:16 am

    I wouldn’t count on any of that. Bain said this under oath. Buckley, to this point, has never taken an oath before speaking, at least not on the Bain case. Many people say things that they wouldn’t or couldn’t repeat under oath.

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

    Q. “David sort of rubbed his eyes l ike that you know and I said, ‘ O h , are you r eyes troubling you dear?'” Question, “When you say ‘rubbing his eyes, ‘ you were – “Answer, “Yes, it was sort of movement like that just as though h is eyes were troubling him and he said , ‘Yes they are a bit. I really need my glasses, ‘ and I went to get up to go and get them , saying, you know, ‘Where are they?’ He explained his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was leaving his music lesson and I asked him how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses.” Now we’ll come to the glasses in due course but did you have such a conversation with Janis Clark?
    A. I can’t remember that actual conversation.
    Q. Is it true that you said you had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses?
    A. I don’t think I would have said that to her.

    So 18 years after the event, David reckons he wouldn’t have said something which Clark recalls him saying at the time. Who’s more likely to be correct? Why doesn’t David own up and say, well, if that was what she said at the time, it’s probably true? Whenever a witness says something he doesn’t like, almost always they’re wrong and he’s right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Regarding the animals. David had pets, dogs in particular, which he looked after and cared for and was attached to. His comment regarding ‘animals’ was no doubt in reference to them.”

    If David was so concerned about animals why did he not report Buckley for abusing a goat?

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

    ross69 (1,256) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:17 am
    —————
    Can you not see the discrepancies in what you have said.

    David initially did not have recall or memory. He then was assisted by professionals whilst in custody over many years to recall some of the details, but not all were retrievable. They refer to this in their reports as ‘marginal recall’. This is well documented in the medical records that David gave permission to be released.

    Whilst he is able to recall some, there are others he cannot. He obviously cannot recall the part about his mother, which knowing of his love for her, is quite understandable, and perfectly normal for trauma victims.

    You are desperately trying to find links that are not there. All of which you argue is explainable and has been explained by professionals who are qualified and experienced to know.

    David couldn’t drive without his glasses by law. Like most car drivers he could drive a car blindfolded. The question is, which particular skill was he referring. I cannot drive a car without glasses by law, but I can certainly drive a car without them. If someone asks me to drive a car and I don’t have my glasses, I say ‘I can’t’.

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

    Judith, so all your visitors drink tea first thing? That surprises me. Many people like a cup of coffee to start the day. You did say you always took your visitors a cup of tea.
    By the way,Karam mentioned that cup of tea in his latest book,which he wrote before that conference. David must have told him that. Was he under duress when he told Joe about that cup of tea? Maybe he was because apparently he told Joe that he saw his mother’s light on after he came up the stairs,whereas we all know he saw his mother’s light on before he went downstairs.
    But why would anyone want to take a cup of tea/coffee to a deceased person? Bit of a waste ,isn’t it.
    And Judith,I don’t know who this Sleuth/Muggins /etc.etc is.
    Unlike some people I don’t change my pseudonym on the blog that I am posting on. I reckon a person who does that is being a bit dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    GJKiiw.

    Where to start. Nobody has made any claims that PC said David was innocent. The footprints were said to be complete although at the retrial Hentschel tried to fudge that. The other 2 scientists were in agreement, one for the Crown and one for the defence, footprint of David 20mm too large for that left at the scene – conclusion on the balance of probabilities; Robin was walking about the murder scene. Better to stick with basics, Robin’s footprints in the murder scene.
    David was cross-examined why you keep saying that is bewildering. His evidence in chief and cross examination from the first trial and all his statements were admitted into evidence. You’re essentially trying to cross examine him because a previous cross-examination didn’t give rise to anything incriminating. Binnie didn’t look behind the verdict and did conduct a third trial, he applied the test of BOP on the evidence against both men – we know the result. A result which Fisher didn’t disagree with.

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

    Judith, I disagree, Binnie has legal liability. Bain does because he said the statement in front of at least one other person and so does the Ministry because they published the report to the world. Binnie was remiss in allowing that information to be sent to the Ministry. The report and its appendices were ultimately created by Binnie and he takes responsibility as author. Binnie is responsible for publishing the comments to the Minister.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,690) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:30 am

    ————————

    Was the animal hurt? Do teenagers dob mates in? As none of us were there, I don’t think anyone can make that sort of comment as there are no details. ‘He had sex with a goat’ – what kind of sex? The type is not clarified, was it fondling, intercourse, oral, etc etc. How can any person comment without knowing the exact details of the claim being made. Sex is a very big concept that can refer to a great number of behaviours and acts. I don’t think its a conversation any of us can justifiably get into with the limited information.

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

    > Bain said this under oath

    So you agree that he lied under oath?

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

    Kanz
    If Mark Buckley wasn’t shagging that goat I am sure he will want to clear his name. I am sure he will be quite prepared to swear on oath that he wasn’t shagging that goat if he wasn’t shagging it.
    So then it would be a case of who do we believe. A person who we know has lied on oath or a person ,who ,so far as I am aware,has never lied on oath.

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

    Kent Parker (402) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:36 am

    That is not correct. Binnie said no such thing in the report, which he penned. It was printed in the transcript of Bain’s interview, perhaps it is the typist who transcribed that recording who is at fault? Binnie had no responsibility whatsoever for it being published.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I thought he was guilty Chuck Bird, but I didn’t know the case. I swallowed the crap and went for the goofy guy shoots his family and has all this obvious evidence against him, but I never looked closely at it until 2008 when somebody wrote that he choked with laughter when hearing on the radio some time after the murders ‘that a paper boy had used his paper round as an alibi.’ I got interested then. But it took a long time for me to decide the answer lay in the lounge where the final death had happened, that scene was incompatible with the Crown case. Incidentally, the Crown retired from the lounge toward the end of the retrial and asked the Jury to concentrate on what had happened in Stephen’s room only because they couldn’t prove Robin’s murder and the defence had disproved it beyond reasonable doubt.

    As for the suing for something said under oath. It was interesting watching the take on that yesterday by a whole lot of people who never let not knowing the truth preventing them being fonts of wisdom.

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

    Kent Parker (402) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:36 am
    ————————

    As you well know firstly the claim would have to be proven to be untrue and you certainly know that point.

    Then it would have to be proven that the person who heard it thought less of the person for hearing it. There is no indication that Judge Binnie did that.

    It would also have had to have been said outside the bounds of any clarifying legal context. It wasn’t.

    Most importantly, the comment was not published by speaker or the receiver but by a third party. A third party, who having received a legal opinion, and being herself a lawyer, decided to publish it anyway.

    You are pushing it uphill with a fork. I’m sure your members believe you.

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

    > David couldn’t drive without his glasses by law.

    Can you show me where he says that to Binnie? What he says is:

    A. …you gotta remember, I didn’t have my glasses. I couldn’t drive, as – the way that it worked out was I was at rehearsals on the Sunday –
    Q . Well, you drove on the Sunday night to go and collect the fish and chips?
    A. That’s correct, yes. With Laniet in the car with me.

    Why does David wait til he’s been caught out in a lie before he admits the truth?

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

    muggins (288) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:39 am
    ————————-

    Can you please post the evidence where it states Buckley was ‘shagging the goat’? Surely this is your interpretation of the statement only?

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

    Judith,
    We cant ask that goat what sort of sex whoever it was was having with it because that goat is dead.
    But I don’t think it would have been oral sex. I mean,that goat might not have liked having oral sex and it might have bitten that bloke’s whatsit off. Would any bloke want to take that risk?
    And I don’t think fondling would count.

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

    Judith (111) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:37 am

    This is not correct either. At no time was “sex with a goat” said. The actual words used were, “because we had goats on our p roperty and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation .” What is a deviant act?

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

    Judith,
    You are correct when you say that that David not telling his aunt about that tattoo is not a big deal. But why did he lie to her about when he had it done? Why did he lie to the police when he told them he had no identifying tattoos? Why did he lie to that prison officer as to when he had it done?
    That tattoo was very important to him. Possibly it symbolised love and death. Red rose rising,black arm band,feathers descending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation . I ‘ m not, I wasn’t completely fooled but it was certainly, you know, looked stupid and obviously embarrassing for him. Ah , and as we know you have to do to take, get the blame away from yourself is point it at somebody else, “It was him, it was him. ” So what happened is and you can see, can see in this, in the yearbook for my last year at high school –

    The above is a direct quote from David in the interview. NOTE what David says above about getting the blame away from yourself.

    Do any of David’s supporters have contact with him? His friend Judith would like to know what sort of sex he alleges he former friend was having with a goat. Perhaps David would like to join in the debate and answer a few questions. If he can do so satisfactorily we will support his compensation.

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

    Kanz,
    deviant means deviating from what is regarded as normal or usual,especially sexually.
    So,ok ,he didn’t say having sex with,but I think it would be fair to assume that is what he meant.
    However,I take your point . From now on I will not use the word “shagging”. Would “humping” be ok with you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Interesting that Bain makes this accusation, yet he is the one that had the graze on his knee.

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

    muggins (291) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:01 am

    If you think what is covered by the word deviant is ‘shagging’ or ‘humping’ then by all means, use whatever term you wish. Some think interfering with children is fine, others think that it is deviant behaviour. It is all about perception based on how one conducts oneself. Perhaps Buckley didn’t think whatever it was that he did was deviant at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kent:

    ‘With respect to the comments about Mark Buckley, Binnie makes yet another grave error. He should simply have not included the details of this in the report.’

    Nonsense he was obliged to include all of the transcripts. You’re desperate to find ‘grave errors.’ Not including the full transcripts of the interviews wasn’t an option. What was an option was that those, of some of those details were never made public, but it wasn’t Binnie that made the report public it was the Minister who had plotted against his work for 3 months that did that. Suddenly, all those that Minister was concerned ‘hadn’t had the right of reply’ were thrown to the wolves in her political panic. In that panic she also revealed the instrument of Judicial Review had been advised to her as a potential remedy for those effected if they chose. Well, I know someone else who was effected by Ms Collins subterfuge and interference in natural Justice.

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

    I see a David Bain supporter is saying he didn’t swallow the crap about David Bain killing his family. He seems to have no problem swallowing the crap that Robin Bain killed four members of his family and then shot himself.
    And swallowing the crap that David Bain wasn’t wearing his mother’s glasses[though from his recent posts he seems to have regurgitated that particular piece of crap].

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

    > Interesting that Bain makes this accusation, yet he is the one that had the graze on his knee.

    Not to mention the bruises on his forehead and scratches on his chest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Did Bain own any gumboots? This could be critical evidence on motive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,289) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 8:33 am

    I was surprised by that inference as well Nookin. There are some old adversaries here and the situation doesn’t always enjoy subtleness. I like your contributions because of the balance they bring, balance is surely what is needed now.

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

    Kanz.
    I don’t for one minute believe Mark Buckley even touched that goat.
    I mean ,he goes round to 65 Every Street,one would assume to have a chat with David Bain. Margaret Bain tells him David is out but will be home shortly. So Buckley decides that while he is is waiting he will go out and perform a deviant act on a goat. What better way to fill in a few minutes. Unfortunately David comes home and find Mark performing that deviant act.
    I suppose a David Bain supporter might believe something like that happened,but I sure don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Perhaps Buckley didn’t think whatever it was that he did was deviant at all.”

    So Kanz, are you saying that Buckley did anything whatsoever with a goat?

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

    Bear in mind that the reference to a goat is apparently under David’s name in the school yearbook. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ross you paste heaps of inane nonsense. But where’ s the bit about David hating his father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Kent Parker (402) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:36 am
    Judith, I disagree, Binnie has legal liability. Bain does because he said the statement in front of at least one other person and so does the Ministry because they published the report to the world. Binnie was remiss in allowing that information to be sent to the Ministry. The report and its appendices were ultimately created by Binnie and he takes responsibility as author. Binnie is responsible for publishing the comments to the Minister.’

    Shakes head in bewilderment. One could anybody say.

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

    > But where’ s the bit about David hating his father.

    You still haven’t read Binnie’s interview with David…

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

    muggins (293) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Bain said “I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation .”
    Now you have written a whole story around this? Including his mother, Bain coming and going, etc. Your imagination certainly works overtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (2,692) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:30 am
    “Regarding the animals. David had pets, dogs in particular, which he looked after and cared for and was attached to. His comment regarding ‘animals’ was no doubt in reference to them.”

    If David was so concerned about animals why did he not report Buckley for abusing a goat?’

    Finally.

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

    “Bear in mind that the reference to a goat is apparently under David’s name in the school yearbook.”

    Written by whom?

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

    But even before Binnie:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So David wanted his own father out of the family home? But remember what he said to Binnie:

    “The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.”

    What an outrageous lie.

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

    Bain said “I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation .”

    Given the propensity of the cheer squad to embark on the litigious pathway whenever someone says something that doesn’t suit their version of events, I wonder how long it would have taken for them to sue Buckley if the accusation was the other way around – especially if Buckley had suggested David was seen shagging a goat. :D

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

    > Perhaps David would like to join in the debate and answer a few questions.

    I don’t think he’ll be up for that. I imagine Karam and Reed are besides themselves with angst now that David’s interview with Binnie has been published and we learn that he is prepared to tell outrageous lies about his murdered family.

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

    Kanz.
    Why would Mark Buckley go round to 65 Every Street if it wasn’t to see David?
    Surely you are not suggesting he only went round there to commit a deviant act on a goat? I mean how would he even know if said goat would consent to having a deviant performed on it?

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

    I note that police found a piece of cardboard with five hand drawn circular targets which had many bullet holes in and around them. David told Binnie that the five circles were drawn by Robin. I wonder if this piece of evidence still exists and can be checked to verify David’s claim.

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

    Judith,
    You say you have a plausible explanation as to how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. I am all ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    This goat thing is really only relevant to show two things. Firstly, it shows David telling a lie about someone whose possible testimony he wishes to discredit. Secondly, it shows Binnie’s incompetence and bias by accepting this far fetched tale.

    The important issue is that David told at least one person, Mark Buckley of an alibi identical to the one he used. Now if Buckley told no one of David’s story prior to the murders it could be argued he was getting even with David over something. However Buckley disclosed David’s story to another friend years before the murder so that discount the getting even allegation David made to Binnie.

    Can any of David’s fans show what motive Mark Buckley would have for telling his friend, Gareth Taylor of David’s fantasy alibi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Having trouble finding it ross. So back to newspaper reports. Par for the course.

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

    ross,
    David said his father drew rabbit’s ears on that target. There were no rabbit’s ears on it. And he said it was used to sight the rifle in. What ,29 shots to sight a rifle in? Pull the other one.

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

    Funny how when Karam asked David about the story re using the paper run as an alibi David never mentioned that goat to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    You’re struggling with the goat thing and the interviews, they were under oath and recorded. Would you be happier if the tapes were doctored? Your defence of Buckley is admirable if but biased. You’re happy to believe what he says without hesitation but when it’s challenged in anyway you say the person is lying. Nothing strikes you about that? Just normal?

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

    muggins (297) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Funny how when Karam asked David about the story re using the paper run as an alibi David never mentioned that goat to him.

    Now who is it that is telling lies? You have no idea what Bain has said to Karam. Maybe it is time for you to step aeay from this for a while, your imagination is working overtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I have a photo of the target. Just like I have three references for the strip search. And a photo of what on the balance of probabilities would be evidence of a nose bleed on Robin Bain.

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

    > So back to newspaper reports.

    Get back to me when you’ve read Bain’s interview. Ignorance is bliss eh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    In your case ignorance is indeed bliss ross, as you demonstrate everyday.

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

    > What ,29 shots to sight a rifle in? Pull the other one.

    Maybe he wasn’t wearing glasses at the time. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Funny how when Karam asked David about the story re using the paper run as an alibi David never mentioned that goat to him.”

    We do not know this. Perhaps Joe would like to join the debate and tell us.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,813) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Chuck Bird

    You’re struggling with the goat thing and the interviews, they were under oath and recorded. Would you be happier if the tapes were doctored? Your defence of Buckley is admirable if but biased. You’re happy to believe what he says without hesitation but when it’s challenged in anyway you say the person is lying. Nothing strikes you about that? Just normal?

    What we do know for certain is. Bain has denied what Buckley claimed about him, and he denied it under oath. We have yet to see a denial of what Bain said about Buckley, either under oath or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Chuck Bird

    You’re struggling with the goat thing and the interviews, they were under oath and recorded. Would you be happier if the tapes were doctored? Your defence of Buckley is admirable if but biased. You’re happy to believe what he says without hesitation but when it’s challenged in anyway you say the person is lying. Nothing strikes you about that? Just normal?”

    I would not be happy for anything to be left out of the interview. I am not struggling with the goat thing but I am struggling with your logic or lack of.

    Please tell me what motive would Buckley have for making up what David told and relaying it to his friend Gareth Taylor? If Buckley wanted to slander David he would have told a lot of people not just one or possibly a few.

    Please answer the question.

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

    Justice Binnie makes a fundamental flaw in the application of balance of probabilities test. He was meant to put the burden of proof onto David Bain and not onto the Crown. This means that where there is uncertainty in the evidence, and David Bain cannot prove his case, then his case fails for that particular item and the Crown prevails. Just about all the items of evidence in the case are clouded in uncertainty. Two of the key items:

    1.The glasses evidence, which consisted of broken glasses on the chair in David’s room with a lens on the floor of Stephen’s room. Here, Binnie concludes this is unexplained, yet we know that David wore those glasses when his own were unavailable, as was the case at the time of the murders. The presence of the lens in Stephen’s room is a strong indication that the glasses were broken in the struggle which took place. This was in fact the Crown contention. If David cannot explain how the glasses happened that way then his argument fails and this item remains in the Crown’s favour.

    2.The trigger lock key evidence. David testified that he was the only one to know the location of the spare trigger lock key which is assumed to have been used to unlock the rifle. By anyone’s reckoning this is a damning piece of evidence against David Bain, since the rifle was not operable without the key. David is unable to explain this evidence and therefore it should have remained in the Crown side of the argument.

    In relation to both of the items above, David Bain fails to explain two compelling items of incrimating evidence that indicate he was the killer. Rather than cast these aside, they should have remained as strong evidence against his innocence. That is how the balance of probabilities test is supposed to be applied with the onus on David Bain and not the Crown.

    Wth regards to the second item, Binnie argues that David would not say that he was the only one to know the location of the trigger lock key because he would have known that it would incriminate him. He finds the conflicting nature of Bain’s testimony to be too unusual to accept. In the process he accepts psychological reasoning for something which was not given to him in evidence but is simply the result of his own judgment. Meanwhile throughout all of the rest of the evidence put before him he disregards the importance of psychological evidence provided by other people in relation to the Bain case, such as anecdotes about David’s behaviour before and after the crimes and during the 111 interview. His argument is that “the issues of motive and psychological profiling are, I believe, of very limited help in this case in determining factual innocence.” Having said that he concludes that “The evidence discloses that Robin was a troubled man whose wife was gradually easing him out of the family circle much against his will.” Meanwhile he does not appear to accept any of the character testimony made about David Bain, leaving that again up to his own direct experience through being in his company. If Binnie is to disregard psychological testimony about the character of David Bain made by other people, then he needs to give a lot less weight to David Bain’s testimony than he did, because that too is essentially psychological testimony.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,695) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 11:16 am

    I’m not trying to be evasive, but my, or any one else’s uninformed speculation on this subject isn’t helpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kent I understand that we take opposing sides but what you’ve said at 11.40 is divorced from reality. On the trigger lock you neglect to confirm all the things which Binnie took into account when assessing this. You then jump to saying David is unable to explain in an effort to ‘retry’ the issue. However, without presenting all the arguments Binnie used, including the PC on the matter, the spent shells in Robin’s van, Robin’s obvious access to the rifle, the fact that who ever loaded the rifle that morning did somewhat in a panic (as opposed to David haven’t all the time in the world to load it, particularly on the basis of the ‘elusive’ plan to have everyone in the house that night etc) you expect David to explain something of which there is no evidence to suggest he can explain. It’s poor form, this sort of thing, particularly when you clearly don’t understand the BOP, and where and when it might apply, and not apply, in Binnie’s study of the application and all the supporting evidence. Your ‘surface skimming’ toward your own ends doesn’t withstand critical examination. Instead of trying to ‘gird’ over Binnie in your wisdom you should take advantage and learn the things that you’ve never understood about the case – but then again it may be that you simply don’t want to.

    You were vocal in your support for Binnie, but now we see you attacking him because you don’t like the result. He even (I could say outsmarted but I won’t because he was simply being thorough) took into accounts things said on websites such as yours, probably in an effort to address the wider issues thought to be in the public mind, particularly those that have been distorted for one reason or another. Just as you attempt to distort the trigger lock evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ

    Motive is as important as circumstantial forensic evidence with experts arguing both ways. What is you were on the Bain jury and both Buckley and Taylor’s evidence allowed? Would your answer be the same?

    Binnie was allowed everything as far as I know including the juror who thought Bain was guilty on the BOP but not beyond reasonable doubt. It would appear that Binnie like Karam decided on gut feeling or intuition and cherry picked to suit there case.

    Can any others of David’s fans suggest a probable motive for Buckley making up his story years before the murders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    First of all Chuck the ‘Buckley claim’ isn’t to do with motive – it was to show ‘planning’ of a crime in alleged circumstances that fitted with the Crown’s case against David Bain. It was rejected as being admissible, I can’t see the point in going further.

    Hold on with that Claim about Binnie, he offered both sides the opportunity to put material forwarded, he sent them copies of what had been sent to him so he didn’t cherry pick. The Crown or Karam could have asked for the Juror to be interviewed. I suspect it was in the Crown’s interest for that witness not to be brought forwarded, others beyond the Crown may have been concerned as well.

    Chuck I don’t call you a Robin fan, your need to describe emotional attachments strikes as a little unusual.

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

    Binnie is somewhat of a comedian himself,

    this is what Binnie has to say about Robin changing his clothes after the murders

    “If Robin had committed the murders he must have been desperately discombobulated. Afterwards, if he went to the trouble of changing his clothes, as on the defence theory he must have done, he was engaged in some unknown and unknowable act of deception.”

    and Binnie on why Robin would have worn David’s opera gloves while committing the murders

    The Crown Law Office submits that the only rational explanation for the presence of these gloves is that the killer wore them “to avoid leaving fingerprints”, and that Robin, having decided to commit suicide, had no need for such concealment. Of course in the nature of these events, it cannot be said when Robin decided to take his own life. It may have been long premeditated. It may have been in the agony of a killing spree.

    So, apparently after Robin had completed his killing spree he thought to himself. F*** it, I might as well top myself now, but first I’ll boot up my computer and leave a message for David.

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

    Can anyone tell me if Binnie asked David why he thought he deserved to “stay” One would have thought that was quite basic to get a list of all the reasons why the others “deserved” to die.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Why would David know that Belinda?

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

    I’m unconvinced by Binnie’s response to the Crown’s objection that there is no evidence the socks of either David or Robin were completely soaked in blood (as per the experiment which Binnie hangs his finding that it was Robin who left the bloody sock prints)

    “This is true, but the experiments performed by Mr Walsh and Dr Sandilands took this point into account by making many repetitions of the footprint without replenishing the blood, thereby creating progressively lighter intensities of bloodiness. By the time the Luminol was applied there was so little blood on the test socks that the prints were invisible to the naked
    eye.” (254)

    I don’t see how this can be a convincing reply to that criticism? To get a complete print from heel to toe, the sock has to at some point be completely soaked. Or am I missing something here?

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

    Nostalgia, I am only detailing some of the points made by Fisher.

    Anyway it is all moot. Looks like Bain is not going to get compensation. It is all ex gratia which means the Minister can do what she likes and there is no legal recourse.

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

    muggins (297) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:32 am

    I have explained why I can’t use my former identity. If you know some way around not being able to retrieve a password because your original email address no longer exists, then please share it. I could not, and had no choice to start another identity, and as the original name had been used, I had to change it. IF I was still posting using both identities you would have reason to complain, but I have not, so pull your head in. Like the evidence, you like to twist and turn everything you can into something sinister despite their being a perfectly acceptable reason. For an old man, you have a lot of growing up to do.

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

    Belinda (28) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    Can anyone tell me if Binnie asked David why he thought he deserved to “stay” One would have thought that was quite basic to get a list of all the reasons why the others “deserved” to die.

    ————————–

    Where does David Bain say he thought he was the one that deserved to stay? Evidence please.

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

    Kent Parker (404) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    Looks like Bain is not going to get compensation

    ————————-

    Just like you said Jusitice Binnie would never find he should do. Goes to show, you can be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ

    “First of all Chuck the ‘Buckley claim’ isn’t to do with motive”

    It is to do with motive – Buckley motive. Most people do something for a motive.

    Like many people I would be reluctant to go on a jury when the judge can decide what is admissible and what is not.

    If Buckley is telling the truth and I have not heard one logical reason why he would make up his story it would look very bad for David. If there is another report i suspect this will be looked at closely and David will not get such an easy ride.

    David tried to discredit Buckley and Binnie went along with the goat story.

    I think David is going to regret trying to slander Buckley.

    When I hear Judith say if David says he seen Buckley have sex with a goat I believe him. I used to be on your team but the evidence became too overwhelming. I suspect if David finally confessed there would be some saying he does really man it but it is because of the stress all you nasty people have put on him.

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

    Dean Papa (196) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    ————–

    If you research murders which involve close friends or family, you will find that often the perpetrator has no intention of killing themselves, however, when the sequence of events do not go as they had idealised, or simply a change in thought, they often take their own lives, many leaving notes.

    The problem you seem to have, as many do, is that presumably you are a rational person who has never been in the psychological state of mind it takes to commit such act. Therefore, you judge the murderers actions based on your own experiences and emotions. In layman’s terms, this was not a sane man, you cannot presume what seems normal to you would apply in such circumstances. The same applies when Judging David Bain’s reaction when finding his family dead, you cannot apply normal everday acts and emotions to the situation.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,697) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    @Nostalgia-NZ

    “First of all Chuck the ‘Buckley claim’ isn’t to do with motive”

    It is to do with motive – Buckley motive. Most people do something for a motive.

    Like many people I would be reluctant to go on a jury when the judge can decide what is admissible and what is not.

    —————

    Looks like you’d never go on a jury then, because that rule applies to all Court cases.

    A person claiming to be Buckley used to post on TM. He appeared to me to be a person who sought attention quite readily, however, I have no way of knowing if that poster was indeed who they said they were.

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

    As yet Chuck, you do not know whether the goat story is true, just as we only have word of mouth that the alibi story is true. I suspect in either situation, we will never know, as I am sure Buckley would not say he did, even if he had. He would be incriminating himself and would risk criminal conviction.

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

    As yet Chuck, you do not know whether the goat story is true, just as we only have word of mouth that the alibi story is true. I suspect in either situation, we will never know, as I am sure Buckley would not say he did, even if he had.

    Agreed. Just as we have no proof that the “I am innocent” and “I wasn’t there” stories are true, also told by David Bain. If you suspect the goat story is not true then David must be a liar because no one would inadvertently retell such a story. If the goat story is not true then lots of his other stories must not be true either. Chuck has a good point, this little story could unseat Bain completely. I am sure that his support team are in damage control mode on this one.

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

    Binnie dismisses both the evidence of the rifle magazine found sitting on its edge near Robin’s hand, and the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, as neither inculpatory nor exculpatory.

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

    Perhaps as part of a botched attempt at staging, I’d imagine that would be the Crown’s theory?

    Binnie explains away the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove thus

    (280) The photographic evidence however, showed that there was an opening in the curtain and a gap between the curtain and the floor. The prosecution conceded that the gap would have permitted projection of the empty casing from the lounge into the computer alcove. This issue is, in my view, neither inculpatory nor exculpatory.

    Now, what I would have liked to have seen from Binnie is some quantitative information to support this assertion of his. If the Crown’s reasoning is that the chance of the empty shell casing ending up where it did is small, then I’d have expected Binnie to provide some sort of counter to this.

    Probability(empty sell casing found in computer alcove given Robin committed suicide) = ?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Kent Parker (405) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    Nostalgia, I am only detailing some of the points made by Fisher.

    Anyway it is all moot. Looks like Bain is not going to get compensation. It is all ex gratia which means the Minister can do what she likes and there is no legal recourse.’

    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.

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

    Probability(empty sell casing found in computer alcove given Robin committed suicide) = ?????

    Yes, well, there is a complete absence of any attempt whatsoever to compare the probability of David committing any of the murders vs the probability of Robin doing them, since he was the only other option.

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

    Kent Parker (406) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    If the goat story is not true then lots of his other stories must not be true either.

    ———————–
    You’re not Irish are you?

    Answer me this Kent, have you ever in your life told a lie about someone else? If so, then we must presume that everything you say is a lie according to your reasoning.

    It would be a terrible thing to have a court declare that you have told untruths about someone, as you say, that would mean nothing you ever said was the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    I added the link to the Don Mathias blog on this subject yesterday.

    I think this shows why the Binnie conclusions are safe and not impeachable, remembering that Fisher has never claimed they weren’t. Read the whole thing of course but here is the conclusion

    ‘When the final form of the footprint evidence is included in the assessment it overwhelms the cumulative effect of the other evidence, and requires the reverse conclusion. Now, all the other evidence is consistent with innocence, just as previously it was consistent with guilt. But now David’s innocence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Bayesian terms the likelihood ratio is so strongly in favour of the hypothesis that David is innocent that there is no real possibility that he is guilty.
    The frightening thing about cases of circumstantial evidence (that is, like this case without the footprint evidence) is that an item of direct evidence proving innocence might be missing. We are very fortunate that in the investigation of this case the police did not trample all over the scene, that they noticed the footprints, that they measured them, and that they disclosed those measurements to the defence. On the critical evidence there is no reason to criticise the police.
    Nor should the defence be criticised for not noticing the significance of the footprint evidence at the first trial. We are very fortunate that Mike Guest, David’s then lawyer, introduced Joe Karam to David, and that Joe sensed that David was innocent. We are fortunate that Joe launched his campaign and wrote his books and persisted with David’s cause.
    My conclusion is that because David can prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt he is entitled to compensation without the need to show that anyone acted improperly.’

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

    Kanz
    Re what Bain said to Karam about that jogger. Karam was asked about that jogger by a radio station. I can’t find the link at the moment. But I do know that Karam said he asked David about that.
    In the Laws/Karam debate Karam said “What 17-year-old-boy does not have dreams of doing all sorts of things to girls?”
    He did not mention a goat.
    When I find that link I will let you know what Karam said David Bain told him.

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

    Judith @ 12.36pm not sure why you can’t just answer a simple question without twisting things to avoid it.
    I only asked if Binnie asked David Bain why he thought his father thought he deserved to stay and David’s siblings deserved to die,
    no idea why that need to be twisted, a simple yes or no would have been sufficient.

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

    Judith,
    Maybe you have used the pseudonym Jinnee, so everyone would have connected you to Jinnie.
    You still havn’t told me how you thought that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. You said you had a plausible explanation.
    Any chance of an answer before Xmas?

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

    Judith,
    David Bain told Justice Binnie that he saw Mark Buckley doing a deviant act on a goat. Now unless he can prove that he is deep in the proverbial.
    I can’t wait for Buckley to get back from overseas to hear what he has to say about that deviant act. And I daresay there will be quite a few reporters knocking at his door wanting an answer as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “My conclusion is that because David can prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt he is entitled to compensation without the need to show that anyone acted improperly.”

    Even Binnie is not claiming that David proved innocence beyond reasonable doubt

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

    Correct me if I’m wrong, as I can’t find the Binnie interview transcript right now, but wasn’t it said that the reference to being a ‘goat lover’ or similar was actually written under Bain’s photo in the yearbook?

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

    I see a certain poster says has a photograph of that target. What he really has is a photograph of a piece of cardboard with five targets drawn on it. If that poster had any idea how a rifle was sighted in he would know that the bullet holes on those targets have no resemblance to the bullet holes you would have when you are using a target to sight a rifle in. And perhaps that poster would like to point out where those rabbits ears are that David Bain said his father drew on that target.
    Then he says he has three references to that strip-search. So do I. But unfortunately they are all from people who were not in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain- no wait-one of those references was from David Bain himself.
    But David Bain said every orifice was examined and I have no reference to Dr Pryde saying he examined David Bain’s rectum. So if he was lying about that then he was probably also lying about that strip-search.
    The nose bleed. As I have said before,if Robin Bain did have a nose bleed which I very much doubt then it must have been David Bain who caused that nosebleed because there was no blood from Robin Bain on that rifle.
    But if someone punches you on the nose hard enough to cause a nose bleed there probably would be some bruising to your nose. There was no bruising to Robin Bain’s nose.

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

    What struck me as unusual about Binnie’s report is that after all those interviews with Bain, (some excerpts we have seen above) he still managed to find him to be a credible witness. It even appeared during his questioning that he was trying to catch Bain out on inconsistencies and could see he was tripping himself up…yet he still found him credible? Beyond belief really.

    To say he had a blackout period after finding his mother, whom he said he discovered first, then to detail in which order he found all the remaining family members seems a direct contradiction to the fact he just said he had a blackout. Which is it then? A blackout or precise recollection of seeing everyone else and how they were positioned, plus hearing Laniet gurgling?

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

    Well, whatever the case, the interview with Binnie clearly shows just how inconsistent David Bain’s answers are. We have contradictions between Karam claiming that Robin was committing incest with Laniet and David saying that he didn’t think it was possible that his father was doing it at all, and we have contradictions between David saying that he was the only one who knew where the trigger lock key was and his claim to be innocent. Either someone else knew where the key was or he is not innocent. Any intelligent analysis can only conclude that David is an unreliable witness. There is no analysis of the now very well known evidence and / or the facts, that can possibly lead to a conclusion of innocent on the balance of probabilities as claimed by Binnie. All this talk of the original evidence having been discredited is a load of codswallop. Some of it may have been diminished somewhat, eg the fingerprints on the rifle, but on the balance of probabilities it still remains as incriminating as ever and always will do.

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

    Mathias is a sanctimonious clown. The sock print evidence is worthless. The carpet has been destroyed. The photographs taken of the prints are so poor as to be useless. The bloke who initially measured them at 280 mm claims they were not in fact complete prints from heel to toe. In fact, Hentschel is quoted by Binnie (255)

    “From the years of experience that I have had in examining scenes, it is my view that the length of the print that I saw with Luminol is less than the actual length of the foot that made the print.”

    Binnie naturally dismisses such a suggestion as anecdotal. Yet it makes sense to me. The majority of luminol prints are unlikely to be complete, at least length wise from heel to toe, for the simple fact that it would require the foot wearing the sock to be covered in blood from heel to toe. But I agree that it is possible that a 270 mm foot might leave a 280 mm print, if it indeed was covered from heel to toe with blood. For that reason I would agree with Binnie that the use of the sock prints as evidence against David in the first trial was unfair. However Binnie seems to think that two wrongs make a right (263)

    “It is too late in the day for the Crown Law Office to characterize Mr Hentschel’s methodology as too imprecise to be fit for the purpose of excluding David Bain as the killer. If the methodology was probative enough to help convict him, it is probative enough to help exclude him.”

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

    Kent Parker (407) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Do you not think it entirely possible that whilst David thought no one else knew where the key lock was, they did, and didn’t make that knowledge known to him. Therefore he was telling the truth as he knew it.

    It is not like the keylock was particularly well hidden, as Binnie points out, a container on the dresser is one of the first places people would look for a key, or a keylock or similar such object. There is such a thing as commonsense, and the commonsense answer on this, is that in a house of five people, it is more than likely that at least one other person, especially someone who shared the same room to store some of their possessions/clothes, also knew the key lock was there. The evidence from the caravan indicates the weapon was used by the person who occupied the caravan also supports that they knew where the key lock was.

    It appears to me that your theory is flawed by David saying no one knew. Had he wanted to make sure his father received the blame, then surely he would have taken the opportunity to say that his father also knew where it was. The same applies regarding the incest. David could have easily agreed to that, and again implicated his father. He didn’t, which suggests David is telling the truth as he believes it, whether that is the way it was or not, is another matter.

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

    Judith: Couple of questions…

    Wasn’t Robin found wearing the clothes he had on from the night before including his beanie that he slept in?
    Why would he take the night’s clothes off, change into fresh clothes, massacre, take them off and wash them all (but not wash the bloodied gloves) and then put his previous night’s clothes back on including the beanie when he was about to shoot himself in the head?

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

    Do you not think it entirely possible that whilst David thought no one else knew where the key lock was, they did, and didn’t make that knowledge known to him. Therefore he was telling the truth as he knew it.

    Good point. That introduces the possibility he was mistaken rather than lied. You are also omitting the possibility that in this instance the rifle was not locked at all, but I doubt it given that he was known to wear the key around his neck at all times as if to safeguard use of the rifle to himself alone. We already know of testimony that he would threaten members of the house with his gun so he would be careful to ensure that none of his siblings would be able to use it in a pre-emptive strike, especially Stephen. Therefore it would appear that he was very careful of who had access to the key which would lead him to assert that no one else knew where the trigger lock key was, because that is how he would want it. It is unusual, and in David’s favour, that the key itself was not around his neck as it normally was, but in another location thanks to a mid winter swim held the day before when he took it off and put it in a coat pocket. If he was focused on killing lots of people he might be inclined to ensure that he had that key in his possession, but all the same he did know where the spare key was and that is all that he needed.

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

    When the story leaked that Binnie had deemed David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities, I felt that a compensation payment would be automatically forthcoming. Now that both Collins and Fisher have completely and utterly discredited it, I cannot see how Bain can be granted compensation. Collins clearly does not want to pay out and in Fisher, she has probably found a judge who is prepared to give her the assessment she feels is sufficiently correct. Judges sometimes get it wrong, which is why sometimes a panel of judges is employed for a task. Maybe we should get the best of three judges in this instance. The process for compensation is that the government gets a judge to make a recommendation but the government is not bound by that recommendation and can ignore it. The $400,000 spent on this recommendation may not be wasted if it can shed light on further problems with the evidence or the process that took place in relation to the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (409) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Kent are you one of those that maintain there was no strip search by Dr Pryde?

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

    OpenMind (24) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    I do not know, nor would pretend to know what a person who was so psychologically disturbed that they could kill their own children, would be thinking. However, as you point out, it is fascinating. Perhaps Robin intended to make the deaths seem like a home invasion or similar, so changed back into his original clothes, intending to ‘burst in’ and ‘find’ the victims. Perhaps something happened, that enabled him to settle his emotions somewhat, and become aware of what he had done, so took the option to kill himself. I do not know. Sadly, due to the destruction of evidence, no one ever will know exactly what happened in that house. All we have is one man’s view of it, and as anyone knows, family dynamics, no matter how close are not always shared with all members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Maybe we should get the best of three judges in this instance.”

    I do not know why we need judge at all. When you think about they are all former lawyers. Lawyers are not trained in searching for the truth but to get results for their client by fair means or foul. Three researchers with a good understanding statistics and probability would do a better and fairer job.

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

    Judith, you only think that scenario is ‘fascinating’? Hmmm, I think on the balance of all probabilities it to be highly improbable.

    The opposing scenario would be that Robin woke up in his clothes, went and got the paper and came into the house for his morning routine. Went into the lounge and was then killed point blank, before he had time to even have a pee. Was found in his night’s clothes, non-emptied bladder having just picked up the paper. That scenario seems highly probable.
    Seems ‘fascinating’ Binnie didn’t see it that way too.

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

    What Nostalgia and Judith both do not grasp is that the threshold for proving innocence on the balance of probabilities requires more than just providing a plausible reason for every twist and turn of this case. Other cases of wrongful imprisonment in which DNA testing reveals a totally different person at the scene of the crime or in which it was found that the police planted the only piece of really incriminating evidence have resulted in a payout. The problem with the Bain case is that there are so many items of evidence that put David at the scene of the crime that you really need to eliminate each one of them with positive evidence and also provide positive evidence for the alternative of Robin having been the culprit, since we can be sure that it was either David or Robin. You can be sure that that will never happen because it is not possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Even though I don’t agree with you Kent, that solution you search for has been supplied by first of all Binnie and Don Mathias’s evaluation of what the footprint evidence means, inescapable. As for the individual and collective reasoning Binnie followed that.

    You say that too many things put David Bain at the scene of the crime as though it were significant – it was actually where he lived, not some random event.

    Will you answer my question re the strip search?

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

    Nostalgia, I have no opinion about the strip search. My feeling is that the footprint evidence is inconclusive and should be ignored. The lack of evidence linking Robin with the crime scene is overwhelming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    When the story leaked that Binnie had deemed David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities

    Binnie didn’t deem anything.

    Black’s dictionary of law, 8th edition:

    DEEM
    deem,vb.1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it had qualities
    that it does not have .2. To consider, think, or judge .
    “ ‘Deem’ has been traditionally considered to be a useful word when it is necessary to
    establish a legal fiction either positively by ‘deeming’ something to be what it is not or negatively
    by ‘deeming’ something not to be what it is…. All other uses of the word should be avoided ….
    Phrases like ‘if he deems fit’ or ‘as he deems necessary’ or ‘nothing in this Act shall be deemed
    to … ’ are objectionable as unnecessary deviations from common language. ‘Thinks’ or ‘considers’
    are preferable in the first two examples and ‘construed’ or ‘interpreted’ in the third…. ‘Deeming’
    creates an artificiality and artificiality should not be resorted to if it can be avoided.” G.C.
    Thornton, Legislative Drafting 99 (4th ed. 1996).

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

    Thanks, Uglytruth, I give myself 10 points for good use of the word ‘deem’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kent again:

    ‘We already know of testimony that he would threaten members of the house with his gun so he would be careful to ensure that none of his siblings would be able to use it in a pre-emptive strike, especially Stephen.’

    That should be unproven or contested ‘testimony.’ Just like with the trigger lock key you leave out all the information and provide only that which suits your cause, whatever your cause is. None of it overcomes the footprints anyway.

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

    You guys just don’t get it do you? Binnie screwed up. He may never have done a innocence on the balance of probabilities test before, having come from a commercial law background. I am sure that he is an eminent lawyer but he failed in his duty. He has already admitted this by supplying two unsolicited revisions of his report. Whoever does this report, if they do it correctly, cannot return an innocent on the balance of probabilities conclusion because the facts simply do not support it. There is no BIG exonerating fact. There is just bluff and bluster and “plausible explanations”. You can continue to supply this thread with bluff and bluster and plausible explanations, but in the long run they simply will not wash, and it is clear that the current Minister of Justice does not want to pay compensation, because quite rightly, she probably does not think that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. We have been so over-exposed to the evidence in this case that there is not one educated person in this country who is not familiar with all the salient points of the case. In this we have a major advantage over Binnie who does not share this experience. David’s very own extended family does not think he is innocent and that is telling enough in itself, and they know him better than all of us.

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

    OpenMind (25) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    Judith, you only think that scenario is ‘fascinating’? Hmmm, I think on the balance of all probabilities it to be highly improbable.

    The opposing scenario would be that Robin woke up in his clothes, went and got the paper and came into the house for his morning routine. Went into the lounge and was then killed point blank, before he had time to even have a pee. Was found in his night’s clothes, non-emptied bladder having just picked up the paper. That scenario seems highly probable.
    Seems ‘fascinating’ Binnie didn’t see it that way too.
    ———————

    Really? You think it probable that a man stood on one foot with the other leg raised and waited whilst someone crouched below him, but not low enough to be on the floor, whilst they held a gun at close contact range to his head, and then waited a bit longer whilst they cleared a miss fire, to be shot? (As Robin’s blood in the barrel and the blood splatter on his pants proves)

    I think it highly improbable, and so does Judge Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘Kent Parker (412) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    Nostalgia, I have no opinion about the strip search. My feeling is that the footprint evidence is inconclusive and should be ignored. The lack of evidence linking Robin with the crime scene is overwhelming.’

    The strip search or lack of it has been a pivot for the blame against David on your site. Surely for that reason whether it existed or not is critical, it’s not an opinion thing it either happened or it didn’t. If it did, it ‘takes’ the scratches out of the picture. On your site many deny a strip search ever happened, saying that David wasn’t a suspect.

    It’s not feelings about the footprints it’s actually facts.

    Robin was in the crime scene whichever way you look at it Kent, of the dead he was the last alive in it. By the prints he walked about in the scene.

    One of the advantages of Binnie reading your site and elsewhere was to appreciate the various stuff put abroad about David, the strip search for example, another source of it’s confirmation is the Binnie interview with David. For several days some fine folks have been going on about the credibility of David. If David wasn’t strip searched but claimed he had been (putting aside the other witnesses that attested to it for now) that would have been a significant dent in his credibility. His detractors would have been able to say he ‘lied’ about the strip search to deny the scratches on his chest, that after all is the nature of the attacks against him. When he says something that can be twisted as incriminating against him, he’s a telling the truth. When he says something that supports his innocence – he suddenly becomes a liar. You’ve noticed the pattern Kent. That’s why your credibility and that of your site is on the line over the strip search. Has been since 2009. Surely you’d like to clear that up because of the number of people it has influenced.

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

    Kent Parker (413) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    You can continue to supply this thread with bluff and bluster and plausible explanations
    ———————

    Why not, that is all you are doing. You put your spin on it, and suddenly that makes everyone elses invalid?
    The Minister of Justice might not want to pay compensation, but my bet is she will, as even Fisher did not dispute Binnie’s finding on the balance of probabilities.

    Many educated people and experienced and qualified people (unlike yourself) do not agree with you. I do wish you would stop trying to pass yourself off as some learned person. You are simply not much more than a defendant in a defamation case. Like me, you have no expertise in the subject of forensic investigation, or law, and your opinion is no more pertinent or valid than any other normal person. In fact, given what you have to lose financially, I would say your opinion actually is less relevant because there is a personal and financial interest involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    Kent

    ‘He has already admitted this by supplying two unsolicited revisions of his report.’

    Didn’t happen. Even the Minister has dropped that now, but only since he spoke out and wrote his responses to that as well. Some report writers on here have said there is nothing remarkable about conforming to a client’s requests in that manner, that it’s actually a normal procedure.

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

    Judith and Nostalgia, good to see plenty of bluff and bluster and plausible explanations. Keep it up. It looks good. I’m not sure how much it is going to help the situation for Bain though.

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

    Judith,still waiting for you to give me a plausible explanation as to how that lens came to be in David’s room.
    And for the benefit of another poster, if David Bain was strip- searched,then prove it.
    I have just commented on a Canadian website. I am sure those Canucks will be scratching their collective heads trying to figure out why a right-handed man would shoot himself in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair. Maybe one or two of them will ask Binnie.
    I see that David Bain told Binnie that his father was going to have a bedroom in that proposed new house. Completely contradicts what he said at the first trial. And Binnie didn’t pick up on it.
    Also,I was interested to read that David Bain wasn’t sure who those trackpants in the wash belonged to. He should have asked Joe Karam. He wrote to the Privy Council and told them they belonged to Robin.

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

    Kent Parker (414) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    —————
    You seem to be getting a bit emotional Kent, you’re repeating yourself.

    Bluff & bluster maybe your name for it, however, they are opinions, as are your comments. Despite your greatest of efforts, you have not managed to come up with any evidence that makes an ounce of difference to the balance of probabilities or to any factual evidence. However, I’m sure you are an expert on bluff and bluster, after all, you encouraged a member of your group to get their sister to sign the biggest piece of bluff & bluster ever presented in this case. Sad the member couldn’t keep the plans to herself and discussed them on a forum, thus providing the evidence that the said statement was produced under duress and coercion. Bluff & bluster I guess is just another name for Counterspin.

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

    muggins (302) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
    ——————————–

    There are hundreds of ways it could have got there. Use your imagination. I’ve given examples, but Kent doesn’t like them. Fact is, if they were worn that morning, they would have fingerprints and or evidence due to their specific closeness to the victim and the murderer. Because they didn’t have that, on the balance of probabilities, they were not worn by the murderer.

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

    muggins (302) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    _____________

    Please provide references and links to your claims. As people insist on me producing them, I think it’s only fair you do to.
    After all, no link, it didn’t happen apparently!

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

    Judith,
    I asked you for a plausible answer,not an implausible answer.
    David Bain said he had been wearing those glasses,so by your reckoning his fingerprints should have been on them.
    Look,if Robin Bain used that rifle ,then by your reckoning his fingerprints should have been on it.
    It is far more likely that Robin Bain’s fingerprints would have been on that rifle than it would be that David Bain’s fingerprints would have been on those glasses.
    But I was actually asking you to give me a plausible answer as to how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. I know why the glasses were in David Bain’s room.

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

    > I see that David Bain told Binnie that his father was going to have a bedroom in that proposed new house.

    Yeah Binnie the ninny certainly fell for Bain’s bullshit hook, line and sinker. If I was ever wanting to get away with a crime, I’d move to Canada. :)

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

    can anyone explain Davids bloody palm print on the washing machine ?

    how can you ignore basic evidence, like the lens, palm print, blood on davids clothing …

    did Robins socks have any blood on them at all ? Was he not wearing shoes or slippers when dead ?

    It just does not add up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    I wonder if there is a list of the 10 longest comment threads on kiwiblog.

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

    > I’m not sure how much it is going to help the situation for Bain though.

    Bain is well and truly fucked. But that is what happens when you tell so many lies. It’s hard to remember them all.

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

    > I wonder if there is a list of the 10 longest comment threads on kiwiblog.

    There’s another Bain thread which topped 1200 comments. :)

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/files/u68/06_Appendices_Tab_F_to_Tab_J.pdf
    Judith,here is one link.
    I cant link you to Trial by Ambush but the page number is 428.

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

    I given those Canucks the glasses evidence . See what they think of Binnie’s conclusion now.

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

    > I only asked if Binnie asked David Bain why he thought his father thought he deserved to stay and David’s siblings deserved to die

    Belinda, nBinnie didn’t ask that question, though if he had, I suspect David wouldn’t have provided an honest answer.

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

    I see a certain David Bain supporter is suggesting that the fact David Bain told Binnie that he was strip- searched is proof that he was . So he is suggesting that everything David Bain says is the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth,so help me gawd.
    Some people are so gullible.

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

    Judith (127) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    “There are hundreds of ways it could have got there. Use your imagination. I’ve given examples, but Kent doesn’t like them. Fact is, if they were worn that morning, they would have fingerprints and or evidence due to their specific closeness to the victim and the murderer. Because they didn’t have that, on the balance of probabilities, they were not worn by the murderer”.

    Judith, remember the murderer wore the opera gloves to carry out his acts, presumably so as not to leave fingerprints on anything.
    As we know he was wearing the gloves…therefore he wouldn’t have left any fingerprints on the glasses would he?

    And by having no ‘evidence’ on them which you have refereed to as sweat or blood, particularly blood splatter…
    1. Why would there be sweat on them? It was a cold Dunedin morning. Is sweat normally found on glasses?
    2. Why does there have to be any blood on them? If you look at the scene photo of Stephen’s room there are many blood spots but not on every square inch of every surface, and in fact not exactly around the spot where the lens was found.

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

    Judith,
    Please try to stop telling porkies. There is no proof that it was Robin Bain’s blood in the rifle barrel. That blood was never tested for DNA.

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

    Judith,
    There is no proof that Robin Bain was standing on one leg when he was shot. That is a myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators.

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

    “If Robin had committed the murders he must have been desperately discombobulated. Afterwards, if he went to the trouble of changing his clothes, as on the defence theory he must have done, he was engaged in some unknown and unknowable act of deception.”

    No, Mr Binnie, it sounds like he was trying to frame David, the one person who deserved to “stay”. Why would he frame the one person who he supposedly didn’t want to kill?

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

    “I given those Canucks the glasses evidence . See what they think of Binnie’s conclusion now.”

    If you addressed them in those terms, it will simply convince them that NZ is populated by pig-ignorant imbeciles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    “Perhaps Robin intended to make the deaths seem like a home invasion or similar, so changed back into his original clothes, intending to ‘burst in’ and ‘find’ the victims.”

    by putting the clothes in the basket? without arranging an alibi of any sort?
    This is a really tough part of this to understand, robin’s actions seem even more weird than david’s would have had to be and i dont remember ever seeing a good justification for it.

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

    Judith, just one aside on the trigger lock key testimony by David Bain. You suggest that it is plausible that Robin may have known where it was without David’s knowledge, but the balance of probabilities test requires proof that Robin knew, since we have none, then this fails to eliminate this item of evidence so it hangs around like an incriminating smell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    ross,
    doesnt that message sound to you more like the person who wrote it is refering to themselves as being the one deserving of living (the sort of egotism one has when one is about to deprive many others of their lives) as might have been written by some imaginary home invader – possibly before realising that that alibi was just not going to fly.

    The scenarios where it is robin refering to david pretending to be robin refering to david sound very odd to me… (the david wrote it hypothesis slightly more likely, to take this evidence in isolation).

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

    muggins (308) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    I am sorry but you are wrong. The blood splatter pattern on Robin’s clothing indicates otherwise

    Kent:
    The balance of probabilities does not require the test of proof. If the proof was available, it wouldn’t need a test of probability, because it would be fact and have been proved. (I cannot believe I had to explain that!)

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

    Scott

    Are you talking about the note on the computer? The question seemingly ignored or glossed over by Binnie is: why would Robin turn on the computer (at about 6.43am) when David could walk through the door at any second? (Indeed David may have been already home at 6.43am.) Why would he risk being interrupted when he could go to his caravan and simply write a suicide note before killing himself? A hand-written suicide note would have the added advantage of identifying Robin as the killer. If Robin didn’t want to be caught in the act, why not get up much earlier than normal and have everything done and suted well before David returned from his paper run? Where is the evidence that Robin went into the house earlier than normal?

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

    EDIT: why not get up much earlier than normal and have everything done and dusted well before David returned from his paper run?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,275) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    > I’m not sure how much it is going to help the situation for Bain though.

    Bain is well and truly fucked. But that is what happens when you tell so many lies. It’s hard to remember them all.’

    I’ve read that Bain interview now Ross, you get the big b for bullshitter. How unexpected.

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

    > I’ve read that Bain interview now Ross

    You needed to take your eye patch off to make sense of it.

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

    Judith (128) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Judith I don’t know much about him standing on one leg with the other raised, that does sound odd. But of the angle…couldn’t David have been crouched behind the curtain? Would that not have made him at the correct height?

    We seem to presume that at no stage did Robin see what was coming…we don’t know if Robin had seen or been confronted by David, dropped to his knees and begged for his life- certainly that’s what a lot of people seem to do when confronted point blank by a loaded gun. Or maybe David took great pleasure in making his father beg for mercy…

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

    OpenMind (27) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    sorry but the blood splatter does not support Robin being on his knees.

    The splatter falls downward on one leg and there is a pattern of upward on the other. The experts declaring this pattern indicates one leg was bent, and fits with the defence suggested position for suicide. There was also blood in the barrel. Now, as Robin was the last person shot (either from his own hand or someone elses) there the blood has to be his. It can’t be any other, as the bullet passing through the barrel clears any residual from previous shots. The blood in the barrel has to be Robins, and indicates the shot was either contact, or close contact.

    David lying on the floor behind the curtains would not have been able to achieve that close contact shot with it’s upward trajectory.

    I cannot give you a link for this information because it is not online as far as I know, but available in the Court Transcripts and I think there is a summary of it, giving the names of the examiners etc, in Trial By Ambush.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    well.. I’ll try to defend it.. (allthough as i said i think this is the least likely option)

    Robin had a plan to murder the family and do so without getting blood on him etc and then to blame an intruder, that may have included david. the killing of stephen however ruined the plan.
    now he had blood on him.
    he is still is trying to get away with it but he is off plan..
    he takes off his clothes and puts it in the basket (about to do a washing run).
    he sees how he is spreading blood everywhere.. and cant see how he can clean up.
    he turns on the computer and writes a note
    he completly gives up
    he gets in a pretty awkward position with a gun..
    bang..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    u re . He, um, I – until he a rrived , I stayed completely wrapped up with
    this blanket thing and I wasn’t – and the detectives told me not to move
    as m u ch as possible just to try and stay stil l . I was seated th rough all
    that time then when D r Pryde arrived he supervised , explained what he
    1 0 was going to do. The table was, I was fairly close to the back of the
    room and there was a table rig ht there so the detectives had to move
    the table away from me to g ive the doctor room to work with me. U m ,
    he then went th rough the various series of th ings, starting with making
    me strip and examin ing –
    15 Q . You say “strip”, d i d you –
    A. Take off, naked – take –
    Q . – take all of the cloth ing or what d id you take off?
    A. – all the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.

    More evidence of the strip search that didn’t happen.
    Of course when David ‘lied’ about the strip search the Crown didn’t think it was a credibility issue, even though the whole exercise (Binnie’s examination of David Bain and others) was in part a credibility exercise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    “Like me, you have no expertise in the subject of forensic investigation”

    And what experience has Binnie got? A degree of common sense counts for more than a law degree in many cases.

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

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,276) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    > I’ve read that Bain interview now Ross

    You needed to take your eye patch off to make sense of it.’

    Actually no, it was abundantly clear you’d been bullshitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. Scott1 (591 comments) says:

    the other option besides the intruder hypothesis is that robin was trying to frame david (by wearing gloves and using his gun) but i cant get around that if i was doing that that would mean he hated David MORE than anyone else… and surely would try to kill him when he realised the plan was falling apart and still had bullets left…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 comments) says:

    ‘but the balance of probabilities test requires proof that Robin knew, since we have none,’

    Give up on the lectures Kent. You’re missing the boat. The reference was the spent cartridges in Robin’s van, and also that David wouldn’t have been in haste in his own room and spilling cartridges everywhere.

    You don’t seem to want to talk about the strip search.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. muggins (3,828 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
  502. 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
  503. 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
  504. 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
  505. Belinda (141 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
  506. muggins (3,828 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
  507. Kanz (1,420 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
  508. Kanz (1,420 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
  509. muggins (3,828 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
  510. Kanz (1,420 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
  511. muggins (3,828 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
  512. muggins (3,828 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
  513. Kanz (1,420 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
  514. 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
  515. muggins (3,828 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
  516. Scott1 (591 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
  517. 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
  518. 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
  519. muggins (3,828 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
  520. 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
  521. muggins (3,828 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
  522. Viking2 (11,676 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
  523. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  524. 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
  525. 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
  526. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  527. 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
  528. 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
  529. 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
  530. 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
  531. 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
  532. Scott1 (591 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
  533. Scott1 (591 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
  534. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  535. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  536. ross69 (3,652 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
  537. muggins (3,828 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
  538. ross69 (3,652 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
  539. 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
  540. Kanz (1,420 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
  541. ross69 (3,652 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
  542. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  543. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  544. Kanz (1,420 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
  545. bhudson (4,741 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
  546. 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
  547. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  548. 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
  549. 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
  550. 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
  551. 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
  552. ross69 (3,652 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
  553. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  554. ross69 (3,652 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
  555. Kanz (1,420 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
  556. 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
  557. Kanz (1,420 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
  558. Kanz (1,420 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
  559. Scott1 (591 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
  560. Psycho Milt (2,423 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
  561. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  562. Elaycee (4,425 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
  563. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  564. Elaycee (4,425 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
  565. 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
  566. ross69 (3,652 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
  567. ross69 (3,652 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
  568. Elaycee (4,425 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
  569. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  570. Kanz (1,420 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
  571. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  572. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  573. 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
  574. Kanz (1,420 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
  575. bhudson (4,741 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
  576. bhudson (4,741 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
  577. 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
  578. Kanz (1,420 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
  579. Nostalgia-NZ (5,320 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
  580. Nookin (3,566 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
  581. Elaycee (4,425 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
  582. 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
  583. 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
  584. bhudson (4,741 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
  585. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    —————