The Bain poll

December 28th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Most Kiwis support paying compensation to , even though Justice Minister Judith Collins says many New Zealanders will be upset at any taxpayer payment for the man once convicted of murdering his family.

A Herald-DigiPoll summer survey found 74 per cent of those polled believe Mr Bain should be compensated if the judge who reviewed the case recommended that. (The survey was started on December 7, before Justice Ian Binnie’s recommendation of compensation became public.)

The results are reasonably meaningless. My view is that Bain should get compensation if an independent report concludes he is innocent on the balance of probabilities, and that report has followed the NZ law of evidence.

The Binnie report has been shown to be significantly flawed. It is quite possible another report could reach the same conclusion. But we need to be sure, before any compensation is agreed to, that you are not handing over millions of dollars to someone if they probably did kill their family.

Ms Collins dismissed the poll for asking an invalid question, as Justice Binnie was asked not to make a recommendation on compensation.

One of the many mistakes Binnie made – not understanding your terms of reference is a most basic error.

Labour justice spokesman Charles Chauvel said the “ad hoc” process had become “rotten”. He said Justice Binnie’s report was “perfectly adequate” and did not deserve “bile” from an “Auckland tax lawyer” like Ms Collins.

Chauvel thinks the Binnie report is “perfectly adequate”. I’ll be generous and presume he is speaking as a politician, and not a lawyer.

764 Responses to “The Bain poll”

  1. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    You are talking out of your arse, Yvette, and I don’t like it. Leave it there. You can’t bullshit a bullshitter, Yvette.

    No, I was still just having an opinion, sorry, but I can leave it there
    Vos commentaires sont un peu dur – vous pouvez juste m’ignorer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    As regards my 8.51 (A) and (B), anyone want to play?

    My answers, fwiw, are

    A)  8.5

    B)  0.5

    Come on, gamefisher, have a go

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Merci, Yvette, je peux. Et je veraiz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Or in Japanese if you prefer, Yvette.

    sore de mo i. Gemen nasai. So shimasu. Onegaishimasu.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    And Yvette, I will have you know I was bowing to you as I typed that, not kidding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    What you have to learn in Japan, is not to bow when you are driving. It dents the steering wheel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    A) 10
    B) 0
    Thats after seeing how curved that ammo clip is in the last couple of days and the minumum speed Robins hand had to travel from the defence scenario to its placement mm from that ammo clip.

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

    Quelle heure est-il.
    That’s the only French I know.. No,I tell a lie.
    Merci beaucoup. [Not sure about the spelling.]

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

    Dotcom,
    You are firing on all cylinders tonight,or should that be today,or maybe even yesterday, or there again maybe last night.

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

    Anyway,it’s past my bedtime,so see you in the morning. I need to get my beauty sleep,though if you saw me you would know that is just wishful thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Gamefisher, 10-0 really? Says it all really. Prepared to risk of hellfire and sulphur.

    I have seen (on the net) plastic bullet clips for the Winchester, not the size of, but the shape of a cassette tape holder from last decade. And in any case, isn’t the actual bullet clip pictured (without bowing (as distinct from japanese bowing)) with bullets still in it on Counterspin? It is a plastic square sided box. And the 10-shot one was split on one side causing misfeeds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yeah, me too, asta la vista, baby.

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

    muggins

    It was reported in 2009 that the estate was worth well over 600,000.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2483334/Bain-relatives-seek-advice-over-inheritance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    Dotcom, I have not played, but it is like taking a position on the share market. If someone puts $0.15, the current price that dave will get compo by said date they will get a dollar if he does. If he does not they get zip. However they can buy and sell their positions till then. I post this to show that the $0.15 price does not show much confidence he will get compo.

    If his supporters think it is likely they could buy or try to buy at $0.15 an push up the price. if you go to the site you will see some people made and some people lost a bit of money when there was a spike.

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=BAIN.COMP.MAY.2013

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    I see that ‘blood streaming’ is now not a go after all.
    The orderly surrender continues.

    The proof of the strip search, which ross rightly acknowledges, is also the recognition of the nature of it and the comparison between the results of David’s as opposed to the father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Gamefisher…

    Take the ammo clip (point taken Dotcom) I have broken it up into four components.
    1. Why is it in that locality
    2. Why is it on the floor and not on the table
    3. Why is it on it edge
    4. Why didn’t fall over

    Your solutions to 1 and 2 sound reasonable. I would use the method you suggested.

    The solutions for 3 and 4, one can use the frequentist statistical approach.

    It means (either the prosecuting team & police or defense) that they have to replicate that specific crime scene withe the same ammo & gun and do a trial, say 2000 or more (they must record it – perhaps in front of both the defense & prosecutor – if it wasn’t done previously). The outcome of the trial is the rough probability/chance approximation. A large trial wouldn’t make any big difference, so both both the defense & prosecuting teams won’t argue about the final outcome, since doing large trial of 2000 & 3000 (the larger the better) won’t make much difference (perhaps a difference of 0.000001 – negligible).

    The other option for finding solutions for 1 and 2 is to use computer simulation, using intelligent learning software agents. Both the defense & prosecuting teams can call their own independent software experts and ask them to design the rules & behaviors that the software agents must follow, learn and adapt around those rules. Run the simulations many times, then record the result. The shouldn’t be argument or disagreement between the defense & prosecutor since it was their respective computer experts who collaborated to design the rules. This kind of simulations had been done on thousands of applications from different domains these days (eg – financial market trading & predictions), but I’m not aware if such simulations (of using software agents) has been adopted for court cases.

    I think that the simulation option will be rejected out of hand by legal experts (both by defense and the crown) as something absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    I just found out the following paper when I searched on Google-Scholar on the use intelligent software agents for crime simulation by law enforcement (but not for establishing rough estimations to some unknown scenarios in solving crimes for court cases).

    Crime Simulation Using GIS and Artificial Intelligent Agents

    The paper shown above comes from the bound conference proceedings with the following title:

    Artificial Crime Analysis Systems: Using Computer Simulations and Geographic Information Systems

    So definitely, software agents has been used in crime simulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    My personal view is there has been enough analysis of the evidence for Judith Collins to make her own mind up without paying lawyers more millions. She can easily make a strong case to take to the table.

    Overview: It made no sense whatever under any circumstance for Robin to have spared David. Forensic evidence: The way Robin was shot and magazine found on its edge shows Robin did not kill himself; the broken spectacles shows David killed Stephen. On the balance of probability.

    A complete analysis could be undertaken, but it seems to me a couple of clear narratives is a good place to start. I suspect these alone would lead to a conviction in any normal court.

    Unfortunately an allegation of sexual misconduct is very hard to counter. It’s a favourite ploy of the unscrupulous to make people uncomfortable, garner sympathy and win the moral high ground.

    It’ll be interesting to see if the NZ Herald will stop its campaign for compensation now the truth is coming out. Bain might be the last person to realise he killed his family. Sad really. Karam, was this “my core belief is I wasn’t there” crap your invention? Reed, did you ever think it was nonsense?

    Next step is to get our $400K back from Binnie. His report wouldn’t meet undergraduate standards in science. Dunce.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Dotcom. Your contribution has been very valuable indeed and I always read your posts carefully. If I showed you a photo of Margaret Bain with blood streaming down her face, what would you say? She hasn’t got blood streaming down her face?

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

    Yeah good points again, Dennis

    You have been a breath of fresh air on this .. 🙂

    .
    I know I have been a little over the top, but I am sick of Bain/Karams bullsh*t.

    And maybe now, finally, we will get the correct result.

    :::
    But, I can’t accept Ipissnshowers incessant ravings or abuse, as being good for anyone

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

    If you were innocent and came home from your paper round – what would you do?

    You put your bag in your room and go downstairs. You put on a load of washing. (Ignore the fact that the clothes are so bloody that you leave a palm print on the machine but you don’t notice!) You go back upstairs and discover bullets on the floor of your bedroom. You go into your mother’s bedroom.

    I would not expect my mother to be shot. I see her apparently asleep in bed with blood on her face. I would think it was an accident of some sort. I would approach the bed and touch her and shake her.

    What next? Check Stephen’s room because it is just off Mum’s room.. Check my gun in my room – either to see if it had been used or for my protection. Check the other bedrooms? Run to the neighbours? Phone 111?

    How do you think you would behave?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. SPC (8,676 comments) says:

    Ross 69, the estate was not valued at $600,000 when dispersed in 1996. It was over $300,000 – the $600,000 figure was an estimate made in 2009 based on increased value since 1996.

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

    twisted lemon,
    I’d want to get out of the house – i wouldnt be thinking family murder (unless i was really confident robin was crazy and david apparently was not).. if the gun was kept close to where i was standing I might check to see if I could grab it on the way out.

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

    looks like Yvette covered it all except maybe that the karam/david “false memories” defense is straight from the text books and would have experimental and expert backing.
    They would say it would probably be the case for at least some facts in any murder investigation(or any major event). this is even more true in that this was potentially a lost memory that he “retrieved”.

    Which presents an issue for trapping david with his own words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne

    So it makes no sense for Robin to have spared David, yet he turned the computer on. Like the majority of others you don’t know the evidence and make wild assumptions. Good work. keep circling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Truthiz. Just sent an email to a contact, explaining the NZ Herald is backing the wrong horse. The Herald view is it doesn’t matter about the evidence, the facts. This is nonsense. The prime requirement for compensation is INNOCENCE, factual as opposed to presumed.

    TRUTH have called Bain a liar. The genie ain’t going back in the bottle. The truth will come cascading out. The public will not accept payment of compensation now. Collins was right to kick this one, not pick it up.

    The Herald seem to think compensation is part of the legal process. It is not. It is political decision, an ex gratia payment. Judith Collins is doing something right. Gives me hope for politics in NZ. A politician who does something because it it the right thing to do.

    Yvette. Vous etes vraiment francaise, Madame? Ma femme est Parisienne.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Nostalgia. You didn’t see Robin turn the computer on. Nobody did. Pure speculation and wishful thinking based on dodgy timings. You are concocting evidence, farting in the bath.

    Thank you for keeping your post short. Doesn’t make it any easier to swallow though. Any “evidence” that purports to show Robin Bain killed himself is nonsensical. If you can believe Robin killed himself you can believe anything. Compensation? Simply not going to happen.

    Who is going to break the news to Karam’s creation that he killed his entire family?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Falafu Fisi

    You’re making no sense at all. Your science doesn’t overcome common sense or the evidence. You don’t know the evidence so applying tests to something you don’t know about is a waste of time. But I guess it makes you feel you’re contributing.

    As for others including yvette who speculate on what they ‘would have done’ and stretch the truth, read the evidence of one of the first officers at the scene who couldn’t remember the detail of the rooms he’d been in, completely forgetting that he’d gone into one. It’s called trauma, something Scott1 should read the psychiatry of before making wild assumptions. But then again wild assumptions are the fruitful harvest of those uncertain or blind to the evidence.

    Right now we have an interesting event before us. The attempt by Michael Guest to exert authoritativeness over a case he was sacked from after it had been led deep into a miscarriage of Justice. While on the other hand we have an ‘impartial’ Minister demonstrating her ‘fairness’ and superior knowledge compared to that of 5 Law Lords, several Qs, a Jury, an international Jurist ably ‘assisted’ by a QC willingly paid to break protocols and having once been junior counsel for the police in the Thomas inquiry. All very cosy communism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne.

    Impressive as your desires and take on the evidence might seem to you, the Crown conceded the computer was turned on before David got home, supported by an eye witness. If the Crown rightly accept that then you are at odds with reality.

    The evidence that Robin shot himself is manifest, and agreed with by the police pathologist.

    You might like to explain the blood smears on the dead father’s hands, what right-handedness means in terms of carrying or supporting a rifle, Robin’s dna deep inside the barrel, his fresh blood on the towel in the laundry, the dropped cartridges in David’s room, the spent cases found in Robin’s van. But then again you can’t or you would have long ago and stopped drawing long bows of hypothetical rubbish. But remember there is no forensic evidence against Robin Bain, it’s all made up. I know that because people write to the papers angrily asserting such ‘facts.’ Safer ground for you might be giggling about goats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. Trying a conspiracy theory now? Do you also believe cars can run on water but the oil companies hide the magic? Desperate, much? Guest knew Bain was guilty. After all, you don’t need to be very sharp. Does Reed think Bain is innocent? Is Reed very sharp?

    Years ago my daughter wrote a higher quality report for a BSc(Hons). Part time. In two years. Working full time. Got a first. Binnie wouldn’t have passed. Binnie is a dunce.

    How much time did the privy council give to the Bain case?

    Did the PC find Bain factually innocent?

    Game’s nearly over. Time to switch sides. Egg on face.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. Crown agrees? That’s not science. That’s not reasoning. That’s faith. The Crown can be wrong just like anyone else.

    Clutching at straws. Building straw men. David Bain is a liar. That TRUTH is now out.

    Seriously, do you really think Robin Bain wrote that “suicide” “note”? Really? Goodness.

    What seems more likely: The timings are wrong or Robin Bain would write immature twaddle BADLY on a computer and not on a piece of paper he could sign, thereby leaving his “chosen son” to face the music?

    Really? Well try getting the ordinary people, unintelligent as they mostly are, to believe that when they start sensing they’ve been conned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    With the computer turn on time if the margin of error is greater than the accuracy required it’s not all that creditable.

    Thanks Falafulu Fisi my view it is a more accurate tool than what the legal profession in NZ use but they would rather rely on gut feelings & common sense etc along with untrained juries.

    What is virtualy indisputable is the physics calculations. The defence have their scenario of how Robin could suicide but that where it ends. If at the trials it was shown how a human body collapses after immediate incapacitation they would had then had to explain why Robin ended up where he did. That needed a horizontal force and kinetic energy they need to show where that came from.

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

    > Does Reed think Bain is innocent?

    I highly doubt it. But I imagine Reed knows a cash cow when he sees one.

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

    “read the evidence of one of the first officers at the scene who couldn’t remember the detail of the rooms he’d been in, completely forgetting that he’d gone into one.”

    Yeah but there’s more than subtle difference between forgetting which room you’ve been in and forgetting whether you’ve slaughtered your family.

    David told Melanie Reid that his innocence was a “core belief”. Core beliefs are things you think are true; they’re not necesssarily true. It seems that David is still not sure if he committed the murders. Hmmm. And he suggested to Reid that 13 years was enough jail time, he should be able to “get on with life”. What does that tell you how much his family meant to him? Apparently they didn’t mean much.

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

    “read the evidence of one of the first officers at the scene who couldn’t remember the detail of the rooms he’d been in, completely forgetting that he’d gone into one.”

    Yeah but there’s more than a subtle difference between forgetting which room you’ve been in and forgetting whether you’ve slaughtered your family.

    David told Melanie Reid that his innocence was a “core belief”. Core beliefs are things you think are true; they’re not necesssarily true. It seems that David is still not sure if he committed the murders. Hmmm. And he suggested to Reid that 13 years was enough jail time, he should be able to “get on with life”. What does that tell you how much his family meant to him? Apparently they didn’t mean much.

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

    ross69
    Re estate value. Thanks for that. So ,as I suggested,Bain gave Binnie the value of the estate as it would have been in 2009 with interest added. I actually thought Bain was giving him the estimated 2012 figure.

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

    ross69,
    You still havn’t told me why you believe Bain was strip-searched. I see a Bain supporter is saying you have acknowledged there was a strip-search. You have to be careful what you say,or your words will be taken out of context and used against you.

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

    I am just about to send Slater an email re another lie.

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

    Credit where credit is due.
    Dotcom might be a pain in the arse at times but his latest find re that blood streaming was brilliant. Only the killer could have seen that blood streaming.

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

    >All very cosy communism.

    Yes NNZ, there has been one giant conspiracy against David. All those witnesses who testified for the prosecution – about a 100 from memory – they’re all wrong. David said as much during his interview with Binnie. Michael Bain? He always hated David…according to David. All those witnesses who said David did his paper run earlier than normal that morning? They’re all wrong…according to David. Mark Buckley and his claim that David planned to rape a jogger and use his paper run as an alibi? He was wrong (and a goat shagger)…according to David. What about Val Boyd, who said David told her he hated his father? She’s wrong…according to David. Didn’t 3 witnesses testify at David’s retrial that Laniet was scared of him? They’re wrong…according to David. What about Jan Clark, who said David wore his mother’s glasses the weekend of the murders? She’s wrong…according to David. What about the ambulance officer who thought David was feigning a fit? He’s wrong…according to David. And the to witnesses who said David had scratches on his chest? Of course they’re wrong too…according to David.

    And now we have Michael Guest, who you’d think would know David better than most. I await David’s denials with interest. I don’t think I’ll have to wait long.

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

    *to witnesses* = two witnesses

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

    I see Bain told Binnie that he could see that video that he said he watched on the Sunday night without glasses because he sat in a certain chair. If you take a look at the photo of the lounge you will see that if he sat in that chair no-one else would be able to see the TV,well hardly. They would have had to crane their necks to see it.
    I am sure Margaret Bain would have gone and got that old pair of her glasses that David had worn before and handed them to him saying “For goodness sake,David,put these on and stop blocking our view'”

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

    > Only the killer could have seen that blood streaming.

    Not at all. Binnie reckons that David and Robin could’ve been wandering aroung the house at the same time. It’s damn lucky they didn’t bump into each other. Oh that’s right…

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

    ross69
    I havn’t got to that bit. Can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.
    And sorry to keep pestering you,but an answer on the strip-search would be much appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    It appears not too many of David’s supporters have confidence to put money on David according to ipredict.

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=BAIN.COMP.MAY.2013

    For every $0.15 they invest they would get dollar back if compo by 1 May 2013.

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

    Here we go, bullshit supremo at work.
    There was no blood deep in the barrel, and it wasn’t DNA tested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    Good morning Nostalgia.
    Your continued patience is impressive. 🙂

    Last night you posted….

    ” Nostalgia-NZ (1,996) Says:
    December 30th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
    Flipper I hope the situation you point out – of the Binnie report being more widely read within the inner circles and compared to that of Fisher is correct. That would give me some hope that were are not sliding toward communism and mock trials perpetrated by an all powerful state.
    “Due process is very important, particularly one where ‘power’ has been invested into an elite rather than a Bill of Rights, although I think the independence of the Courts and the Bill of Rights will win over if Cabinet don’t consider their decision carefully and understand the public perception that prevailed before the Magna Carta of those vested with god like powers and favour.
    “The more desperate the situation becomes the lower the level of the base coarseness of the ‘hangers’ is revealed, ‘blood streaming’ for example – hardly shown in the photos, and the ‘new’ reliance on the question of a goat. ”

    Yes, the good news is that the thick bureaucratic wall surrounding this issue has now been breached.
    Even had an email late yesterday afternoon to confirm that the message been delivered.
    Your comments have been noted at a high level, and the underlying message received. There have also been expressions of horror over Collins/Fisher from eminent Commonwealth Jurists, outside of Canada. Not now looking good for the crazies (they simply make the MoJ/CL bureaucrats look like them!).

    But as I said yesterday, “many a slip” is still possible, so chickens should not yet be counted…. 🙂

    I would love to give you more detail, but that would breech an undertaking.

    Cheers
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    I watched video of the court evidence on the difficulty Robin would experience shooting himself at the location and angle he supposedly did, with counsel asking “Can you reach the trigger?” “Yes, I can”

    But they didn’t go on to –
    “Can you now hold the rifle with silencer further away, waving about, but to allow a shot to the same area and at the same angle, and with at least the 20 cm gap, if not 10 cm more, as three experts say is required to give the residue pattern as they have observed, it not being a direct contact injury?”

    The answer would likely be “No, I can’t hold the rifle steady and, while I managed with it closer, the trigger was only just reachable, and now I would need arms 20 cm longer
    Nous cherchons “un plus un égale trois”

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

    muggins

    I’m not sure where I read about the strip search evidence…it probably was tendered at the first trial. But it’s neither here nor there, though of course just because David said it happened doesn’t mean it did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Q. How many judges does it take to change a light bulb?
    A. A judge cannot change a light bulb. A light bulb is a light bulb.

    Q. Is that a fact?
    A. No, it’s a judgement. I didn’t study science.

    Q. How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
    A. The light bulb pleads no failure, m’Lord.

    Q. How many lawyers does it take to see there’s no light?
    A. Golly, gosh, the money’s not burnt out is it?

    Q. What is a miscarriage of justice?
    A. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

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

    ross,
    Sorry,but you are wrong re that supposed strip-search.
    Doyle was asked if Bain was strip-searched at the retrial and he gave a vague answer. He wasn’t in the room when Pryde examined Bain. Three police officers were in the room and I have contacted two of them and they both say Bain wasn’t strip-searched while they were there but they both left the room for a few minutes,so they can’t be sure one way or the other. I hope to hear from the third police officer in the not too distant future.
    You might wonder why I am harping on about this maybe strip-search. The fact is that Bain told Binnie he was strip-searched. He told him under oath. Get the picture?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Yvette. “As sure as one plus one equals two,”

    Mr Reed has put 2 and 2 together and any fool can see that is 22.

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

    Was the Truth Headline “Lair, Lair, briefs on fire” by any chance?

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

    I wonder if Karam will sue Truth and Whaleoil. They’ve called David a liar…

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/who-should-be-buying-truth-this-week/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Flapper, Neuralgia.

    I rang Lilibet last night. Bloody corgis, couldn’t hear a word. Had to speak with Charles. He said not to worry, Bain won’t get a penny. He got it from the horse’s arse.

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

    > Sorry,but you are wrong re that supposed strip-search.

    I believe it’s in Pryde’s report, but like I say it’s not worth worrying about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Mexican (3) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 10:27 am
    Was the Truth Headline “Lair, Lair, briefs on fire” by any chance?

    Thanks for that! There’s not much to laugh about.

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

    On a more serious note, I have a suggestion. Is it possible for someone using computer simulation software to put together a short clip showing how RB could have shot himself? Following EXACTLY the defence scenario? This clip would start with RB changing the magazine/clip and finish with the instant he pulls the trigger under this scenario.
    The next frame would show RB lying on the floor in the found position.
    While not definitive, would this not give us at least some idea of what had to have happened accoring to the defence. It could be posted online so we can all judge for ourselves. If it’s already been done, my apologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    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 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 goat?

    A. Yes. So that’s what ended our friendship and anything that he has to say, I mean, it’s totally untrue.

    I was just having another look at David sworn testimony about the goat.

    It appears that Buckley was making comments about David and a goat. It could have just been a joke like Australians have about Kiwis shagging sheep of it could have a case of Buckley having caught David doing something embarrassing with a goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Cam Slater liked the story I sent him.
    While you lot have been going round in circles, I have been producing.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/who-should-be-buying-truth-this-week/#disqus_thread

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

    “It could have just been a joke like Australians have about Kiwis shagging sheep of it could have a case of Buckley having caught David doing something embarrassing with a goat.”

    I’d go with the former…but David never struck me as having a sense of humour. I mean, did he ever see the funny side of wearing those jerseys? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Nostalgia…
    Your science doesn’t overcome common sense or the evidence

    Science is the attempt to find out reality even if its approximate only and thus commonsense applies. Binnie didn’t use science and commonsense. He thought he was using commonsense. But look at his report? Did he weigh all the probabilistic evidence using science? None at all. Did he aggregate the evidence in a scientific method ? None at all. Did he base his conclusion on hearsay and unscrupulous methods? Definitely. That’s not commonsense is it? Reality is absolute, but we try to approximate it via science as close as possible (commonsense will be applied as a natural consequence). When you over-rely on commonsense and mistaken it as reality, then you end up with contradictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Mexican firstly I hope the guy that did this doesn’t mind the link put here and when viewing it the background is indicative only as Robin had to of been shot close to the curtain . This is done buy aguy who admit that his java skill are basic but it shows what can been done. Note! bodies don’t bounce and the force from the bullet is almost negligible. What you see here is my experiance of animals shot in the head straight down where they stood.

    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Flipper 9-56. That sounds encouraging. Of course from a purely pragmatic point of view it’s in this Government’s interests to show that the leadership is awake with a firm grasp of due process and regard to the Bill of Rights. Collins effectively launched a ‘secret’ trial because she didn’t like the Binnie report. From a Minister that is displaying not toughness but treachery, working behind someone’s back when holding political office and then deriding their professional standing but only being forced to relent and open the ‘books’ is unprecedented in NZ to my knowledge. I lament the loss of people with a barrow load of guts like Muldoon, from punching protesters in Queen Street to having a sharp grasp of fairness, crossing the floor as Rex I think it was who wrote, after meeting the hangman.

    Yvette

    The Crown produced three pathologists, two whom insisted Dempster change his testimony as the fatal shot being contact. He resisted of course and his evidence was accepted for various reasons most notably the soot deposit around the wound and the dna found in the rifle. You are disadvantaged in trying make any progress because your ‘team’ simply deny the dna in the rifle despite it having been posted many times, along with details of the strip search. Your journey is plagued with pitfalls as you don’t have all the information from source. Unfortunately you have to believe there was no strip search when the 2IC gave evidence of it, also the Doctor himself in the first trial which I posted over a week ago. You have to believe that Robin’s arms needed to 20cm longer because you read the pathologists report that suits your argument rather than Dempsters. You need to believe that police posted to their duties, leave the room and endanger the Doctor they’re there to protect who is examining a murder suspect while at the same time assume that Doyle lied about it as did Pryde himself right down to the intimate swabs. Take it easy on yourself and read The Truth, sensationalism over science is easier on the mind and encourages the blood lust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    twistedlemon at 1:54 am
    If you were an innocent David and came home from your paper round – what would you have done?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Relating my answer to this as closely as I can to David’s story:

    I think I would have noticed blood on the clothing I was putting into the washing machine as I sorted the whites from the non-whites, a sorting process that I undertook almost daily (in spite of the darkened laundry – it was always dark in there, and the darkness never stopped me pre-sorting the laundry before).

    I think I wouldn’t have put the green jumper in the washing machine:  for years I (David) have been taught, and I know today (20/6) as much as any other day, that the Bain household ALWAYS washes woolens by hand, not in the washing machine.

    I think on finding loose bullets and the rifle lock/key on the floor of my room, I may have gone looking for my mum/dad. On Mum being the first one I came across, from her bedroom door I would have thought she lay asleep, but she was not responding to my calls for her to wake up. In a rising panic, I would have gone over to her and in spite of my lack of glasses, I would have concluded that it was worse than that, she’s dead Jim, apparently from a shot to the head (recalling in the process the loose bullets in my bedroom).

    (About now my (dotcom) thinking starts to depart from my (David) version)

    At this point I would have cacked my pants thinking that there might an unknown killer on the loose somewhere in my house with a loaded rifle, and the fright/flight response (a very real thing) would tell me to get to the phone and call 111, or better still to get the hell of the house to call for neighbour(s) to call 111.

    Here’s a question for peops. I think the phone was a 1990s cordless one. Not cellphone, but cordless.

    If that were the case, on discovering Mum’s lifeless body, on balance I’d have picked up the cordless handset, and been dialing as I went out the front door like a bullet, and I’d have been calling 111 from the front gate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Thanks for that ipredict explanation, Chuck.

    Odds then on David getting compensation, currently running among those actually willing to put money on it, at about a 7 to 1 longshot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ross: do you know who the jersey belong to, or are you just making a pimply bottom of yourself again?

    Falafulu: Binnie used the forensic evidence and produced the narration that showed the murder/suicide. It was the same course upon which the PC agreed there had been a MOJ. The narrative was necessary to convey the sequence but it was the science and evidence upon which the narrative was based. Simple example: science provided the knowledge of how the dead father’s dna arrived inside the barrel and therefore the shot being contact, this was supported by soot around the wound, the trajectory also indicated by more soot gathered to the top of the wound – there’s more on that, but that’s an example of how the simple suicide was solved but which also addressed the ‘wider’ evidence of the crime scene, David’s arrival home, the blood on the father’s hands and so it goes on leading to only one conclusion. Fisher inadequately trying to claim that Binnie concentrated on single events but not the whole. That’s completely wrong because all of Binnie’s critical findings are supported by evidence that wasn’t contested, the spilt live cartridges on David’s floor, the used rounds in the van, Robin’s prowess with firearms – all individually linked to the death of Robin by his own hand. Of course I’ve left out the footprints, not because they’re not needed but to show the many strands that obviously prove suicide, all of which Binnie analysed using both science and evidence.

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

    > ross: do you know who the jersey belong to, or are you just making a pimply bottom of yourself again?

    Haha another Bain supporter with no sense of humour…

    On that note, David Bain was pleased with the outcome of his retrial, but was gutted at the lack of family support.

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

    “Simple example: science provided the knowledge of how the dead father’s dna arrived inside the barrel and therefore the shot being contact”

    Would you like to provide a link for that wild claim? (When you provide the link, you might also like to provide proof that Robin shot himself and wasn’t murdered by David…who of course hated his father.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    And the result of my “what would I have done”?

    It would have been impossible for me to have said, as David was able to say — “The-e-re a-a-all dead”, because I would only have known that my mum was dead, and that my pants were cacked.

    And they would have been cacked (and the 111 call) made, half an hour earlier than it was made.

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

    > Fisher inadequately trying to claim that Binnie concentrated on single events but not the whole. That’s completely wrong…

    Try reading the Binnie Report again, and this time take your eye patch off.

    How much weight (if any) did Binnie give to:

    The bloodied opera gloves surely worn by the killer
    The damaged glasses found in David’s room
    The fact that David’s fingerprints, not Robin’s, were found on the rifle and in blood
    The fact that Stephen’s blood was found on David and not Robin
    The fact that no blood was found on Robin’s socks or the inside of his shoes
    David’s claim that only he knew where the trigger lock was located
    His testimony which is inconsistent with that of many witnesses
    The evidence of Mark Buckley
    The evidence of Ms Koch
    The evidence of Gareth and Greer Taylor

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

    Dotcom at 12.11pm

    I think I’d have wanted to get out of the house as quickly as possible after seeing blood streaming down my mother’s face and checking why she was bleeding. Not sure I’d have had the presence of mind to pick the phone unless it was on the way out of the house. But I’d probably have gone to a neighbour’s and told them to call police and ask for an ambulance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, you have made at least one great contribution to this debate.

    “Neuralgia” is absolutely spot on, bro.

    Guy goes into the Dennis the Dentist and demands no needles. Dennis gives him a viagra. Tells him it might give him something to do to keep his mind off the drilling (patient’s mind, not Dennis’).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    No wonder they call him Dennis the Horne!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ross69:

    Your day dreams continue. Waste of time answering you, because you merely blink and ask the same stupid question again attended by your normal lies. Read the Binnie report and note the 2003 COA judgement on the glasses, better still go join the communist party I’m sure they need hyperventilating idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    1. dead father’s dna arrived inside the barrel show us a link that that blood was tested.
    2. he spilt live cartridges on David’s floor either of them could had done that when reloading the 5 shot ammo clip
    3. Robin’s prowess with firearms he didn’t own a firearm and probably didn’t have a licence where did this prowness come from

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I believe from memory, that Binnie said that either David or Robin could have been the computer-turner-onner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    ‘Afternoon Nostalgia.

    • I have been around the block often enough to develop huge chunk of scepticism in relation to the State (any State) being honest and objective when it is seen to have “stuffed up”. Sorting this whole mess out in January is, of course, totally in the Government’s interests, Hopefully, along ther way, the Bill of Rights, justice, fairness, political honesty and David Bain (and wife, now?) will survive and prosper. If Collins is forced to recant, I canionly say:”It could not have happened to a nicer person.” 🙂

    • Your post: Nostalgia-NZ (1,998) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    “Flipper 9-56. That sounds encouraging. Of course from a purely pragmatic point of view it’s in this Government’s interests to show that the leadership is awake with a firm grasp of due process and regard to the Bill of Rights. Collins effectively launched a ‘secret’ trial because she didn’t like the Binnie report. From a Minister that is displaying not toughness but treachery, working behind someone’s back when holding political office and then deriding their professional standing but only being forced to relent and open the ‘books’ is unprecedented in NZ to my knowledge. I lament the loss of people with a barrow load of guts like Muldoon, from punching protesters in Queen Street to having a sharp grasp of fairness, crossing the floor as Rex I think it was who wrote, after meeting the hangman….”.

    • You may not have caught up with my earlier post on the Queen Street incident( on a more constructive thread). A few days after that incident Rob Muldoon had dinner in my home and he was quizzed over the incident by various guests. Finally, he sat on a dining room chair, pulled up his trouser legs, and showed everyone his shins. They were both covered with scars and abrasions (some still weeping) from ankle to knee. The Auckland bastards, mostly paid union organisers and thugs, were kicking RDM through the Police cordon. They did a very similar thing to Keith Holyoake in Palmerston North. Unfortunately, most of the kicks landed on the back of my legs! 🙂

    • They say history has a habit of repeating.I would like to deluver a few kicks to help the process. 🙂

    Have a Happy New Year….and try to forget the morons.

    Cheers
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    With the computer turn on time if the margin of error is larger than the accuracy required it should be discarded I did this exercise 3 years ago.

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

    ross,
    Pryde does not say he strip-searched David Bain,and I can’t phone him and ask him because he died a few years ago.
    That is why I am contacting everyone else that was in the room when he examined Bain.
    Think about it. If Dr Pryde had written and/or said he strip-searched David Bain then why would the defence be asking someone else if he was strip-searched? They would have just referred to Pryde’s notes.
    They are going by a diagram where Pryde noted he had seen the bruises on Bain’s face,the nick on his knee,and his tattoo.
    That diagram does not prove Bain was strip-searched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    ross69 “Binnie reckons that David and Robin could’ve been wandering around the house at the same time”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Another important news-flash from Dotcom.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As a fact-finder, Binnie does not have the right to come up with his own theories such as Dad and Dave being in the house at the same time. (Younger players will not relate to my “Dad and Dave”).

    Binnie’s job as a judge was to decide on the competing cases as presented by the two protagonists, not to come up with his own. The problem with a judge coming up with his own theory after the hearing, is that there is no chance in the “court” for either party to test the judge’s theory under cross-examination.

    When a judge makes himself part of the contest, it is referred to in the trade as “descending into the arena”, a huge no-no for any judge, ever. This should have been part of the Fisher report.

    Please don’t underestimate the importance of what I have given you in this comment.

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

    I would like to try and forget the morons but the keep posting on this thread in the guise of supporters of David Bain.

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

    > Read the Binnie report and note the 2003 COA judgement on the glasses

    Here is the COA judgment:

    [55] On the whole, balancing the evidence on this topic, we are left with the unexplained presence of the frame and right lens in David’s room, whereas the left lens was found separately in Stephen’s room. It must be a reasonable inference that the items found in David’s room were there because David considered the glasses to be of some use to him. The presence of the left lens in Stephen’s room, in conjunction with the remainder of the glasses being in David’s room, is consistent with the Crown’s contention and provides some support for it, particularly as David’s regular pair of glasses were away for repair. He might therefore be expected to have used the glasses in question and was unable to explain how the left lens had become separated from the frame and how the right lens had also become detached from the frame and how both came to be in his bedroom.

    [56] We conclude this discussion by noting that the glasses were of no use to Robin. He would not therefore have been wearing them. If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David) or they were worn by David. The new evidence raises the level of possibility that the glasses had nothing to do with the murder, on the basis that the lens had been in Stephen’s room for some time; but that tends to increase the difficulty for David of his inability to explain the presence of the frame and other lens in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Flipper at 9.56 “breech an undertaking”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Breach of an undertaking. Breech of a gun, but breach of an undertaking. Isn’t English wonderful.

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

    More lies from Nostalgia … ho hum

    thanks Dennis, its been a good read, hope you have a good New Years eve ..

    I’m off to the beach, then the party …..

    🙂

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

    ross,
    That new evidence was a crock of the proverbial,and the Law Lords of the Privy Council knew that.
    “The issue for us is whether it is reasonably possible that the lens could have got in the vicinity of Stephen’s body in a manner or a time unrelated to the murders. This 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 that Stephen never wore,and had no need to wear,was already on the floor of the bedroom prior to him being shot.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Nostaligia…
    Binnie used the forensic evidence and produced the narration that showed the murder/suicide.

    Using forensic evidence is different from weighing evidence. If you weight evidence on a probabilistic reasoning framework, then he would assign a value between certainty (1) and the complement (0). He didn’t do that. That’s the heart of the matter in evidence theory. If he assigned boolean manner or values (true/false or 1/0), then he wasn’t using the so called balance of probability that he was suppose to use. He was using reasoning with certainty as if he’s got some psychic capability to travel back in time in a dream or something and witnessed the murder while it was taking place. Since he must reason with uncertainty about the collected evidence, it is almost risible to take his evaluation as balance of probability because it wasn’t. Weighing any proposition/hypothesis using true/false or 1/0 (boolean logic) is not probabilistic reasoning. U understand the difference? That’s my criticism of Binnie’s methods of evidence evaluation . It was simply kindergarten.

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

    According to a person who knew the Bain’s very well when she was a missionary teacher with them in Papua New Guinea Robin Bain never owned a rifle when he lived there and we know he never owned one when he returned to New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yvette at 10:01 am
    I watched video of the court evidence on the difficulty Robin would experience shooting himself at the location and angle he supposedly did, with counsel asking “Can you reach the trigger?” “Yes, I can”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Nor did they ask, Yvette, “And in this scenario, where would the litre or so of blood and brains end up?”

    To which the only answer could have been — all over Robin’s hand. Whereas the reality was less than 0.1 of a ml of blood and brains on Rob’s hands. Less than 0.1 of a millilitre, that’s less than one ten-thousandth of a litre.

    The chances of this being the case, in a balance of probabilities decision. Same as a Taliban diplomat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Muggins how many myth have the myth perpetuators created have you tabulated them?

    Then we have the freudian slips too many of them for a normal person

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Sorry, “The-e-re a-a-all dead” … …

    … … should have had a “y” in there somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    As in “y” are they all dead?

    How Freudian is that?

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

    gamefisher
    I just couldn’t be bothered making a list of those myth’s perpetrated by the myth perpetrators,it would just take up too much of my time.
    Actually, it not so much that they perpetrate myth’s but that they keep on perpetrating the same myth ad nauseam.
    For example. I don’t know how many times one myth perpetrator has perpetrated the myth that the blood in the barrel was Robin Bain’s. There is no way he could know that because the blood in the barrel was never DNA tested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Cam Slater has just informed me that the Truth story will be both in the print version, and on-line.

    On-line will be posted Thursday.

    Cam tells me that “most Mobil stations now carry Truth…and 4 squares in the magazine section.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Flipper 1.04

    I had missed that post about the kicking across the picket line. Obviously in typical fashion, Muldoon didn’t cry about it.

    All the best for you new year to you as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Truth often sells out. This one will for sure. Probably a collectors’ item.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Dennis, one about Mr/Mrs Dotcom.

    Two retirees go to the doctor, saying they don’t get as much out of romance as they used to.

    Doctor asks them when these old codgers first started noticing the problem.

    I said “twice last night, and again this morning”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    There seems to be two issues or arguments. The first is whether David is innocent on the balance of probabilities. That is easy to argue on logic – something Binnie knew little of.

    The second issue I find hard to understand or argue against. That is some people believe that if someone gets out jail because the police, prosecution or a judge made a few errors but it is highly likely they are guilty that should get a payout.

    They seem to think how would I feel if I was wrongly inprisoned? However they fail to think how would I feel if a loved one was murdered and the murderer is going to get compenstion because the police broke rules in the way they collected evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Chuck, police prosecutorial error can be grounds for compensation. But only of a maximum (not defined but according to precedent) of about $50,000. It would be a public law claim to the Courts, not to Cabinet, alleging breach of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Unlike American Courts for claims under their string of Constitutional Amendments that make up their informal bill of Rights, New Zealand Courts so far (since 1990 obviously) have shown a real aversion to claims for money by opportunist criminals who want to be compensated for police error in procedures despite proving a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    In other words, if someone’s xth Amendment rights are breached in America, the Courts throw out the case pronto.

    Even though our rights are just as sacred, our Courts in deciding criminality are more inclined to ask “well what difference did the police errors make to the final outcome”, and they confirm criminality. Then the NZ court MIGHT say, “but here’s some money ‘cos the prosecution wasn’t perfect”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    .gamefisher (114) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    1. dead father’s dna arrived inside the barrel show us a link that that blood was tested.
    2. he spilt live cartridges on David’s floor either of them could had done that when reloading the 5 shot ammo clip
    3. Robin’s prowess with firearms he didn’t own a firearm and probably didn’t have a licence where did this prowness come from’

    Read the Judges question to the defence scientist on the matter of the dead father’s dna found inside the rifle it’s very straight forward and supported by peer reviewed research and common sense about the lead of a bullet being oversized -something a person with armory or firearm experience would know, or alternatively listen to some idiot’s idea that he read somewhere or heard from another idiot with fleas. You’re supposed to have all this information before you make up your mind.

    Falufulu you keep trying to pull apart Binnie’s reasoning yet you don’t understand the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Can anyone point me to an online dictionary that translates from one language to another?

    The languages I had in mind are Nostalgic to English.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    Dotcom try – http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/lookup.html 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    That blood is presumed to be Robins show us where it has been tested for Robins Dna what chapter/s of binnies report

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    The “TRUTH” ??????

    The following email just in from a senior Barrister with no connection with the case:

    ” The Truth out today is very one eyed against Bain, accusing him of being a “liar, liar”. I find it hard to believe the stance taken by editor, Cameron Slater. But what really concerns me are the errors in the article, and the involvement of Michael Guest, Bain’s original lawyer. Guest is a compulsive liar.”

    Guest was also blowing off in a Sunday paper last week was he not? Silly man.

    Somehow I suspect that the paper will be more successful in attracting additional circulation holiday-makers with nothing better to do, than influencing the decision-makers, or, possibly in the long run, the Courts. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yvette, I’m genuinely sorry i was “trop dur” to you yesterday.

    You are in my long list of NY resolutions.

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

    flipper, you don’t need to keep repeating yourself. David is the only one to tell the truth. All those dozens of prosecution witnesses – they all perjured themselves. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yeah I know.. . Before anyone else says it ….

    Nostalgic begets Dotcomic … …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, Flipper

    Michael Guest is a compulsive lair. Of course he it … Just like Dave’s prosecution witnesses shag goats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Nostaligia, then what were the probabilistic weights of separate pieces of evidence that Binnie assigned to each?

    Evidence A : prob (A) = 0.7
    Evidence B : prob (B) = 0.2
    Evidence C : prob (C) = 0.4
    Evidence D : prob (D) = 0.1
    Evidence E : prob (E) = 0.45
    Evidence F : prob (F) = 0.0
    .
    .
    .
    Evidence N-th : prob (N-th) = …

    Did Binnie do it as I have shown in the example above? If not then I stand by my comment above. His conclusion was based on kindergarten method.

    Where was Binnie’s weighing of evidence if he didn’t do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Speaking of peeing in the shower (which we weren’t recently, but let’s say we were), after David came in from the paper run, when did he next have a pee?

    Because if his story is to ring true, he would have peed himself when there was no-one called “Jim” nearby to say the famous line to. Imagine, all your life just waiting for the chance to say

    “It’s worse than that, he’s dead Jim”

    And there’s no Jim within cooee.

    (“Cooee” is Australian Aboriginal language for “a long way”).   (A lot of Australian Aboriginals are called Jim)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    ” The Truth out today is very one eyed against Bain, accusing him of being a “liar, liar”. I find it hard to believe the stance taken by editor, Cameron Slater. But what really concerns me are the errors in the article, and the involvement of Michael Guest, Bain’s original lawyer. Guest is a compulsive liar.”

    And you got that in an email, from a senior Barrister?

    You’re not another one of these fantasists, are you flopper, just like your good mate N-NZ?

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

    Name the errors in the article, please

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    This is only a little off topic. I friend of mine told me about this BBC Doco that was on Sky’s BBC Knowledge this morning.

    I check on Sky and it playing again a couple of more times. I have set an email alert to watch it 8:20 pm Wednesday.

    I think I am only slightly off topic.

    Are You Good or Evil?
    Image for Are You Good or Evil?

    2011-2012 Episode 5 of 15

    Duration: 1 hour

    What makes us good or evil? It’s a simple but deeply unsettling question. One that scientists are now starting to answer.

    Horizon meets the researchers who have studied some of the most terrifying people behind bars – psychopathic killers.

    But there was a shock in store for one of these scientists, Professor Jim Fallon, when he discovered that he had the profile of a psychopath. And the reason he didn’t turn out to be a killer holds important lessons for all of us.

    We meet the scientist who believes he has found the moral molecule and the man who is using this new understanding to rewrite our ideas of crime and punishment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65

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

    “It’s called trauma, something Scott1 should read the psychiatry of before making wild assumptions. But then again wild assumptions are the fruitful harvest of those uncertain or blind to the evidence.”

    you are mistaken as to my point.
    I accept the argument as valid. But trauma is not the important point, (not that you should need my help but apparently you do), the important point is a person who did not suffer trauma would also make the same sorts of errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    For those who argue about evidence that’s clearly explained by physics, here is an article to read then present your argument according to the physics. I sometimes find the testimony of certain experts in court trials, simply based on guess work. The expert who testified that Robyn committed suicide offered no PHYSICS at all of why he thought that it was the case. He didn’t bring up or demonstrate the newton laws & equations of motions. I have never seen that in any case that I’m aware of. There may be but I’m not aware of that. I think that when experts give evidence to support a particular hypothesis, they must demonstrate that they know physics (equation of motions, etc,…). If they don’t, then their opinion must not be heavily relied on.

    Physicists find a new angle on blood spatter

    The original paper that the article above is based on is freely downloadable from here:

    Locating the source of projectile fluid droplets

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    The paper above, Locating the source of projectile fluid droplets, I posted it at Sciblogs, where forensic scientist Dr Anna Sandiford (who was an expert witness for the defense) blogs. She didn’t bring up any question about the paper, even though there are lots of physicists that read and blog at Sciblogs. It only meant one thing to me. She doesn’t understand the physics described in the paper, because had she attempt to read it, she would have asked a question about it or simply make a comment about the paper, because the paper is a recent research, which i believe that it hasn’t reached researchers in forensic science yet. What I mean here is that the paper wasn’t published in a forensic science journal, where those are the journals that those researchers tend to read (well its normal that you restrict yourself to your own publication). Dr Anna Sandiford’s background is Geology and it doesn’t mean that she can’t understand physics & equation of motions, but I suspect that she lacks understanding of physics. Well, one need to understand physics if you are bloody going to be a forensic expert.

    Coroners sometimes make ruling about something that’s obviously need physics knowledge, but it is simply accepted by the public that his/her ruling is based on science and not on guesswork.

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

    If David Bain wishes to sue “Truth” newspaper, then he is free to do so. Why would Joe Karam have any right to sue on behalf of another person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ‘Dean Papa (238) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    ” The Truth out today is very one eyed against Bain, accusing him of being a “liar, liar”. I find it hard to believe the stance taken by editor, Cameron Slater. But what really concerns me are the errors in the article, and the involvement of Michael Guest, Bain’s original lawyer. Guest is a compulsive liar.”

    And you got that in an email, from a senior Barrister?

    You’re not another one of these fantasists, are you flopper, just like your good mate N-NZ?’

    This from an idiot who comments on the Binnie report after recording that he’s just skimmed it. Too much.

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

    Falafulu Fisi
    the response struck me more that she sees herself as a professional witness more than as a scientist. She knows that a non expert can be torn apart on the witness stand applying even a published methodology due to any mistakes they might make – and so she considers it irrelevant what they say.

    To me there is a bit of an issue with our system too that we contract our experts as defense or prosecution witnesses and then seem to trust them to be objective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,490) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    flipper, you don’t need to keep repeating yourself. David is the only one to tell the truth. All those dozens of prosecution witnesses – they all perjured themselves. ‘

    Where has anybody ever claimed that all the prosecution witnesses perjured themselves or in fact any did you idiot. Wake up to yourself Anderson, Womble and Dempster to name just a few gave evidence extremely helpful to the defence as did Mrs Laney and a tens more. You’re a dreamer ross69.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (622) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    Can anyone point me to an online dictionary that translates from one language to another?

    The languages I had in mind are Nostalgic to English.’

    You clearly sunk yourself with the blood streaming crap. I guess you don’t feel so good now, you were the next greatest thing for about 30 seconds now you go on the list of the conspirators that ‘know’ there was no strip search. Excellent effort, spent at the first hurdle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia, Flipped, “The odd couple”. You really don’t get it, do you? We are not interested in senior barristers, senior judges, puny pusine judges, or witch doctors, trumpet players, tarot card readers … This is not longer an issue of law, the law is not about justice, the law is about process. This is political, an ex gratia payment by Cabinet.

    The truth is found by investigation, logic and probability: science, reasoning and statistics. We don’t give a stuff about what someone said was important or how important was the person who said it. Science does not appeal to authority, science is built on verification.

    One truth is that decent society cannot give a man millions for killing his entire family. No legal humbug overrides that simple fact. So stick your Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Treaty of Waitangi up your trou du cul.

    You harp on and on about “evidence”. Little bits of fluff you think gives weight to your argument. It’s not even consistent. You expect me to believe Robin shot and strangled his family, changed his clothes but didn’t wash his hands?

    If you have a theory and it’s contradicted by observations then it’s wrong. Anyone with half a brain can see that Robin Bain did not kill himself, so who was it?

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

    The blood in the barrel was not DNA tested and anyone who says it was is lying through his teeth.
    Also the blood was not deep in the barrel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mikenmild (23,508 comments) says:

    Dennis
    I think you are making the mistake of assuming that you are appealing to rational minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi (2,139) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 5:15 pm
    For those who argue about evidence that’s clearly explained by physics, here is an article to read then present your argument according to the physics. I sometimes find the testimony of certain experts in court trials, simply based on guess work. The expert who testified that Robyn committed suicide offered no PHYSICS at all of why he thought that it was the case. He didn’t bring up or demonstrate the newton laws & equations of motions. I have never seen that in any case that I’m aware of. There may be but I’m not aware of that. I think that when experts give evidence to support a particular hypothesis, they must demonstrate that they know physics (equation of motions, etc,…). If they don’t, then their opinion must not be heavily relied on.

    Physicists find a new angle on blood spatter

    The original paper that the article above is based on is freely downloadable from here:

    Locating the source of projectile fluid droplets’

    I read those and can only ask so? What point are you trying to make in respect of the Bain case. You seem to be mesmerizing yourself that you have proved something new. But what is it. One of those models reminded me of the impracticality of your theory on where the rifle would have landed which you suggested might be determined by dropping a 1000 cigarettes. I can see the science of the two authors considering height but I can also see that they have not apparently included that the head would move so effecting the source point. Your overall problem remains – no masking of the blood spatter which indicated another person present when Robin shot himself.

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

    gamefisher (115) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    That blood is presumed to be Robins show us where it has been tested for Robins Dna what chapter/s of binnies report

    ——————————————————

    New Year Wishes Everyone!

    Gamefisher, one does not have to be a gun expert to know that each time the bullet passes through the barrel (the gun is fired) it clears the barrel. There was blood found in the barrel, therefore it had to get there after the last bullet was fired, and come from the last person shot. We know that was Robin, therefore the blood had to be his.

    Or, are you suggesting there was another victim that somehow escaped, or perhaps the blood belonged to one of the other Bain family members, thus altering the claimed order of deaths?

    The blood being in the barrel also indicates a close contact shot.

    There is much talk of probability – in this particular aspect the probability that the blood was Robin’s has to be extremely high.

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

    I reckon Mike Guest’s letter to Judith Collins will have put the mockers on the compensation claim. And interesting to read that Guest’s co-counsel was there when Bain told Guest he had been wearing those glasses on the Sunday.
    So now we have four people who heard Bain say he was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.

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

    The blood in the barrel was not DNA tested and anyone who says it was is a liar.
    Nor was that blood deep in the barrel and anyone who says it was is a liar.

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

    The wound to Robin Bain’s head was a close contact wound because David Bain knew it had to be to make it look as if his father had committed suicide..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Hey you guys carry on debating and I’ll join tomorrow but I’m off to pick up chicks in bars in town.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. Let’s start at the beginning.

    David Bain planned the killings using the paper round observers as alibis, broke his spectacles in the struggle with Stephen and shot his father, placing the magazine under the table a few mm from his hand. Alternative explanation: Robin waited until David went on his paper round then killed all the family except one, because he was about to be challenged over incest, and left a “suicide” “note” on a computer that he probably couldn’t see without his glasses. He shot himself with a lucky shot.

    The magazine fell out of his hand on its edge. Now, we’ll find a similar magazine and you will be locked up until you drop it on its edge. If you can do it within a month of Sundays I’ll give you $1000. I’ll leave a rifle in the room with you.

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

    Why do you think David was wearing his mother’s glasses that sunday, muggins?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @muggins. Absolutely right. If my son wanted to kill me that much I wouldn’t struggle, nor would I want him punished. So why did Robin Bain set his son up for murder?

    It just doesn’t make any sense in this world, The Binnies must be on another planet.

    @Dotcom. I’ll play the dentist, here, my old mate: “You’ll only feel a little prick…”

    HAPPY NEW YEAR GUYS, I think I’m being called.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ‘Dennis Horne (97) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    Neuralgia. Let’s start at the beginning.

    David Bain planned the killings using the paper round observers as alibis, broke his spectacles in the struggle with Stephen and shot his father, placing the magazine under the table a few mm from his hand. Alternative explanation: Robin waited until David went on his paper round then killed all the family except one, because he was about to be challenged over incest, and left a “suicide” “note” on a computer that he probably couldn’t see without his glasses. He shot himself with a lucky shot.

    The magazine fell out of his hand on its edge. Now, we’ll find a similar magazine and you will be locked up until you drop it on its edge. If you can do it within a month of Sundays I’ll give you $1000. I’ll leave a rifle in the room with you.’

    Increasingly silly Dennis Horne but that’s what happens when you set out to be a flat earther. Small point I know but Robin didn’t wear glasses. There is no evidence that anyone but Robin put the magazine on it’s edge but then again evidence isn’t your strong point, well…in fact you have no strong points but you are vaguely entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Happy new year to everyone even the bitter and twisted. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Robin didn’t wear glasses? Yes he did, he left them in the caravan. For reading and WRITING.

    Robin would have left the magazine in his pocket or placed on the table, or thrown it down. How did it end up under the table a few mm from his hand? In all probability even the thump on the carpet would have knocked it over, even the air currents helping.

    No, Neuralgia. It is not I clinging to the past. The game’s up, chum. There’s clever people looking at this gossamer-thin chain of improbabilities now that fooled the jury and paralysed your brain. Well, it hasn’t ours, we’re functioning quite well, thanks. Firing on all cylinders, as David might have said, had he had a revolver.

    The glasses evidence alone is going to guarantee no compensation. Will you still be paid? We’ll pass a hat round.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Famous last words from the vanquished Dennis. I’ll give you the score card, lost at the PC, at the trial and on the BOP. Off to the dunces corner you go, it’s pretty full over there but you’ll fit in there’s always room for another cackler down on his luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    Karam should have had the sense to quit while he was ahead. Although most thinking NZers believe David Bain guilty, they were at least willing to let the matter rest, for the sake of peace. But by seeking compensation, Karam had awoken the beast. It was possible to live with the thought of David Bain set free, he had after all served a considerable time, at least by NZ standards. But the prospect of him receiving a large amount of money for his crime, and the dragging of a good man’s name in Robin Bain through the mud, was more than many decent NZers could tolerate. The renewed attention and scrutiny directed at David Bain is only going to make it more obvious who the killer is. Karam is going to regret his greed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Good luck Falafulu Fisi. Have an extra one for me, for old times sake, and for ol’ Lang Syne.

    Or as old Blue Eyes said (Frank Sinatra for you young ones) … …

    “I did it sideways”

    HNY all.

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

    twistedlemon
    So he could watch that video on the Sunday night,and drive the car down to the fish and chip shop.
    Happy New Year.

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

    Anyone know where I can find a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Looks like just us oldies at this stage, muggins. HNY me ol mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Happy New Year, Tony. Here’s hoping a few more “top” barristers blow their brains out with shotguns; pangs of conscience after getting rotten sods off murder. Parasites.

    @Dean. You’re quite right. It was the money that caused me to start reading up. He’s got no chance now, poor bugger, he’s going to be under a microscope

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    muggins. Just kidding? I’m too old to play the goat. Even for you.

    Neuralgia still doesn’t get it. All the courts under the Sun make no difference now. Lawyers have wasted $7M of our hard earned money and just left a mess. For us to sort out. No help from the NZ Herald. Brainless.

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

    Dennis Horne (100) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Happy New Year, Tony. Here’s hoping a few more “top” barristers blow their brains out with shotguns; pangs of conscience after getting rotten sods off murder. Parasites.

    How low can you go? I thought joining JFRB was low enough, but this is ouke material. You are a sick man.

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

    ouke = puke.
    Bloody edit function….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Have you two seen The Truth yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Hey, Dennis. I found that even at my age, viagra is useful … ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Katz. I though that would get you lot going. Ah, the “only taking orders” or “doing what you do” defence, eh? Well, suck it, chum. You’re telling me Macdonald would have got a “not guilty”, are you, had the jury heard all the relevant evidence.? Jerk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    … stops me rolling out of bed all the time.

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

    Dennis Horne (101) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    You have still shown you are as sick as that muggins guy who thinks it is normal for a father to put his fingers in his daughter’s vagina and teach her what her clitoris is. Perfect examples that show to believe Robin Bain innocent you need to be a sick fucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Keep gong Kanz. At this rate we might find out something about you, that might reveal your sick obsession with finding fault with an old man, when all logic says he didn’t kill anyone.

    What’s going on here Kanz? If Robin wasn’t the killer, than he should have been shot anyway. What, David did the world a favour ridding the world of this menace (sorry Dennis) and framing him for murder.

    Who’s the real sick one here Kanz. Are you not aware that nearly all sex crimes are performed by young men, not old ones. the dirty old man syndrome is a dirty old man myth, Kanz,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Sadly, Kanz, your opinion is far too prominent in NZ. Jeez, it’s easy to blame so much on dirty ol men.

    You ever had any dirty ol man experiences, Kanz. Maybe you would like to share them with us here. Perhaps we could get to the bottom of this sick and absurd obsession of yours, with blaming defenceless dirty ol men for whatever suits your needs. Does it appease your own hangups, Kanz.

    Tell me Kanz, do you still teach your kids the totally discredited “stranger danger” theory which turned an entire nation of people against older men, FOR THREE GENERATIONS, and taught children to avoid going to men, when the children might be facing danger which a man might just be there to help with.

    Sick, Kanz, sick. Now back off and get a sense of common sense back. Robin Bain killed no-one. Robin Bain did not kill himself.

    Get your independence back Kanz. Get your own brain back, Kanz, you fucking fool. You have been brainwashed. Suggest you learn about the Stockholm Syndrome, and get your life back. And do it quick, before you fuck yourself sick for life. As happened to Patty Hearst. Google her, and save yourself.

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

    Speaking of money, does anyone remember the tacky appeal by Joe Karam within a couple of hours of the retrial verdict, handing out business cards with a website address where the public could donate cash to set David up…….singing never let a chance go by here.
    wonder what he would have done with the cards if verdict had been different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Sorry, Kanz. You are not a fool. Stockholm syndrome is a sickness. Your PTSD is a sickness. Get help. Help for it is available tonight. Call you local Mental Health Crisis team-worker. 111 operator will have the 0800 number for you.

    They are ready and waiting for your call even on new years eve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    New Year’s resolution, Kanz. You don’t have to put yourself through this any longer. You can escape. You will survive it. You can escape it. You can get a “normal” life back. You can get your old life back.

    You can be back to normal, with normal people, very quickly. Within weeks even if you work at it. No-one will hold it against you. We know what you have had to go through. This does not have to be forever.

    Call 111 right now, Kanz, and get back the life you used to have. RIGHT NOW! Go on, use your cell-phone. NOW! And get your old life back.

    We will thank you, not blame you. We know you need help. 111 NOW!

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

    Dotcom (630) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Help for it is available tonight. Call you local Mental Health Crisis team-worker. 111 operator will have the 0800 number for you.

    They are ready and waiting for your call even on new years eve.

    Not at all surprised you have that information at your finger tips. It’s blatantly clear you have needed it many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    You can save yourself, Kanz.

    Hey, Kanz, I have never insulted you here once to my immediate recall. We had something special here you and I.

    I saw the intelligence behind your comments.

    You need to get out. Never mind the other cruel ones here. Never mind that I know the number for Mental Health Crisis team. Where I was trained to know this information is stuff we promise not to reveal publicly.

    Save yourself, Kanz. Get your old life back, Kanz. You remember it well.

    You can go back to a NORMAL life.

    Pick up the phone Kanz. Get your pride back. Get you individuality back.

    Get the OLD .. ..HAPPY … … Kanz back

    Call 111 now and end this black hole of a life.

    Kanz. No one will blame you for where you have been recently. People understand.

    CALL 111. Now. Please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kanz. No-one will hold recent events against you.

    Call 111 now.

    No-one, I promise you, is going to blame you for anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kanz, remember the HAPPY, happy new years?

    You can still have a HAPPY new years eve, tonight.

    Call 111 now, and start 2013 like all the good years used to start.

    Come on. Not for me. For the old Kanz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Please

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

    Dotcom (632) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    You have made it clear now, to qualify as a Robin Bain supporter one first needs to be in a mental institution, No thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    If you want to discuss privately Kanz

    dotcom@inbox.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    If I said that to you, I cannot be sorry enough.

    Totally confidential. On my own life, totally confidential

    dotcom@inbox.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    I don’t remember saying the mental institution thing. But if I did, I was dreadfully wrong. It was the puffery and bullshit that we all tend to use here.

    Save yourself. No-one will go to a mental institution.

    You are a good, decent person Kanz. Life doesn’t have to be like this.

    You can have the old Kanz back. Remember her?

    New year in an hour. The old Kanz can be back in an hour. But not on your own.

    Call 111 now. They will NOT hurt you. I’m sorry if I hurt you. I will personally do what I can to make that insult up to you. Promise.

    Call 111, and have one of those old type HAPPY happy new years.

    Call 111 now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    My last comment Kanz.

    But I will be monitoring my email for you. Just for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    You have made it clear now, to qualify as a Robin Bain supporter one first needs to be in a mental institution, No thanks.

    Actually, since people have bought it up – to understand David and his motive, to have been in a mental institution could help there. To have experienced deep depression you can understand –“Being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear” – David in Karam’s booklet “Innocent”

    Consider his reactions to extended family and friends [St Kilda sandhills] just before his arrest.
    Consider the many references to “black hands”
    Not factual evidence, but if you have the experience of mental illness to be able to empathize, you’d understand the inheritance from the house would have been a bonus, but nothing really to do with getting out of a dysfunctional family.
    Il en prend un, à se reconnaître un

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

    Dotcom (639) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Have a happy new year dotcom. I know I will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Cheers Kanz. Me too. I said nothing above that wasn’t 100 percent genuine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Kanz (287) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 10:12 pm
    Dennis Horne (101) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    You have still shown you are as sick as that muggins guy who thinks it is normal for a father to put his fingers in his daughter’s vagina and teach her what her clitoris is. Perfect examples that show to believe Robin Bain innocent you need to be a sick fucker.
    _____________

    @Klutz. Well well well. We see the mental block at last. The blinding motivation for not seeing the obvious; the wood for the trees. Sex. Moral judgement.

    Robin is vile David is sweet. Painting this picture was fundamental to this whole project. Broadcast: “THIS IS YOUR FUNDAMENT SPEAKING.”

    Well, I read the Bains were not as discreet in their sex life as is usual these days, in our culture. What happens in homes where there is no privacy (most of the world)? What happened years ago? Children observed or certainly heard their parents making love. How much harm did it do them?

    As for the sex lessons, maybe Robin did have strange ideas, I don’t know. Men stick their fingers in women all the time; we make a distinction between sexual and clinical. Perhaps there was an incestuous relationship at some time, but I doubt it and there is no evidence. People say Robin was a good man who loved his children; I have no reason to doubt them.

    All that is irrelevant. The decision on compensation does not depend on moral judgement of Robin. It hinges around who killed him. Those not blinded by ignorance and emotion can see, on the balance of probability, that he didn’t kill himself.

    And if Robin didn’t kill himself, on the balance of probability, David must not receive compensation, because he cannot be, on the balance of probability, factually innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Yvette, d’accord. David was not functioning well. His claims of studying and choir singing and friends coming to visit his loving family are post-traumatic inventions.

    Had Karam let it go, in spite of my surprise at the verdict, I would have wished David a chance to make a life. Not because he’d served his time, but because we are all deeply flawed.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    David was a big strong young man. Robin looks old and frail in the photos. Robin couldn’t have strangled Stephen. Even in a blind rage.

    You don’t come out of a tough fight, strangling and shooting your son, with a full bladder. I simply don’t believe it. Show me I’m wrong, anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856832

    Binnie has dismissed the broken glasses, again.

    Bunnie is a beanie bag, Karam sat on him.

    Like the elephant that fcuked the mouse, sat on him and fcuked him properly.

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

    Good morning Dennis.
    What about Kanz’s New Years Eve rant,eh?
    He seems obsessed with Arawa’s vagina and clitoris. What a sad person he is.
    I agree with Dotcom ,he needs help. But the problem is he doesn’t realise he needs help.
    But what a start to the New year,eh!
    The Herald follwing up on that David the liar story. I mean it was a good story,but the Truth doesn’t have a great number of readers. Not like the Herald.
    But don’t you just love Joe. He says what Guest says is irrelevant because there is no evidence that shows that Bain was wearing those glasses on the morning of the murders. I wonder how Joe thinks that lens came to be in Stephen’s room.
    I mean David never said he was wearing those glasses with one lens missing.
    As Guest says,if Bain was prepared to lie about such a critical piece of evidence what else might he have lied about?
    We all know the answer to that ,don’t we. Bain told lie after lie after lie after lie.
    Btw,before you ask.I couldn’t find a goat,but there are a couple of happy sheep in the next door neighbours paddock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Honeybadger (555 comments) says:

    Kanz==smoke and mirrors….. just my honest opinion mind….

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

    Interesting article about Guest.

    This is what i take from it.
    1) guest is in a good position in terms of determining David’s innocence because he was able to talk to bain in depth early on. In particular regarding the glasses, maybe before david knew it was key evidence or had thought through all the implications.
    The counter i guess is to say he is bitter about being dumped.. then again, you would dump a lawyer who thought you were guilty.

    2) “absolutely certain David is innocent” or had suffered a miscarriage of justice. Is a bit of an odd thing to write to a client.. I mean it sounds like he is saying: “yeah sure I can be your lawyer again.. I like publicity and money !” but he still he used a caviet… why not AND had suffered a miscarriage?

    3) would be interesting to see the wavier of client solicitor privilige. I presume that guest is not lying… in which case i presume there is a waver but Karam disputes its validity due to context or somthing. I presume Binnie is correct in as far as Guest could not prove beyond doubt that it occured.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Scott1 (179) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:15 am
    Interesting article about Guest.

    This is what i take from it.
    1) guest is in a good position in terms of determining David’s innocence because he was able to talk to bain in depth early on. In particular regarding the glasses, maybe before david knew it was key evidence or had thought through all the implications.
    The counter i guess is to say he is bitter about being dumped.. then again, you would dump a lawyer who thought you were guilty.

    2) “absolutely certain David is innocent” or had suffered a miscarriage of justice. Is a bit of an odd thing to write to a client.. I mean it sounds like he is saying: “yeah sure I can be your lawyer again.. I like publicity and money !” but he still he used a caviet… why not AND had suffered a miscarriage?

    3) would be interesting to see the wavier of client solicitor privilige. I presume that guest is not lying… in which case i presume there is a waver but Karam disputes its validity due to context or somthing. I presume Binnie is correct in as far as Guest could not prove beyond doubt that it occured.

    Why not read the article yourself. Mr Guest wrote confirming his belief of David’s innocence much earlier, he’s obviously a conflicted fellow and if the glasses ‘crap’ is the best he can do we are lucky he’s no longer on the bench or able to practice law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ‘Belinda (63) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    Speaking of money, does anyone remember the tacky appeal by Joe Karam within a couple of hours of the retrial verdict, handing out business cards with a website address where the public could donate cash to set David up…….singing never let a chance go by here.
    wonder what he would have done with the cards if verdict had been different.’

    For tacky see the JFRB appeal for funds, it still continues as does it’s petition yet unable to raise 20,000 signatures and having never past 2,000 no matter how many signed multiple times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    ”Dean Papa (240) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    Karam should have had the sense to quit while he was ahead. Although most thinking NZers believe David Bain guilty, they were at least willing to let the matter rest, for the sake of peace. But by seeking compensation, Karam had awoken the beast. It was possible to live with the thought of David Bain set free, he had after all served a considerable time, at least by NZ standards. But the prospect of him receiving a large amount of money for his crime, and the dragging of a good man’s name in Robin Bain through the mud, was more than many decent NZers could tolerate. The renewed attention and scrutiny directed at David Bain is only going to make it more obvious who the killer is. Karam is going to regret his greed.’

    David Farrar has posted in an earlier thread not to defame Karam because of the obvious reason that these threads are being monitored. Karam by the way doesn’t need you tired old advice, he won’t quit and he’ll just get further ahead unlike you. Anyway your comments are noted as being of the same type that saw Trade Me sued. Good work, I hope you don’t get sued, well…maybe not.

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

    Belinda (63) Says:
    December 31st, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    Speaking of money, does anyone remember the tacky appeal by Joe Karam within a couple of hours of the retrial verdict, handing out business cards with a website address where the public could donate cash to set David up…….singing never let a chance go by here.
    wonder what he would have done with the cards if verdict had been different.
    ———————

    No where near as tacky and out of tune as the performance by K. Parker in front of the Court House with his supporters. All three of them. Talk about embarrassing. Now, that was a demonstration of desperation at its best and a true sign of just how many people do support the group. Same old 20 of them, and even 16 of those couldn’t be bothered turning up! Still, its good to see the same 7 diehards posting here under their various guises.

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

    Michael Guest might be a disbarred lawyer but he is popular in Dunedin and has served three terms on the Dunedin City Council.
    The admission that Bain told Guest[and now we find his co-counsel was there at the time as well] that he was wearing those glasses was first made public in the PCA Report.
    Karam told Sir Justice Thorp that Bain denied having told Guest about the glasses and that Guest was merely trying to stave off criticism of his competence as Bain’s lawyer.
    Thorp pointed out to Karam that Guest had told the Crown prosecutor at the trial that Bain would be admiiting to having worn those glasses the previous night and that the prosecutor had been surprised when he heard a different story when he was in dock.
    Binnie knew that Bain had told Guest he had been wearing those glasses.
    Binnie knew that Bain had told his aunt that he had been wearing those glasses.
    And yet Binnie still wasn’t able to figure out how those glasses came to be in David Bain’s room.
    No wonder his report got thrown in the rubbish binnie.

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

    I see the same old diehard David Bain supporter is still trying to defend the indefensible. She’s been doing it ever since the retrial and still the penny hasn’t dropped.
    But I have to give her some credit. At least she now accepts that David Bain was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend, but she reckons it was a different pair to the pair that was found in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nookin (4,568 comments) says:

    In 2000, Sir Thomas Thorp provided an opinion for the Sec of Justice following a petition for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative Of Mercy.

    A number of issues arose. One of them related to the broken glasses. Bain complained that Guest had not called witnesses who could have testified that David Bain had not been wearing the glasses on the preceding two days and that the jury had been left uncertain whether the glasses were Bain’s or his mother’s even though the prosecution and the defence knew they were in fact his mother’s.

    The report refers to Bain’s evidence that the spectacles were not hers but belonged to his mother but that he had not worn the glasses, identified as belonging to his mother, “that weekend or at least a year previous”.

    The report also noted that the prosecutor had been told that Bain would acknowledge, in evidence, that he had been wearing the glasses the previous day and so his evidence that he had not been wearing the glasses took the prosecution completely by surprise.

    Because Bain asserted the incompetence of Guest as part of his petition for a pardon, he was obliged to waive legal professional legal privilege. [Whenever there is a an appeal based on alleged incompetence of Council, the court insists that the appellant allows the solicitor to respond to the allegations of incompetence and this necessarily involves a waiver of legal professional privilege].

    Guest then explained that he had not called any witnesses to testify that Bain had not been wearing the glasses because Bain had admitted to Guest that he had in fact been wearing the glasses. A lawyer cannot call evidence that he knows to be untrue. Given that Bain had admitted wearing the glasses Guest could not call evidence that he had not been wearing them.

    This is the context in which there waiver of privilege arose. If Karam is arguing that the waiver was limited by context only, then he has a problem. The waiver is part of public record and Guest’s explanation is part of public record. It is not open to Karam to suggest that the waiver was given for a limited context and that legal professional privilege now envelops the issue yet again. He cannot have his cake and eat it.

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

    What I would like David Bain to do is front up on TV and answer some questions from an audience made up of informed people. But he wouldn’t have the guts to do that.

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

    Dennis Horne (104) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:08 am

    ….Well, I read the Bains were not as discreet in their sex life as is usual these days, in our culture. What happens in homes where there is no privacy (most of the world)? What happened years ago? Children observed or certainly heard their parents making love. How much harm did it do them?

    ——————————————

    It was not just the children who witnessed the Bain’s sexual life. According to McNeish, Mr & Mrs B put on regular ‘sexshows’ for the villages in PNG. How much harm does that do a child once they reach adolescence is immeasurable, and entirely dependent on the manner in which it was handled by the parents. Obviously at least one of the Bain children thought sexual contact between parents and children was fine, as Arawa happily told a friend how her father had shown her how to insert her finger/s into her vagina whilst living in PNG. I believe it was probably not until the children returned to NZ and became part of a culture where such acts are forbidden morally and legally, that the girls would have developed problems regarding the incestuous behaviour of their father.

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

    muggins (720) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:09 am
    ———————–

    Why should he? He was found not guilty. Why should a person who didn’t commit a crime, was wrongfully imprisoned front up and answer questions from just anybody? What business is it of ‘just anybody’? He has answered the questions put to him by the person charged with investigating his application, and he will no doubt answer any other questions put to him by whoever is appointed to finish the job. Why should he have to answer questions from people, like nosey old men who think they are some kind of authority on the subject, when in fact they have no qualifications, no training, no experience, and probably spent their live as an office boy or car salesman. David Bain is no more answerable to you, than you are to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    “Still, its good to see the same 7 diehards posting here under their various guises.”

    @Judith

    I only got involved in the last few weeks. Up until the second trial I thought David was likely innocent. During the trial and after the suppressed evidence became public I changed my mind. When I read Fisher’s review and Binnie’s questioning of David I know there is now way David is innocent on BoP.

    I believe Dennis Horne is also new. I would bet there would be a few more.

    The nastiness of some of David’s supporters convinces me I am now on the right side.

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

    Bain was found not guilty because he wouldn’t allow himself to be cross-examined at the retrial. So now he should open his mouth and answer the questions that he wasn’t prepared to answer at the retrial,if he wants to receive compensation. If He withdraws his claim for compensation then there is no need for him to answer any questions.

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

    And no need to get personal, Judith. Nosey old women like you have probably spent their life as a supermarket check-out operator or something similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. No comparison. Bain’s cost millions. Karam’s been collecting.

    Remember John Snow, who traced a cholera outbreak in London to a well? He had to take the handle off to stop people drinking the infected water, nobody believed his evidence: the distribution of cases. Afterwards, the authorities put a handle back on because nobody believed it was bugs in the water, it was “bad air”?

    People are ignorant and stupid. That’s why the “Nice David couldn’t have done it Robin was into his daughters” propaganda has been successful. Truth does not depend on who or how many believe something.

    The petition. I personally know only one person who thinks Bain should be compensated. He just thinks truth doesn’t matter, time it all ended. Despite his intelligence and skills, he tends to wave his hands at problems; he’s made a few very poor decisions. The rest think without doubt he is not innocent, but not all have signed it. Frightened of being chased by a wild Karam?

    Most people have never thought about it much. They leave it to others. Bunnies like Binnie, Dunces like Dunne, Fools like Gould who comment without reading the Report, Thick Hides like Rodney, Bragards like Jones – the good friend of Karam.

    Truth is not found in the rigmarole of the courts or the gobbledygook of its geese. Truth does not depend on who and how many believe it. Truth speaks for itself. Truth wins in the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    Another excellent post Dennis. Could you drop me an email please I want to let you know something privately you may not be aware of. Use a Hotmail or similar address if you like. chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    Let’s have another look at that ‘suicide’ message left on the computer. It said ‘sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay’. A very short note it has to be said, certainly in comparison to the ransom note penned by Patsy Ramsey, which received considerable analysis at the time. So, although such a brief message as that left on the Bain computer might appear to suggest few clues, a more detailed analysis might well reveal a little more than we first thought.

    Now, there has been a general consensus that whoever wrote that note is very likely the killer. Either a murder or a murder-suicide scenario. Let’s begin with the assumption that the message was left by Robin. What was Robin’s purpose in writing the note?

    Clearly, it must be confessional in nature. By leaving the message he is admitting to the killings. Also, it seems that he intended to leave a message for David. He wanted to convey to David that he was ‘sorry’, and let David know that he (David) was the only one who ‘ deserved to stay’. Some have pointed to the use of the past tense ‘deserved’ in the note. Certainly, if we were to put ourselves in the shoes (or socks) of Robin and imagine we were writing such a message, it could well be argued that ‘deserves’ would be a more natural wording. But this is by no means conclusive.

    Another question to ponder is the delivery of the note. Why did Robin write it on a computer screen? Perhaps leaving a ’suicide’ note was a spur of the moment decision. Certainly if Robin had thought about it beforehand, we would have expected him to leave a message on paper, and in his own hand. For he had no reason to hide from the crime he was committing. He would have known it would be obvious that he was the perpetrator, had he committed the murders. Also, by leaving the message on a computer, he had no way of knowing that David would even see it. Whereas a note written on paper could be given to David to read at a later time.

    By leaving this message for David, we can suppose that Robin thought it was of importance that David hear these things. Yet, in the message Robin does not refer to David by name. Why is that? Given the note appears to be a message for David, Robin must have had David’s image in his mind’s eye for at least the few moments it took to write. We could have expected the note to begin ‘Sorry David’. But it doesn’t, instead ‘David’ becomes ‘you’ in the note. The ‘you’ could refer to anyone who happened to read the message.

    Next, we consider the scenario in which David writes the message on the computer. Why would he do this? The obvious purpose is to set Robin up as the killer, and leaving the message on a computer screen would disguise the fact that it was he, and not Robin who wrote it. At least that is what David may have thought, while the absurdity of someone leaving a suicide note on a computer screen might not have occurred to him at the time. This also implies that the decision to leave the message could have been a spur of the moment thing. Perhaps David was concerned the police might not be clever enough to infer Robin was the killer from the story he (David) was intending to give them, so Robin leaving a message to that effect would have spelled it out for the less intelligent members of the constabulary.

    If we suppose that David wrote this message to himself from Robin on behalf of Robin, why did David refer to himself as ‘you’ in the message? Perhaps by using ‘you’ David was attempting to distance himself from the absurdity of writing a message to himself. If he wrote ‘David’ it would evoke in his mind the image of him (David) as the killer. Not only has he murdered his father, he is now setting his father up as the killer of the rest of his family. Perhaps this was too much for even David to bear.

    In conclusion it seems more likely that David wrote the message, and so, putting on my Binnie hat, I recommend that it be accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the note left on the computer was written by David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith, stop thinking about fingers and vulvas, you’re losing concentration. Think about the strangling and shooting of a family in the head. Please. We’re not looking to make moral judgements. Most women have had fingers in their vaginas. It can be clinical.

    In any case, you talk rubbish. For what fraction of the years that Homo sapiens has been copulating do you imagine this has been hidden from children? It might be weird now, but it wasn’t always and it isn’t everywhere.

    How many people who have seen or heard their parents at it have killed them? Eh? Speak up, woman!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Guest lied to a client and took $25K. Oh? A comparatively honest lawyer, then. Didn’t lie to the whole fcuking country.

    Heard about the “top” lawyer whose friend was writing about the millions he was getting from legal aid to buy expensive cars and watches? “Topped” himself. With a shotgun in his gob.

    By the way, if the broken spectacles are not relevant then the Sun won’t rise tomorrow. Just a pot shot, you are a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    When Collins considered she had out thought Binnie she mustn’t have been acquainted with either the report or the 2003 COA findings. The glasses were not considered material evidence because they are not connected to the crime. Binnie wrote that he found that David had worn the glasses that weekend. Collins in her myopic approach has overlooked that, the evidence, the suggestion they were planted and feels there is something important in the glasses evidence when there plainly is not. Even if it is accepted that David wore the glasses that weekend (as Binnie has) then it remains they’re not linked to the murders in anyway. Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Here’s the evidence to prove there was ‘no’ dna deep in the barrel. This goes along with the evidence that shows there was ‘no’ strip search that has only been posted about 20 times. The cult have no evidence just denials and lies, how sad.

    Witness Peter Ross

    Q. You were also asked questions about whether blood would be found on the gun in the case of a hard contact wound and the vacuum effect, do you remember that series of questions?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Have you seen Mr Hentschel’s case notes in this matter?
    A. I have some of his case notes from the page numbering, it’s quite obvious I do not have all of the case notes.
    Q. Do you have page 22?
    A. They’re in the original order they were provided to me, but that order doesn’t follow page numbers, so if you bear with me.
    Q. Perhaps to save time, I’ll put this to you and ask you to comment on it.
    A. I don’t believe, no I don’t have it.
    Q. You don’t have it with you today?
    A. It wasn’t provided to me, so it’s something which I haven’t seen.
    Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
    A. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.
    QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT (ie Panckhurst):
    Q. One of those Mr Ross, I take it that if there’s blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle that it was vacuumed in?
    A. It is far more likely sir because of the movement of the gases, the bullet is designed that it fits very, very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed, so it really comes down to the final shot.

    The old ‘final’ shot with which daddy expired himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Blah Blah Blah. You see the world in “evidence”. You are a twat. Reality is not the Law. The law is an ass.

    Every rational person in this country would say that if David Bain was wearing the glasses and they got broken then the glasses are crucial to the case. David Bain was wearng those glasses.

    You can hide behind the Courts and the Judges and the Decisions and the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi but there are REAL PEOPLE looking at this case now. We don’t do BULLSHIT.

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

    Dean Papa @10.59am Excellent post, it really is so simple, I don’t understand how anyone with an iq higher than a cabbage doesn’t get it.
    At one point even david supporters began to realise how ridiculous the note was and for a while changed tack and decided Robin wrote it to frame david rather than exonerate him.
    Maybe the Herald would print it as an Opinion piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. So you take a piece of evidence, which is basically what one man said, his opinion, you quote “traces” inside the barrel (which does not mean the rifling, it could mean the suppressor), you shut your eyes to the glaringly obvious overall assessment and decide Robin killed himself. Oh, yeah. But wait a minute, he says at least one suffered close contact. Whose DNA was up the barrel?

    Sometimes “evidence” is spurious. Sure it has to be explained. One obvious explanation is:

    David put the rifle against his father’s head and shot him BECAUSE his glasses were broken and he couldn’t see very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Chuck Bird (6,568 comments) says:

    i find it hard to understand Winston’s position on this which I understand is to pay David compo. Winston got rid of Horan at least partly because of the age of many of his supporters. They would obviously take a dim view of offspring trying to get their inheritance early.

    It certainly appears likely that this is what David attempted to do and Winston wants him rewarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (108) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:28 am
    @Neuralgia. Blah Blah Blah. You see the world in “evidence”. You are a twat. Reality is not the Law. The law is an ass.

    Every rational person in this country would say that if David Bain was wearing the glasses and they got broken then the glasses are crucial to the case. David Bain was wearng those glasses.

    You can hide behind the Courts and the Judges and the Decisions and the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi but there are REAL PEOPLE looking at this case now. We don’t do BULLSHIT.

    Bullshit is all you do Dennis, from attacking Greg King on the one hand and a long line of other successful people on the other. At first it appeared you were only a root canal filling away from madness, but now you’ve shown your long since gone. I can see the appeal of the ‘daddy defenders’ for you – all harebrained bluster and bs. What Mrs Laney said, what the final words of Robin were, ‘what I would have done’ and so it goes on insubstantial blubber.

    That

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Ah, so it WAS Greg King. Thanks, I didn’t know. Temper, temper. I knew I’d get you. I got Klutz too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne.

    There are a couple of people here (Dave’s Ravers of course) who think that circumstantial evidence is not evidence. When they use the word “evidence” they are talking about physical or forensic evidence. When they say “there is no evidence”, they mean “there is no forensic evidence”. Too much CSI. Every piece of evidence has to be on a plate. They have forgotten how to link dots – to use brains – to apply logic.

    If there were proven to be two people on a desert island and a murder weapon and one has been murdered from wounds from the weapon, these people would say there was no evidence of who the murderer might have been unless it is forensic evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith and Nostalgia-NZ I have used guns all my life and I am a engineer and you think you I wouldn’t know that the blood wasn’t from the last victim. If indeed it was in the rifled part of the barrel it should of been tested because there is no reason why it couldn’t of been Laniets. That would of been the so called”smoking gun” and I suspect you both know it hence the lies that it is Robins Dna.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Ah, problem. Laniet wasn’t the last shot. Using guns all your life doesn’t suppose that you’re a forensic expert it supposes that you are capable of safely using and maintaining them. You say it is lies but it was evidence accepted by the Judge in answer to his own question, so like the strip search, you are defeated on two key issues and really have little left. You first say there is no such evidence then when it is revealed to you (not for the first time) you say it is lies – take that up with the Ministry if you think you can prove it, otherwise accept the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Dotty! Welcome back, I missed you. Or as David said to Stephen, “I missed”.

    Two men on an island, you say. Must have been the goat. I’ve taken all the “laundered” “evidence” I am allowed to see into consideration and that is the only explanation available to me. It is ridiculous but it is the law. And the law is a law unto itself. The law will not tolerate interference from outsiders. The sort of people who make the world go round.

    There seem to be lawyers lawyering here. Who’s paying them? Is it on a contingency basis? Never mind, we’ll take a hat round for them. Maybe Binnie could share some of his $400k he got for doing a slapdash job.

    Neuralgia thinks I’m mad. Man is a mad animal. The civilised amongst us don’t rob and kill people, but that’s in our genes. We are descended from bacteria, fishes and “crocodiles”.

    Not long ago the Maoris killed and ate each other. We may well go back to that state. Civilisation is not a natural state and democracy is a very thin veneer.

    I may be mad, Neuralgia, but I’m not stupid. A person without insight into the human state of madness is blind to reality.

    Off now, walk the wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Dennis, that one must have hurt. Got you by the root canal. Has all sorts of innuendo that hurts to even think about.

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

    Dean Papa
    Robin Bain used to write a hand-written letter to his mother every week and he also wrote hand-written letters regularly to his sister and brothers. So one would expect that if he had left a suicide note he would have hand-written it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    Thanks, Nookin, that looks like a very credible explanation for the waiver. Certainly the glasses evidence is the single most compelling piece in David’s disfavour. It is interesting how, the more that the Bain defence push the compensation issue, the more skeletons come out of the closet to discredit them. They should have just beat a hasty retreat after the not guilty verdict. At this rate, they risk destroying all that they have “achieved”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. Blah Blah Blah. We don’t care what the legal system decides or “thinks”. The legal system crucified Peter Ellis and shafted Scott Watson. FUCK the legal system in this country. More sense in a basket of snakes. Ask Mr and Mrs Marceau about the legal system, eh?

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

    Get your teeth into this!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/118519382/Truth-OIA-response-from-Justice-Minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    Dean Papa and Belinda – regarding the computer message
    I am not familiar with evidence but people commenting here have indicated that somewhere it is said the computer keyboard had been wiped down
    If that is so, Robin would not have wiped the keys to hide confirmation of him being author.
    But David would.
    Robin, with a trait of writing as mentioned by Muggins, if he premeditating his own suicide, would more likely have written the note in the privacy of his caravan before starting any killing.
    __________

    Who was most disturbed by the dysfunctional aspects of the family?
    What is the evidence supporting Laniet going home to break the news of incest, already supposedly known to those who counted, as against evidence that it was David’s insistence which accounted for everyone being home that weekend?

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

    The judge accepted the answer that Peter Ross gave him but that doesn’t mean that Ross was right. He did,after all,get the order of shots to Laniet’s head the wrong way round.
    We will never know for sure whose blood was in the barrel,but the last shot to Laniet’s head was a hard contact shot so some of her blood would have gone into the barrel.
    But it doesn’t really matter whose blood was in the barrel. The wound to Robin Bain’s head was a close contact wound which just means that David virtually touched his father’s head with the silencer when he shot him.

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

    gamefisher (116) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    ———————–

    Unless the last person shot was Laniet, the blood in the barrel cannot be hers. Any subsequent shots after the shooting of Laniet would have cleared the barrel. You are not the only person that has used guns during their adult life. Using a gun, and being an engineer does not make you a forensic expert.

    The blood in the barrel was from the last person shot at close contact. Years of forensic investigation into shootings/suicides supports that. Commonsense supports it. JFRB don’t. Kind of figures doesn’t it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Dotty, old Bean, nobody an insult me. It’s just not possible. Oh wait, don’t call me a lawyer. Not the lawyers who get guilty men off with trickery. Some are good people. Pity 90% lawyers give the rest a bad name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Kea (15,179 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, Lawyers also work for the prosecution and use “trickery” to secure convictions. They have the unlimited resources of the state behind them, unlike the defense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    It seems to me the evidence about the blood in the rifle is problematical.

    What is not subject to opinion is the magazine/10 shot clip found under the table millimetres away from Robin’s hand. It was placed. There can be no dispute. It was almost certainly not placed by Robin because he would not have known where his hand would fall.

    QED. No compensation for David Bain.

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

    Dennis Horne (112) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:00 am
    @Judith, stop thinking about fingers and vulvas, you’re losing concentration. Think about the strangling and shooting of a family in the head. Please. We’re not looking to make moral judgements. Most women have had fingers in their vaginas. It can be clinical.

    In any case, you talk rubbish. For what fraction of the years that Homo sapiens has been copulating do you imagine this has been hidden from children? It might be weird now, but it wasn’t always and it isn’t everywhere.

    How many people who have seen or heard their parents at it have killed them? Eh? Speak up, woman!
    ————————————-

    I think your final comment is evidence enough that you do not know, let alone have the ability to understand the issue of childhood sexual abuse by a parent.

    Thousands of NZ woman and men as children have been submitted to sexual abuse, most of which have suffered extreme emotional torment once they have reached adulthood. Many suffer for years, if not all their lives, and many have on-going emotional issues, insecurity, PTSD and other problems, due to the betrayal by one or both parents. To have a parent betray a child by using them for their own sexual gratification is disgusting. To excuse such behaviour by claiming it to be ‘normal’ (all women have had……) clearly places you in a group of people that not only shouldn’t be allowed internet access, but in my opinion, don’t deserve the right to speak freely.

    Like it or not there is some very strong evidence that Robin sexually abused his daughters. One who clearly suffered from that experience and exhibited almost every known symptom of that abuse. I realise that gives Robin motive for the killings and his eventual suicide, that is far stronger than anything you have against David. No wonder you choose to dispute it by such a strong and inappropriate attack on me, however for the sake of those children who are currently the victims of paedophiles and sexually abused on a daily basis, I think you a creep, get help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (435) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    Thanks, Nookin, that looks like a very credible explanation for the waiver. Certainly the glasses evidence is the single most compelling piece in David’s disfavour. It is interesting how, the more that the Bain defence push the compensation issue, the more skeletons come out of the closet to discredit them. They should have just beat a hasty retreat after the not guilty verdict. At this rate, they risk destroying all that they have “achieved”.

    How amusing Kent. The ‘compelling’ evidence was before the first Jury or have you forgotten that as well. The ‘compelling’ evidence is 19 years old and found it’s way to the Jury via a MOJ, something else you’ve forgotten. The Jury were told they were David’s glasses and that the lens was found in Stephen’s room. Of course they weren’t David’s glasses and you know the result of the case concerning their ‘discovery’ as did Binnie. Keep up old son. I hardly think Joe Karam will be taking any advice from you at this point as he successfully progresses this case.

    Just interested to know if you updated your site to include the proven fact David was strip searched. You may wish to include the trial evidence from above about Robin’s dna being found in the rifle barrel – it’s important to avail people to all the facts, just as the Herald did today in revealing Mr Guest’s conflicted position of both believing and not believing in David’s innocence poor chap. Anyway looking forward to an interesting year as I’m sure you are and repeat my genuine belief that you should move hell and high water to settle. Cheers

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

    Chuck Bird (2,869) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:23 am

    —————————

    LOL

    That you would base the decision of whether someone is guilty of murder on the behaviour of their supporters, most of whom would be unknown to David Bain, says a lot more about your ability to make a rational decision on his guilt, than it does about mine.

    Please check Mr Horne’s comments regarding sexual abuse, and tell me which parts are ‘nice’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Kea. Nonsense. Compared with the defence they are driven snow. Disclosure and all that. In most cases the prosecution build a case as honestly and best they can and the public watch some smart arse bamboozle the jury. Pick away at one piece of the jigsaw and show that it might be wrong so it doesn’t fit. One judge, an uncle of mine, told me nearly 60 years ago if you’re guilty ask for a jury trial. Abolish amateur dopey juries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ according to who you Laniet had a hard contact shot to the head she can’t be excluded from being the last one shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. What has “nice” got to do with it? I explained reality to you. You know, how real people see the world. My daughter did a BSc here, a BSc(Hons) Applied Science in a top UK university (got a First) and a MB BS in a top U London school. Must have got something right. No, I didn’t teach her anatomy by touching her. You silly woman.

    More and more we see how this is seen as a moral issue. Clever. Spread the word about Robin. Yep, he must have killed them. Vile man. Wait a minute. He left David. David is such a nice boy. He wouldn’t tell.

    If you believe that you’re either a genuine moron or entitled to the honorary title.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. This is not about sexual abuse. I repeat, this is not about sexual abuse. If you see this as an issue of sexual abuse you are not thinking straight.

    If Robin felt so ashamed that he was going to kill himself, why did he kill the others? More importantly why did he kill the others and leave DAVID?

    Had he shot himself that would have been the end of it. Leaving David was not the end of it. As we can see, you incredibly stupid woman.

    Motives and imagined motives DO NOT solve crimes well, especially when there is a clear and obvious picture to look at here.

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

    Have you read all the emails/police comment/Binnie stuff released to Cam Slater under the OIA?
    Fascinating stuff!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/118519382/Truth-OIA-response-from-Justice-Minister

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

    Look at the headlinbe in The Herald:
    “You can’t prove innocence, but payout still possible, says lawyer”

    and then read the actual email written by Guest.

    How can the Herald lie so blatantly?
    Why are they so biased?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    People should know that the Official Information Request behind the Truth article is available online

    Michael Guest is quite forthright in his position and the police found hundreds of errors in the Binny report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne

    This from somebody who accepted without questions unsubstantiated allegations against Greg King.

    The sexual abuse wasn’t need to prove David’s innocence, the forensic proof against Robin did that. I have no doubts the abuse happened, something which David remarkably denies if he were out to save himself and ‘incriminate’ his father as your fellows so often claimed in the past. So you ask the naive questions as to why Robin committed the crimes as though a living person can provide the answer, read the PC judgement on that one where they decided that Robin’s motive was a legitimate defence. You really are lacking an understanding of this case and it shows.

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

    Where is the proven fact that David Bain was strip-searched?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (436) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    People should know that the Official Information Request behind the Truth article is available online

    Michael Guest is quite forthright in his position and the police found hundreds of errors in the Binny report.”

    You must be so excited that the police resisted their role in a MOJ Kent. Do you think it will benefit you? Or more to the point to you think it is just and fair that they were allowed to offer their views without consultation with David and his lawyers. In fact, are your a supporter of ‘secret trials?’

    Was Michael Guest forthright on both his ‘positions?’ or did he simply forget that pesky letter he wrote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Yvette. Can I clear up something from your 1.07 pm.

    a) There were allegations of incest. Separately, b) more than just allegations, Laniet was know to have worked at least as a lap-dancer (not necessarily a prostitute, and AS I UNDERSTAND it (not even knowing what a lap-dancer is from personal experience) prostitute and lap-dancer are not the same thing, though people are loose with linking the two).

    The reports of the time are that to Robin and Margaret, (b) was old news, and Laniet knew that Robin and Margaret already knew. So no need to be discussing it that Sunday night or any other time.

    Now as regards (a). Some have suggested – but it is totally unproven – that Laniet wanted to confront Robin on (a). But given that there has never in 18 years been any proof of any (a) whatsoever, it is highly likely that the prospect of Laniet wanting to raise (a) is purely an invention of David’s Ravers. If there was no incest, then there was no need to be discussing incest, was there? Until David’s Ravers prove one skerrick of incest, there was no incest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ give me one substancial reason why the blood in that barrel can’t be that of Laniets and Laniet can’t be the last one shot, perhaps she was gurgling and had to be finshed with a definitive shot sorry all others for the callousness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    So in summary, Yvette, the whole Laniet confrontation thing was a Dave Rave. D’accord?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Kent, you need to know that DPF has a separate thread going on the Truth story
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/guest_on_bain.html#comment-1070157

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, Karam wrote in one of his many representations that David Bain had no use for the glasses. He should have known that David admitted to wearing them that weekend. Seems pretty black and white to me, but I am sure you’ll find a way to muddy it, but then both you and your idol have got yourselves up a toxic cul de sac from which you are not able to escape, and so you will try anything.

    As for the police errors, to date, the police have not been found to have done anything wrong in relation to the Bain investigation. All we have are various opinions from various judges and amateur legal advocates. There is insufficient factual support for the concept that “the investigation was a shambles” and the police, with good reason, continue to uphold their position, not because they are corrupt and self-interested, but because they actually did a good job and got the right verdict in 1995. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    Thanks, Dotcom. I’ll transfer there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Because Robin killed his family and then killed himself gamefisher. The narrative for that is in the Binnie report and it relates to timing, footprints, blood smears on robin’s palms, no shielding in the spatter, the spatter on his trousers, the postion of his body, his blood in the laundry, nobody has argued, or could reasonably argue on the evidence that Laniet was shot last. The Crown did not claim that Laniet was shot last.

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

    I wish to make a correction. In my post at 8.51am this morning I said that Joe said that what Guest said about those glasses was irrelevant. In fact it was Binnie the ninny who said that.
    I would like to apologise to all the Joe’s out there that might have read that post.
    I blame that error on Kanz distracting me with all those posts about vagina’s and clitorises.
    Still, no excuse ,really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Judith (196) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    Dennis Horne (112) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:00 am
    @Judith, stop thinking about fingers and vulvas, you’re losing concentration. Think about the strangling and shooting of a family in the head. Please. We’re not looking to make moral judgements. Most women have had fingers in their vaginas. It can be clinical.

    In any case, you talk rubbish. For what fraction of the years that Homo sapiens has been copulating do you imagine this has been hidden from children? It might be weird now, but it wasn’t always and it isn’t everywhere.

    How many people who have seen or heard their parents at it have killed them? Eh? Speak up, woman!
    ————————————-

    I think your final comment is evidence enough that you do not know, let alone have the ability to understand the issue of childhood sexual abuse by a parent.

    Thousands of NZ woman and men as children have been submitted to sexual abuse, most of which have suffered extreme emotional torment once they have reached adulthood. Many suffer for years, if not all their lives, and many have on-going emotional issues, insecurity, PTSD and other problems, due to the betrayal by one or both parents. To have a parent betray a child by using them for their own sexual gratification is disgusting. To excuse such behaviour by claiming it to be ‘normal’ (all women have had……) clearly places you in a group of people that not only shouldn’t be allowed internet access, but in my opinion, don’t deserve the right to speak freely.

    Like it or not there is some very strong evidence that Robin sexually abused his daughters. One who clearly suffered from that experience and exhibited almost every known symptom of that abuse. I realise that gives Robin motive for the killings and his eventual suicide, that is far stronger than anything you have against David. No wonder you choose to dispute it by such a strong and inappropriate attack on me, however for the sake of those children who are currently the victims of
    paedophiles and sexually abused on a daily basis, I think you a creep, get help.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Copied the above post here for the record, in case the moderator thinks I’m a delicate flower and removes it to save me going into a fit of remorse and blowing by brains out. POP. SPLAT.

    WELL, WELL, WELL, NOW we see why some hold the view “Robin did it” so vehemently. They’re projecting their own abhorrence of a parent sexually abusing a child – a view rightly held, but irrelevant — and possibly own childhood experiences into the picture.

    Lots of people are disturbed. Latching onto childhood abuse is a convenient crutch and, oh, so fashionable. “I am a total failure and rape people, but you KNOW what, I was ABUSED.”

    In any case, as I said, we don’t know what Robin said or did, or the context, and as Judith know perfectly well, men stick their fingers in women all the time. IT CAN BE CLINICAL. As I said but she didn’t read it properly. Got her knickers in a twist instead. Not much good on a jury. You know: You say “Sex?” I say “Guilty!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (438) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    ‘Nostalgia, Karam wrote in one of his many representations that David Bain had no use for the glasses. He should have known that David admitted to wearing them that weekend. Seems pretty black and white to me, but I am sure you’ll find a way to muddy it, but then both you and your idol have got yourselves up a toxic cul de sac from which you are not able to escape, and so you will try anything.

    As for the police errors, to date, the police have not been found to have done anything wrong in relation to the Bain investigation. All we have are various opinions from various judges and amateur legal advocates. There is insufficient factual support for the concept that “the investigation was a shambles” and the police, with good reason, continue to uphold their position, not because they are corrupt and self-interested, but because they actually did a good job and got the right verdict in 1995. Simple.’

    Simple, yes Kent. Doyle said the investigation was a shambles, the PC said it and that the prosecution was MOJ. How you must wish things were different and that you hadn’t mucked up so badly. I admire your ability to dress up defeats as victories and how you can your chickens before the rooster has even entered the chicken house.

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

    Laniet did not have to be shot last for her blood to still be in the barrel. Just because Ross told the judge that blood was most likely to have come from the last person to be shot doesn’t mean it did. Because it wasn’t DNA tested we will never know for sure whose blood it was.
    Just like those odd shoes in David’s room. Because the blood on them was never DNA tested we will never know whose blood it was that was on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Just because police said there as a strip search it doesn’t mean there was. Just because a scientist says that the dna was from the last shot and no one contests it that it doesn’t mean it was. Cuckoo.

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

    Dennis Horne (118) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    ———————

    Arawa was just a child when she showed another person how her father had taught her how fingers could be inserted into the vagina. I fail to see how that has anything to do with a women’s experience – unless you think little girls are ‘women’.

    The issue of incest is relevant because Laniet told others she was going home that weekend to ‘tell all’ about her fathers incestuous relationship with her. That provides a very good motive.

    Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, something tipped the scales in that house that night, and incest is high on the list of possible subjects. It also demonstrates a less than ideal family environment, and cannot be excused as a non-contributing factor as much as JFRB people hate discussing it.

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

    gamefisher (118) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    —————————

    If you read the evidence regarding Laniet’s injuries and the positioning of blood & brain splatter on the furniture at the foot of her bed, etc, you will know that she was not the last shot and that she died with the first shot, but due to the positioning of that her body was likely to have made noises for sometime after death.

    Also, please see Letter from Dr Dempster to the Crown regarding this matter, and his withdrawal of his previous evidence that the body could not have been gurgling. Subsequent investigation and experience by Dr Dempster changed his mind and he sent a very strongly worded letter where he makes it clear he no longer supported his initial testimony. He also admonishes the Crown for using it so strongly in the first trial. He makes it clear that Laniet’s body could have been gurgling at the time David stated.

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

    Where can I find a copy of this letter, Judith?
    I’d like to read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. I am getting sick of repeating myself. No wonder some people settle disputes with violence and killing. It’s so tempting. I don’t care what some lawyer or judge or even expert said, at at least I don’t take it as being Reality. People make mistakes all the time. Ask Peter Ellis.

    You see the picture built up of approved or court-laundered evidence. I don’t. I’m looking to find an explanation for what is incontrovertible: A man, his wife, his son and two daughters dead with one son remaining and the explanation is:

    The father killed them and left a note on a computer to explain this (that’s the defence’s claim) but didn’t and not a written letter that would have verified the author,
    OR
    The son killed them and left a really silly, immature, self-absorbed “note” on the computer because he couldn’t forge his father’s handwriting.

    One is believable and one is not. Never mind. Bring in the INCEST. Take the moral high ground, garner the sympathy, muddy the waters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ 2:18 nothing there is convincing enough so why was there a close contact shot? why the need to shoot through some sort of material.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. We are at cross purposes, to some extent. I was simply making the point that it CAN be clinical. If Robin touched a daughter’s genitalia for any reason other than a legitimate examination under certain circumstances I would regard it as very odd.

    Odd. Odd like sticking yours up your best friend’s bum but that is now acceptable and will soon be the basis for marriage.

    Sex is a very strange business and society has not sorted out yet what attitude is “correct”.

    I make no judgement of Robin BECAUSE it is largely irrelevant. Had he killed himself or ALL I might have seen it as an explanation. But he didn’t and I don’t. The reason David is here is ???

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

    gamefisher (118) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Nostalgia-NZ according to who you Laniet had a hard contact shot to the head she can’t be excluded from being the last one shot.

    gamefisher, now what sort of fool are you? Now you have Bain shooting 4 of his family, doing his paper run, waiting for his father, shooting him, then going back and shooting his sister again? Was she still alive after that more than an hour? See what happens when you try to fit evidence to a preconceived notion? You become stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Yvette (3,026 comments) says:

    Judith – If it is “clear that Laniet’s body could have been gurgling at the time David stated” why did David tell the 111 operator that They are all dead? – why did David not call an ambulance for her immediately?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Kanz I am not the one that has been saying that that blood in the barrel is Robins Dna and Nostalgia has been saying this for a long time now, so I ask why the lie and what is he trying to hide. The Police had several different scenarios.

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

    gamefisher (121) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Kanz I am not the one that has been saying that that blood in the barrel is Robins Dna and Nostalgia has been saying this for a long time now, so I ask why the lie and what is he trying to hide. The Police had several different scenarios.

    It was you who suggests that Laniet could have been the last shot. Really? An hour after she was first shot?
    Yes, the police have come up with many scenarios, which only proves that they truly don’t have a clue.

    Parker, above, would have us believe that it was a copybook investigation because the police say so. They also claim that about the Ellis conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    Nostaglia, you have such a way with words. Have you signed the petition yet. That would seem the most logical thing to do given your reasoning in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    I also highly recommend to Judith that she sign the petition. It is an extremely rewarding and satisfying experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Kanz why has Nostalgia constanty maintaining that the blood was Robins Dna show us link that this was evidence at the trials. People can live up to two days with two of the type of wounds Laniet had some have even been able to walk & talk.

    And before any starts any BS Robins was different.

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

    In the vein of what dennis is saying,
    incest provides a motive.. but in as far as it is the right sort of familicide motive – that also applies to david as recognised by the court of appeal.

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

    gamefisher (124) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Kanz why has Nostalgia constanty maintaining that the blood was Robins Dna show us link that this was evidence at the trials. People can live up to two days with two of the type of wounds Laniet had some have even been able to walk & talk.

    And before any starts any BS Robins was different.

    So now you have Laniet living for several hours after being shot?
    The DNA was never tested because that was yet another thing that Hentschell cocked up, he saw it but didn’t bother getting samples. Some here would have us believe he was an expert. He was part of this copybook investigation, and they wonder why it was called amateurish?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Nostalgia-NZ (6,428 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (442) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    Nostaglia, you have such a way with words. Have you signed the petition yet. That would seem the most logical thing to do given your reasoning in this case.’

    That’s progress Kent, you’re learning to shorten your sermonizing from on high. A few years late but still a notable achievement. Any plans for a summer concert this year, or any recording contracts on offer? It would be very rewarding for a few people if you came into some money shortly, best wishes for you endeavors in that regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kent Parker (317 comments) says:

    Thanks, Nostalgia, your warm encouragement is appreciated. And, sorry, I can’t offer you tickets backstage, yet.

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

    More lies from Judith, Kanz and Nostalgia …

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

    Judith,
    Re Laniet’s gurgling.
    Professor Ferris,Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia who said he had carried out up to 10000 post mortem examinations of which 700 to 800 related to gunshot wounds,testified that he was quite confident that the cheek wound to Laniet’s head was the first wound. He said she would have been able to survive that wound for a considerable time. He said she would be able to make noises that could be interpreted as gurgling noises that would indicate she was still alive. He said a groaning type sound would indicate that she was still alive and the muffling sound like water might be gurgling as air is drawn through the bloodways.
    Ferris has no doubt that the cheek wound was the first wound and that that would have caused Laniet to make those gurgling noises as desribed by David. So David must have heard Laniet gurgling before those second and third shots were fired.

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

    Kanz
    Good to see you now admit the blood in the barrel was never tested for DNA. But the reason it wasn’t tested is because there wasn’t enough of it to test.
    But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. If it was Robin’s blood that just means that David shot him from close range,which he would have made sure to do if he wanted to make it look as if his father committed suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Scott at 3.48pm

    Incest, of which there is no indication anywhere of any in this case, is motive for suicide, but not for murder.

    Someone (and there is no-one in this case) who has deep regrets for what they have done, or has been caught out, offs themself, but not their incest victim, and not the incest victim’s big sister, nor the incest victim’s mother. You are grasping at straws.

    Nor is incest motive for framing the incest victim’s older brother for murder — you know, the only one who deserved to stay.

    You are grasping at straws, and it is sad to see your repeated stupidity posted time and time again. Especially on Kiwiblog which is usually a place for intelligent debate.

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

    Perhaps Robin learned that he was not the only member of the family his daughter was screwing so he framed the other part of their incestual love triangle as some kind of sick revenge.

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