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.

Tags: ,

764 Responses to “The Bain poll”

  1. Peter (1,687 comments) says:

    He’s probably talking as Charles Chauvel.

    That’s all anyone needs to know in order to form an accurate opinion of the man, really.

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

    Look at that, David Bain is more popular than the government

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    David,
    When you have read the Binnie Report, and Binnie’s response to the Porno Judge your comments (including the ToR comment), would have some force. :) :) :) Until then you are just playing a supportive role for the unsustainable views of crusher Collins and Mike Heron’s clowns (albeit inherited)

    As posted in the General Debate this morning.
    ++++++++++++

    1. flipper (1,264) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Opinion polls are wonderful, are they not?

    When one agrees, one can say: “See, I told you so”.
    When one disagrees, one can say: “They are just rubbish (or worse)”

    So in 2011 the Nats, that I proudly helped elect, got almost 49% of the vote (an unprecedented MMP high). But the naysayers screamed: “They have no mandate.”

    Now, Granny Herald produces a poll this morning which says 74% (Yes, seventy four %) of New Zealanders say: “Enough is enough. Pay David Bain compensation for 13 years’ incarceration.”

    But silly crusher Collins disagrees. So does the porno Judge, and so do the numbskulls at Crown Law. They all disagree with an eminent, independent Jurist…..and five Privy Council Judges.

    To recap: Bain was found guilty and served 13 years in prison before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council as being unsafe and “a substantial miscarriage of Justice”. The Crown Law Office ignored the Privy Council’s nudge and sent Bain to retrial – Not Guilty.

    Ergo, 13 years unjustified incarceration, says former and independent Canadian SC Justice (supported on points of NZ law by two (2) Auckland professors of law, Rishworth and Optican) Binnie. Pay the man, says Binnie.

    Lordy. Shock and horror in the crusher’s office, in Mike Heron’s Crown Law office and in the corral of the Molesworth Street cowboys.

    One thing is for sure about all this: when the MSM finally gets around to publishing Binnie’s report in full, and also publishes his full his response to the Porno Judge, the number in favour of compensation will rise to closer to 90%. There will, of course, always be idiots like the revisionists, the re-litigators, the red necks, and the cult-like JFRB groups.

    Time to pay, Messrs W.English and J.Key. Oh, by the way. Crusher for Education!
    :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Why don’t they run one once a month then see whether it’s limelight attention or general belief?

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

    Chauvel is being a plonker, and I say that as someone who resides on the Left :)

    I doubt Chauvel has read the Binnie and Fisher Reports. Otherwise he wouldn’t be playing politics and would be supporting Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    What is it about this that ” the Auckland tax lawyer”, Crusher, DDF and a few others do not understand: :) :) :)

    ” To recap: Bain was found guilty and served 13 years in prison before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council as being unsafe and “a substantial miscarriage of Justice”. The Crown Law Office ignored the Privy Council’s nudge and sent Bain to retrial – Not Guilty.

    Ergo, 13 years unjustified incarceration, says former and independent Canadian SC Justice (supported on points of NZ law by two (2) Auckland professors of law, Rishworth and Optican) Binnie. Pay the man, says Binnie. ”

    Oh by the way David, what about posting, in full, Binnie’s emailed response to crusher’s initial loutburst.
    Collins behaviour does no Minister any credit, let alone a purported “Minister of Justice” :)

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

    > They all disagree with an eminent, independent Jurist…..and five Privy Council Judges.

    Except 5 PC Judges didn’t say David was innocent. Binnie is the only one who has concluded David is innocent. It’s a pity the old fella can’t let his report speak for itself. He has to defend it at every turn. It’s good to see that even in Canada, as elsewhere, there are fine legal minds who are prone to error. ;)

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

    > Oh by the way David, what about posting, in full, Binnie’s emailed response to crusher’s initial loutburst.

    Really? Why would you want to see that? Unless of course you like seeing spelling errors, CAPITAL LETTERS, and a fine legal mind losing the plot…in his defence, I can only assume he’d been on the turps when he replied to Collins so it wasn’t really him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nigel Kearney (964 comments) says:

    Flipper, how about taking a break from the ad hominems for a minute (though you are an expert practitioner of them) and talking about the issue that Justice Binnie was asked for an opinion on?

    It is not whether the convictions were safe, or whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice, or whether Bain’s incarceration was justified. All of those may be true, despite the fact that he is probably the killer and so not eligible for compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Ross69….
    Go back to sleep.

    The PC did not say Bain was guilty,
    The PC was not asked to say “guilty” ot “not guilty”. That was neverr their role, and well you know it to be so.

    The PC said Bain had suffered “a substantial miscarriage of Justice”, and they specified five substantive, not technical, grounds . What is it about that you do not understand ?????

    Morerover, your childish comments (relating to Binnie’s quick response to media while Geneva) such as:

    “Really? Why would you want to see that? Unless of course you like seeing spelling errors, CAPITAL LETTERS, and a fine legal mind losing the plot…in his defence, I can only assume he’d been on the turps when he replied to Collins so it wasn’t really him.” do you no credit. They are not worthy of a response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Nigel K
    What ad homs?
    Surely you cannot be referring to crusher Collins’ hired gun?
    Go check on Fisher in Google, Nigel.
    But if you were connected with the legal profession you would well know that he is known as the Porno Judge.
    There is more that is known, but that is “family personal so that might be “ad hominem”. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    DPF opines:

    Most Kiwis support paying compensation to David Bain… The results are reasonably meaningless.

    What a majority of taxpayers want done with their money is “meaningless”…

    Justice Minister Judith Collins says many New Zealanders will be upset at any taxpayer payment for the man once convicted of murdering his family.

    …but the opinion of just one, single employee of said taxpayers evidently isn’t.

    Reflective of the attitude prevalent for at least the past few decades of NZ politics, really.

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

    Obviously the poll was after Binnies report and before Fishers comments about said report.
    .

    But the truth is, merely more muck raking from the NZH, on its way to being the gutter press tabloid of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    DPF – I’m not sure that you have yet explained why New Zealand evidence law is relevant to this assessment. In what other decisions is the New Zealand cabinet bound by the rules of evidence that only otherwise apply in the assessment of whether someone has been proved guilty of a criminal offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt?

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

    As regards the DPF post, David’s question is close, but not quite there. But David’s decision-maker is not.

    It is Cabinet and no-one else who has to decide whether David killed or not. If he killed on BOP, then he must not be compensated. Cabinet is not yet satisfied that David didn’t kill.

    Then, the law also requires (in this case, the law is Cabinet precedent in the way of previous written instructions to itself) that there have been “exceptional circumstances” whatever these might be. But again, only Cabinet can decide whether there are exceptional circumstances. Remember is is both “not killed” and “exceptional circumstances”; not “or”.

    Cabinet has not delegated any of its decision-making in this. However, Simon Power on behalf of Cabinet sought a *recommendation* from Ian Binnie. Binnie recommended. Cabinet has the *obligation* to reject the recommendation is it is a flawed recommendation. This is the point we are at for the next 28 or so days.
    ___________________________________

    While I’m here see the comments here: http://www.akl.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/8121256/Time-to-accept-Binnie-findings-on-Bain

    If anyone is thinking of commenting there, you will find that your comment immediately disappears, but it comes back later if successfully moderated. Not a bad system, Taranaki Daily News, except they don’t tell you WGO.

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

    The public opinion in the poll, is pointless. The question relies on Members of Parliament taking a lazy, political and unlawful path. This is not an option for the Justice Minister. If anyone is required to follow the processes of the law, it is her.

    If the Justice Minister does not follow the law, the matter will go back to the Courts for Judicial Review, nothing surer. It will go before Judges again, and Judges don’t like David Bain.

    Unlike the public, the Justice Minister is bound by the processes of law. Judith Collins does not have the option of simply abandoning questions of right or wrong, and simply doing what is easiest or political.

    The Justice Minister must follow the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lilman (948 comments) says:

    If Bain didnt do it then who did?

    Fuck him ,if I were accused of murdering my family there wouldnt be a lawyer in the universe stopping me from having my say at trial.

    Dead men cant defend them selves and those dead family members are the ones who have been denied ultimate justice so as I said if he didnt do it then who did ?

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

    Of course Cabinet can find that whatever it likes is “exceptional circumstance”. So the ultimate reality is only one question has to be decided by Cabinet:

    Did David kill on the Balance of Probability?
    ____________________________________

    I don’t just think he did. I absolutely know he did.

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

    Just to complete that legal picture.

    The onus of proof is David’s, to prove he is not a killer. The persuasive onus (as it is called) is David’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 comments) says:

    We may as well get the psychic TV star from Sensing Murder show, Debb Webber to tell us who the murderer is (or was )simply by talking to the spirits of the dead members of the Bain family. If not why not. Well, a large majority of the NZ population believe this psychic nonsense. The sensing murder show was a top rating show. Debb Webbers’ regular NZ tour is always fully booked everywhere she goes around the country. This only tells us one thing. There is fucking suckers and dumb people everywhere regardless whether they’re educated or not educated.

    Herald-DigiPoll is meaningless, because it is similar to a scenario if a Herald-DigiPoll is conducted to find out if people believe Debb Webbers’ psychic power is genuine or bullsh*t. Majority will think that she’s genuine. See, people don’t use reason. They follow emotion based on their narrow view of reality rather than based on evidence. The probabilistic weight of evidence is against David Bain, there’s no way around this. Binnie doesn’t understand theory of evidence. His report’s conclusion is unsafe and he didn’t use reason & evidence but he relied on some hearsays from David Bain.

    Ms Collins is correct to dismiss the poll. Remember there are suckers & dumb people everywhere.

    Dotcom brought up some good points on the other thread on David Bain. There’s evidence (observables) and there’s conjecture (non-observables). Observables (evidence) is very hard to be manipulated. Conjecture is when we use inference (either backward or forward chaining reasoning mechanism) to link the observables. Obviously there will be contradiction or rule-conflict, but our inference is refined to minimized the contradiction or conflict when such situation arises. Conjecture is where the disagreement frequently arises. One party says that it was A->B->C and the opponent says that it was B->A->C, etc… The observables or evidence A, B, C are there, but conjecture about their sequence is what’s debatable.

    Alot of David Bain supporters here often bring up conjectures that are littered with rule conflicts (ie, contradictions). Evidence against David Bain is so overwhelming, get this lying motherfucker a $20 compensation for a hamburger at McDonald and he should STFU.

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

    About Ian Binnie. In his entire career, he did not decide one case on the facts. Not once was he “a fact-finder” as he was in this case. He went direct from being a (public servant) lawyer to being an MP. As an MP he was elevated to Associate Justice Minister. From there, he was politically appointed to be an appellate court judge. Appellate court judges never decide facts; they decide questions of law. Before this case, Binnie never once in his life had to decide a case on the Balance of Probabilities — and it damned-well shows, Simon Power. Clearly, Ian Binnie was the wrong man for the job. But more important, *he showed us* that he was the wrong man for the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 comments) says:

    For the technical minded and keen learner on evidence theory, here is a good read.

    Comparison of Evidence Theory and Bayesian Theory for Uncertainty Modeling

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

    Falafulu Fisi. Could you please send a copy of that link to Ian Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Can any in David’s fan club explain how two people spoke of David’s fantasy before the murders. One who David spoke of a sexual assault was so concerned that he told his wife as she was in a play with David. Binnie did not ask David about Gareth Taylor. I wonder if David seen him committing indecencies with a goat like he claimed against another witness and Binnie the ninny believed him.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Let’s leave aside for a monment – if we can – the issue of Bain’s guilt or innocence and indeed Bain himself.

    New Zealand is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(6) of which provides:

    When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him

    However New Zealand is one of only nine signatories to have made reservations to article 14(6). We share that distinction with the United States, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, Malta, Guyana, Belize and Bangladesh.

    The latter five have expressly recognised the right to compensation but have stated that they are too impoverished to implement such a system.

    The three Western countries (NZ included) could easily afford to agree to automatically compensate the wrongfully convicted (and in NZ’s case, the number of instances are so low it’d hardly warrant a separate line item in Vote Justice) but they refuse to do so.

    Removing our reservation to Article 14(6) would take the Bain issue off the table, and go some way toward depoliticising it (though Collins has now made it so political you can’t do much to unmake that pudding). NZ would be obliged to pay by virtue of it’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    More importantly, the next person found to have been wrongfully imprisoned will not need to go through this (and I hope we can agree that someone who’s innocence is clearly established ought not to have to).

    If we accept that the price for a fairly efficient and accurate system of investigation, arrest and trial is that a small number of innocent people will be imprisoned when that system fails, we can surely accept that the price of granting well-deserved compensation to that small number of people is that an even smaller number may get what they don’t deserve?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Tony
    Maybe you should send your letter to Ian Binnie, it would make good toilet paper
    You “absolutely know he did”, as your many posts show you don’t know jack shit

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

    In a nutshell, what Binnie did wrong it this.

    There are about 45 separate topics, each of which has a role to play in determining on the BoP; who between David and Robin, is more likely to have killed.

    Ian Binnie took one of the pieces of evidence, one of the very least decisive and most highly contentious — the luminol sock prints, and he made a decision on the luminol which is totally unsustainable — that the luminol prints pointed to Robin as a murderer.

    The luminol prints did no such thing. Luminol proves nothing, nowhere anywhere in the world, and in luminol history, except that there is blood present, and that’s it. Anyone who has ever watched an episode of any of the CSIs or Forensic Files knows this. You cannot build a criminal case on luminol presence of blood any more than you can use a polygraph. It is less reliable than a toss of a coin is in identifying a killer. It showed that yes, there was a killer, but we already knew this much.

    Then one by one, Binnie looked at half of the other items, and in each case, he used “beyond reasonable doubt” as his guide — which he was not allowed to do in a BoP situation — and he said repeatedly, that each item did not prove that David was a killer. This is not what he was tasked with doing.

    Then the items which most incriminated David, (the 45 less the 20-ish) didn’t get a mention. An old legal-stager’s trick. Cover your preferred 20 items and make it look like you’ve covered everything there is to be covered. The Justice cheated.

    Take 45 pieces of evidence. And take two baskets. One simplified way of finding balance of probability is to check each item of evidence and decide which basket to put it in. Then at the end, you look to see which basket is the fullest. Anyone who does this will find that the David killer basket is nearly full, and the other is almost empty.

    Binnie didn’t do it this way.

    He had one basket. He looked at each piece of evidence and if it showed David was likely to be a killer, he threw it away. And if a piece of evidence indicated that David was unlikely to be a killer, he put it in the basket. At the end, he said, see. Here is a basket of 5 items showing that David didn’t kill. But what about the 40-odd items he discarded along the way. (And boy, wasn’t he looking for extremes of reasons to discard.)

    The process is a transparent sham. It insults each and every New Zealander in treating each and every one of us as an idiot.

    The other thing that Binnie did, was say that David deserved compensation because the Dunedin police were sloppy. There may be a point to this argument, but the compensation this way, is not what David claimed for. Compensation under this scheme is available from the courts, not from Cabinet. If he were successful in taking such a claim to the courts, he might get maybe $50,000. In any case, this is not what Simon Power asked Ian Binnie to investigate or report on. Binnie had no idea of what he’d been asked to report on. He was incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Cactus Kate (549 comments) says:

    Crusher was never a specialist tax lawyer
    And even if by some stretch of imagination she was, its a damn sight harder than the token law Chucky says he practised.
    He shouldn’t play “who has bigger balls” with Crusher
    Even on a cold day in Auckland and the warmest of record in Wellington, we all know the answer.

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

    Rex, the reason we reserved our position on ICCPR 14(6) was because we already had a perfectly good compensation scheme, and preferred to keep the scheme we had, rather than go with the UNHRC one. Ours is more generous than the ICCPR one. In any case, the question of amount still has to be administered. And the process would mirror what we are doing now, anyway. Signing up to 14(6) would not change a thing about what Collins has before her today, but could hurt claimants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mark (1,470 comments) says:

    DPF the flaw in your argument is that Collins is now incapable of commissioning an independent report that won’t have the perception the result was predetermined and she shopped around for it. It is not her questioning of aspects of the Binnie report where she has compromised herself it is her foolish behaviours of doing all this through the media. Bob Jones article summed it up quite nicely when he called Collins breathtakingly arrogant. A fair call given her handling of this. For a credible process to occur now Key should remove Collins from the process and give the Bain case to someone not tainted with the perception of wanting a predetermined outcome.

    Collins behaviour smacks of a party scared to make a compensation payment as they think it will hurt them politically rather than wanting to follow a proper process.

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

    and the bainophiles continue to fight back with abuse and personal shots, showing they have lost the plot and the war.
    :)

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#ixzz2GHwm1DHf

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

    The decision maker in David’s compensation is Cabinet. David has asked Cabinet for compensation. To get it, as the suitor in the legal pursuit, David has to prove his case is a valid one.

    So why doesn’t Cabinet ask him to appear before Cabinet to answer their questions, so Cabinet can make the best decision possible.

    F*ck, this would make GREAT TV (worm anyone? :-) ). But great TV or not, if Cabinet does the inquisition itself, the whole thing for the first time ever is above reproach.

    It may yet happen. If I were Collins, it is what I would be recommending.

    TVNZ could make a year’s profits in one week. Better advertising revenue than the Superbowl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Dotcom:

    Ours is more generous than the ICCPR one

    The IPCC doesn’t specify how generous the recompense is to be, so NZ is necessarily more generous than the signatories who have ratified 14(6). Though you’re right that it is generous – as a matter of policy compensation should be equivalent to that payable for the tort of false imprisonment.

    But the issue I’m raising isn’t about the adequacy of the payment to those who can leap through the hoops to get it, it’s about the existence of the hoops.

    Removing our reservation to 14(6) would make compensation payable to anyone whom a court found not guilty (or who was pardoned) following a conviction and a period of imprisonment. No begging the Minister, no “balance of probabilities” test. We could be as generous as we wished with the quantum, but the entitlement would be dependent only upon the finding of final court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Damned edit!! “New Zealand isn’t necessarily more generous…”

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

    Rex, whatever. It isn’t what we have now, so debate is for another time. I’m too busy trying to solve the current problem, without trying to fix things that will not change till after both of us (and David Bain) are dead.

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

    Take 45 pieces of evidence. And take two baskets. One simplified way of finding balance of probability is to check each item of evidence and decide which basket to put it in. Then at the end, you look to see which basket is the fullest.

    That is incorrect. You need a third basket for those pieces of evidence which are compromised or don’t swing one way or the other. You also need to weight each piece of evidence according to how likely it is to be evidence of guilt. You might say which basket weighs the most and you would be closer.

    Binnie did this, despite what the papers say. He consigned a lot of the “evidence” to this third basket. It’s also obviously fallacious to confuse the order of exposition in Binnie’s report with his sequence of reasoning.

    The appeals to legal theory are a red herring. It’s a standard lawyers’ trick. If you can’t win on the evidential end, try the theoretical. This has the added bonus of an appeal to authority. Legal theory isn’t complicated, but the public think it is.

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

    Rex, you must be careful not to resort to the proverbial “THEY” as in “Why don’t “THEY” do something about .. … ?”

    Someone actually has to decide the amount of compensation in whichever situation applies. The THEY in your scenario is the Courts rather than the Minister, but so what, everything else is the same. Courts would probably award David $50,000 at best. It is David who has chosen the legal route he has, but whichever route, someone has to make a decision. A decision doesn’t just happen all by itself.

    Hey, but like I say, all this is for another day. I’m moving on from this one. Go on with it if you want. I’m won’t be playing.

    How much compo should David get, btw Rex, under the route David has taken?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fletch (6,231 comments) says:

    I think the compensation thing will just polarise people.
    At the moment, Bain is happy because he is free, and those who think he did it are happy because at least he did his time.

    Better to just let things be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Rex, what you are proposing is paying some people compensation who are more than likely guilty but get off on a technicality or that is what it seems.

    In a civilized society if a person is been convicted on illegally obtained evidence they can get a new trial where that evidence not allowed and they may be found not guilty. If we did not do this and just told the police and/or prosecution not to do it again they certainly. A slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket is not good enough they should lose the case even if a guilty person walks.

    However, I and many other people object to paying competition to someone who was lucky enough to get someone like Joe Karam conned. Poor Rex Haig got zip. I would like to see the reasoning in his case. Maybe all cases should be made public.

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

    Tom Jackson (256) at 5:23 pm said “That is incorrect”
    _______________________________________

    Whatever, I’m not stupid. But I presented a simplified version and declared it to be a simplified version. I know there is a need for weighting. There had to be some smart-arse to point it out, and argue for the sake of arguing.

    My simplified version of the basket, save that for simplicity I deliberately left out the weighting aspect, remains valid.

    By comparison, what Binnie did was absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Binnie did this, despite what the papers say.”

    Tom Jackson, if Binnie did his job as you claim why did he not question David properly about his fantasy alibi years before the murders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 comments) says:

    Tom said…
    You also need to weight each piece of evidence according to how likely it is to be evidence of guilt.

    Did you know how Binnie did this? Did he use a calculator or he simply dis some guess work? Which one? The fact of the matter is, he didn’t do any probabilistic weighting at all. Zilch. How the fuck can you advocate for evidence weighting without using proper evidence rule of combination (see link in my previous post on theory of evidence).

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

    I say again, that before this case, Ian Binnie never once was the fact-finder and decision-maker in a Balance of Probability case. He was out of his depth, and got it totally wrong. As Robert Fisher correctly pointed out.

    Incidentally, whether Fisher liked porn or not, he was more qualified for this case than Binnie. How do we know that Binnie didn’t also like porn, btw, David fans?

    Indeed, I’d be a lot more suspicious of Fisher if he DIDN’T like a bit of porn, you duplicitous people. Anyway this is a blog on which the host openly likes a bit of porn, so stick that up your green jumpers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Dotcom says:

    Someone actually has to decide the amount of compensation in whichever situation applies. The THEY in your scenario is the Courts rather than the Minister, but so what, everything else is the same. Courts would probably award David $50,000 at best. It is David who has chosen the legal route he has, but whichever route, someone has to make a decision. A decision doesn’t just happen all by itself.

    I’m astounded that someone who repeatedly trots out references to the Cabinet Manual as providing the guidance on this issue seems not to have read it. The relevant Minute says:

    The starting figure for calculating non-pecuniary losses should be set at $100,000… Only those cases with truly exceptional circumstances would attract general compensation that is greater than $100,000, and that on average the relevant figure should even out around $100,000… A claimant’s pecuniary losses should be calculated separately, and the resulting figure should then be added to the amount assessed for non-pecuniary loss

    Pecuniary loss is relatively non-controversial to calculate and the Minutes notes that these include:

    (a) loss of livelihood, including loss of earnings, with adjustments for income tax and for benefits received while incarcerated;

    (b) loss of future earning abilities;

    (c) loss of property or other consequential financial losses resulting from detention or imprisonment; and

    (d) costs incurred by or on behalf of the person in obtaining a pardon or acquittal.

    So (a) 13 years earnings as a paper boy + (c) any financial losses (perhaps his paper run money contributed to his legal expenses, say) + (d) legal costs are fairly simply calculated. Only (b) is open to a range of conjecture – what’s an unemployed paper boy with a questionable reputation woirth on the job market?

    So we arrive at $1,300,000 “damages” plus a sum for pecuniary loss. “They” have already decided.

    Chuck Bird says:

    Rex, what you are proposing is paying some people compensation who are more than likely guilty but get off on a technicality or that is what it seems.

    Being tried and found not guilty on a technicality (or even when the whole thing is found to be a fabrication built on perjury suborned by police officers, as I found out) does not generally entitle anyone to compensation. It’s only when a guilty verdict has been brought in, a person imprisoned, and then later that convictioon is overturned after, usually, a time behind bars that compensation becomes an issue.

    Of those, a small percentage would be akin to Bain’s case – highly doubtful and thus calling into question the rightness of compensation. Many more are like David Dougherty’s case (see timeline at the bottom of the story for a handy summary) – clear miscarriages of justice in which the victim ought not to have to grovel to the Minister for what is rightfully theirs.

    I accept that that a small percentage may receive payments to which they may not be entitled. But as I said, we’re prepared to pay a price in wrongful convictions at one end, we need to be prepared to pay a price in “wrongful” compensation at the other in order to ensure the genuinely innocent are not put through another ordeal after their release.

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

    Rex, :_)

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

    :-)

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

    Nice post, Rex. Won’t be reading it though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I accept that that a small percentage may receive payments to which they may not be entitled. But as I said, we’re prepared to pay a price in wrongful convictions at one end, we need to be prepared to pay a price in “wrongful” compensation at the other in order to ensure the genuinely innocent are not put through another ordeal after their release.

    Yep.

    I also do think it is appropriate to have a buck each way on this. Given he was found not guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that legally qualified people have found him not guilty, on the balance of probabilities, he should be compensated fully. It would not be appropriate to reduce the amount of compensation, in order to reflect concerns over the combined findings of proper legal authorities and due process.

    I think he probably did it. But the system seems to think he did not. The system must pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Sorry…. I also do NOT think it is appropriate…

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

    Kea, what you suggest is not the law. Justice Minister Collins does not have the luxury that you do, of breaking the law.

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

    Kea, if we were an autocracy in which the Justice Minister could make the law up as we went along, then David would have been shot about 18 years ago, and that would have been the end of that. If only … … …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Dotty, what I suggest is irrelevant. The system has found him not guilty. He should be compensated for killing his family and getting away with it doing a 13 year lag with no conviction.

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

    Kea, this is not the law of compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Gosh oh golly, DPF…

    There is so much rubbish being pushed on this (“:Ex Wainui” Rex W and Rowan are two of a small list of exceptions) by the same miscreants as on other Bain/Binnie matters, that one wonders whether this is simply an exercise to get Kiwiblog’s blog ratings above those of “Give him nothing” Orca’s site. :) :)

    More seriously, earlier:

    ” Graeme Edgeler (2,682) Says:

    December 28th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    DPF – I’m not sure that you have yet explained why New Zealand evidence law is relevant to this assessment. In what other decisions is the New Zealand cabinet bound by the rules of evidence that only otherwise apply in the assessment of whether someone has been proved guilty of a criminal offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt?”

    Given that Rishworth and Optican dealt with (clarified?) 23, or was it 28, esoteric points relating to NZ law, can you give us an answer to GE’s question?

    Perhaps FES or Nostalgia could help. :)

    I would not recommed (raspberries!) the Auckland tax lawyer or that ex Auckland ***** (In deference ti those who think truth is ad hominem!) judge. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    There is no law dictating how a Minister handles a wrongful conviction compensation, just a Cabinet Minute (POL Min (01) 34/5 of 12 December 2001 to be precise).

    Thus if she decided to make paper airplanes out of Bain’s application, or award him a gazillion trillion dollars after he drew her a picture of his cat, she would be in breach of the Cabinet Manual and subject to censure by the PM, but not “breaking the law”.

    There is of course tort law on false imprisonment, but you can’t “break” it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    In the spirit of the season let me give the lot of you the gift of time. I am about to save you moments you will never get back, in time you will thank me.

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

    “and that report has followed the NZ law of evidence”

    If Cabinet does not decide this on , then you can guarantee that it will become the subject of a Judicial Review in the High Court.

    “Natural law” or “the rule of law” or whatever you want to call it, includes Cabinet relying the use of legitimate rules of evidence. Binnie didn’t use natural justice processes. His was a one-sided inquiry in which he believed his new-found BFF, David Bain, in spite of David lying through his teeth, and repeatedly contradicting himself, and contradicting other physical evidence, and relying (like Banksie) on “I don’t remember”, whenever it was convenient to do so. Binnie drew no adverse conclusions from those “I don’t remembers” just like Key did for Banksie. Key has this luxury. Binnie did not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    David Bain is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    David Bain us guilty.

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

    Make that:

    If Cabinet does not decide this on “Natural law” or “the rule of law” or whatever you want to call it, then you can guarantee that it will become the subject of a Judicial Review in the High Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    There you go, I have done it all for you. Think of the more productive things you can do with your time now.

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

    Rex, one more time for you.

    Once upon a time, Cabinet was “the master of its own destiny”. Nowadays, we live in the era of Judicial Reviews.

    If Cabinet does not decide this on “Natural law” or “the rule of law” or whatever you want to call it, then you can guarantee that it will become the subject of a Judicial Review in the High Court.

    It would make no sense for Cabinet to use other than “natural law”, of back to the Courts we go. And none of us want this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    This is all across the talkbacks. Amazing how the callers are still arguing guilty/not guilty opinions rather than compensation/not compensation. Since Rex has pointed out that Judith can treat this in any manner she see’s fit then it is her last word in the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Kea, this is not the law of compensation.

    Who cares what the law is, Dotcom, this discussion is about what the law should be.

    You keep hiding behind the “it’s the Cabinet’s decision” as if that is the end of the matter. Well who the hell ever said that the Cabinet Guidelines on this, are fair? Who the fuck has ever debated whether the balance of probabilities is a fair test. It seems like that’s a pretty high bar to me, given that the system already has given him a clearance after numerous previous bars he has hurdled every one. The system has done everything it could, it has fought tooth and nail and it has still lost. But it won’t accept that. So it’s not about what the law says at the moment, it’s about what the law should say if we want to live in a country with a “justice” system. This is what this debate is about. Fairness.

    My take is, I don’t care whether or not he did it. The only relevant question I see is: has the system fucked him around, big time, in a 13 year sentence big-time, a sentence that apparently, according to the system itself, should never have happened?

    Like I said weeks ago, my reading of the public on this issue was that it tipped over 50% somewhere between the PC decision and the second trial, and it’s kept tipping ever since. I think that poll reading’s probably too high, it’s not 74%, I’d say it was in the low sixties at the moment.

    I think the thing about this issue is that it’s polarising and consequently those like you who don’t think he should get a penny are very hard on that view and you won’t budge. Which is a pity because ever since the PC decision, it’s been a time to cut the losses and walk away. But no, the system hasn’t done that. And by all indications Collins will seek a report that tells her what she think she wants to hear, and if she doesn’t compensate, it will become a huge election issue, I guarantee it. Possibly those of you on the never compensate side haven’t perceived that but let me tell you, that is what will happen if the govt plays it the way you people see it, and it will be a disaster, for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. orewa1 (428 comments) says:

    Paying compensation for DB wsill make us more fair and principled as a nation.

    Paying a salary for JC makes us the reverse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Paying compensation for DB wsill make us more fair and principled as a nation. ”

    So it is fair to pay compensation to someone on the balance of probabilities murdered their family for inheritance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Since Rex has pointed out that Judith can treat this in any manner she see’s fit then it is her last word in the end.”

    Azeraph, did Rex say that? Why do you not speak for yourself. It is not up to Judith.

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

    76 percent of New Zealand don’t care whether our Justice Minister breaks the law.

    If you want to live in a country which makes up the law to suit the Government as it goes along, then I recommend North Korea to you. You want our Government to be no better than Kim Il whatever; or the Taliban.

    You choose, the law or the Taliban. Your country. Good luck. But you can’t complain when Government lawbreaking goes against you next time, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    National justice spokeswoman Judith Collins said the “ad hoc” process had become “rotten”. She said Justice Binnie’s report was “perfectly inadequate” and we did not deserve “bile” from a “Wellington employment lawyer” like Mr Chauvel.

    There, fixed that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Chuck, you don’t know David Bain’s motive. No one does.

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

    Reid, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m quite happy for David Bain to get compensation if the majority of New Zealanders want no less than our Justice Minister to break the law. Of course if New Zealanders are happy with our Justice Minister breaking the law for this, then next time the Justice Minister breaks the law for something you DON”T like, you’ll just have to accept it won’t you.

    But then there is the little matter of how much compensation.

    Hmmm, AS I’VE ALREADY SAID, Reid, the police stuffed up. David is entitled to compensation for this (even though he hasn’t applied for it). The normal amount of compensation for such a stuff-up of this nature is about $50,000.

    So, $50,000 sounds good to me, to get it over and done with. What do you think, Reid? How much would you compensate someone who killed his family?

    Bet you can’t put a figure on it.

    But then I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But I bet you can’t answer this simply question. How much would you pay? (listen out for the yarda yarda excuses as to why no $$$ will be mentioned …. …..)

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

    Anyone who is too dumb to link the killings, with $600,000 of inheritance David stood to gain, is too dumb to be participating in the debate. Money (or its equivalent) as a motive for murder has been around since Adam and Eve had kids. $600,000 is 600,000 motives, in the language of anyone who is not totally consumed by political correctness.

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

    Under the Bill of Right 1990 Section 25(c) he could be compensated under as a cut of point of being heard by the highest appellate court should be 5 years. So under natural justice he could be compensated for loss of earning etc amounting to $250,000-500,000 for that period but getting any compensation based on being innocent is a separate matter and would then fall under the cabinet guideline of $100,000 per year plus other payment such loss of enjoyment blah blah blah. He is not innocent because his father Robin is undoubtedly innocent and is at present legally innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    No, he isn’t entitled to compensation simply because you allege the police “stuffed up”. That’s silly. The police “stuff up” the evidence gathering process occasionally, but convictions are still entered and upheld. If convictions are overturned because of a police “stuff up”, there is the process under the NZBORA (Baigent’ case), but mostly the acquittal is sufficient. There has to be more than just a police “stuff up”.

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

    Quite right gamefisher. The Statute of Limitations on Public Law claims (Bill of Rights Act for example) is 6 years.

    However, I would turn a blind eye to this if I were Cabinet, and give David $50,000 to shut him up (and shit him off).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    You cannot do that unless you believe he has proved he is innocent (on the balance of probabilities). Otherwise you are no better than Collins, and Cabinet, both of whom you criticise.

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

    Please take note good people, that in all I have said above, I have not resorted to invective once. Nor do I think any other Robin Bain supporter has. Not so for the David Bain supporters sadly. Keep up the good work, team. We have right on our side, so we don’t need to resort to invective. (Boy this comment will pee them off.)

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

    Nick K. You think I didn’t know that?

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

    I would find a legal way.

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

    A Whanau Ora grant springs to mind. No questions are ever asked about Whanau Ora.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    With the few people who live for anything Bain around here, this post is bound to break all records.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Chuck, you don’t know David Bain’s motive. No one does. ”

    Nick, think about what you just posted. Are you suggesting David is in a state of denial?

    Motive is as relevant as forensic evidence.

    Compare the motives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    <blockquote.I would find a legal way.

    There is a legal way. It’s if you believe David has shown he is innocent (on the balance of probabilities).

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

    Nick K, would you like to spend the rest of the evening discussing Baigent’s case. Happy to if you want, but I sense that it might not be very relevant to the topic of this thread. You go ahead, but I won’t be playing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    So, $50,000 sounds good to me, to get it over and done with. What do you think, Reid? How much would you compensate someone who killed his family? Bet you can’t put a figure on it.

    No you can’t put a figure on changing someone’s life forever, that’s not possible. But why do you care? Why is that even a relevant factor in this discussion?

    It’s principles which are at stake here and while of course I understand why some people factor Bain’s guilt as they see it into this question in that to them, it’s an abhorrence of justice, I don’t agree with those who do this.

    See, we have a system to establish guilt or innocence and that system has spoken. That question has been answered. Whether or not you agree with it, the guilt or innocence question is no longer a consideration at all, in this issue. It’s moved beyond that now.

    I frankly don’t get why some have so obdurately affixed themselves to this track to the point it overrules every other factor in their consideration of the whole issue. I don’t get it. It’s almost as if those people have developed an emotional attachment to it. Which they possibly might have, through linking their sense of patriotism and justice and fair play and the sense of duty that would make anyone of us go over the top into the machine guns, to this question. It’s interesting that most of the Bain skeptics are conservatives, isn’t it.

    I reckon $3 million in today’s money, is a fair compensation for what he’s been through. I have no particular formula, just a gut sense of what would be right. He owes Karam a great deal of course and no doubt they would work it out, but I’d suggest the state puts another $1 million on top of that 3, for Bain to give to Karam.

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

    Nick K at 8.02

    Shown to whom Nick, because there is no big “THEY” in the sky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Chuck, motive is completely irrelevant as far as evidence goes. It is a useful investigative tool, but that’s it. And, not all forensic evidence is relevant anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    My personal view is that it should not be permitted for lawyers to refer to motive in jury addresses. I think it’s completely overused and unreliable.

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

    Political correctness, Nick

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom – the “THEY” is clearly Cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    And let’s face it – he can’t possibly at all show (or prove) that. Not ever.

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

    You want to change the system that every jurisdiction throughout history and throughout the world, since the Hebrews invented Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, all for little ol’ David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,842) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
    Motive is as relevant as forensic evidence.
    Compare the motives.

    Have done that.
    Robin’s motive: Stop the damning stories coming out about me, teach Margaret a lesson, save the family name from shame.
    David’s motive: Destroy the sweet life I have.

    Looks like Robin wins there.

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

    Nick at 8.06.

    Then say so, as I do, every time, because 95 percent of New Zealanders have this wrong.

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

    Kanz, at 8.08

    No. $600,000 of motive is 600,000 reasons for killing.
    Unless you are so totally consumed by political correctness that you don’t even know what political correctness is any more.

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

    Nick at 8.07

    Yes he can. All he has to do is prove that someone else killed his family.
    Minor problem with this of course, is that no-one else did kill them.

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

    I see the invective has stopped for now. Congrats and thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Michael (903 comments) says:

    My understanding is that the Crown pays compensation only in cases where there are exceptional circumstances – that is where they has been grossly incompetent, negligence, or intentional acts or omissions by the Crown to secure a conviction. I doubt there is any of these as the Police did handle the crime scene according to the standards of the time and all we have is innuendo and smear from his team but no proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Reason for killing is not evidence you did kill. Completely separate issues, and should remain so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom @ 8:14 – very true. But of course he cannot prove this for the other reason that it is the Crown’s job to prove this, which they clearly won’t ever try to do.

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

    Michael, correct. Two things have to be present.

    The onus of proof is on David.

    He has to prove both that he is not a killer, AND
    that there were exceptional circumstances.

    And he has to prove these to Cabinet.

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

    No it isn’t the Crown’s onus to prove anything in David’s compo claim.

    David is the claimant, and as with any legal suit,
    it is the onus on the person bringing the suit to prove his case.

    In this case, David has the onus to show that he has not killed (on the BoP).

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

    This of course being different to the criminal matter, in which
    the Crown brought the suit against David, so they had the onus
    of proof for that stage.

    This is a completely separate legal process, one
    initiated by David, so he has to prove his case.

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

    From an emotional perspective I say nothing but from a natural justice perspective I say he should only get
    (a) Yes! Based on an average wage.
    (b) No! he hasn’t shown any extra potential this is what being an opera singer BS is al about
    (c) No! that is proceeds gained fro a crime
    (d) No way in hell

    No non pecuniary payment but if any is given he needs to apologies for besmirching Robin’s name

    Pecuniary loss is relatively non-controversial to calculate and the Minutes notes that these include:
    (a) Loss of livelihood, including loss of earnings, with adjustments for income tax and for benefits received while incarcerated;
    (b) Loss of future earning abilities;
    (c) Loss of property or other consequential financial losses resulting from detention or imprisonment; and
    (d) Costs incurred by or on behalf of the person in obtaining a pardon or acquittal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Dotcom (429) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    Michael, correct. Two things have to be present.
    The onus of proof is on David.
    He has to prove both that he is not a killer, AND
    that there were exceptional circumstances.
    And he has to prove these to Cabinet.

    The previous Minister of Justice requested that he prove it to a world respected Jurist, Binnie, who would then make his recommendations to Cabinet. That was done. The Solicitor General and Crown Law didn’t like what was said in those recommendations, as they showed them all up as a bunch of clowns. Collins is doing what she is told by her own departments. Cabinet does not run this country, the bureaucrats do.

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

    he needs to apologies for besmirching Robin’s name

    Who is going to make him. Should the proverbial “THEY” make this happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “My personal view is that it should not be permitted for lawyers to refer to motive in jury addresses. I think it’s completely overused and unreliable.”

    Good luck in trying to get a law change.

    So should judges also be not allowed to refer to motive?

    i was on a jury on a rape trial. The prosecution said what reason would the plaintive have to lie.

    The judge said there is not need for me to quote Shakespeare.

    Name one country in the world that does not allow motive to be evidence?

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

    Kanz at 8.25

    And … …. …. ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom, I meant the Crown had to prove someone else was the murderer in a court of law, which would be completely separate to David’s compensation claim. David clearly cannot take a private prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Chuck, motive is not evidence. What you refer to is Crown submissions, which is not evidence. And neither is it evidence when the Judge sums up. You asked for one country in the world that does not allow motive as evidence. The answer to that is New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “David clearly cannot take a private prosecution.”

    However, someone could take a private prosecution against David.

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

    Nick at 8.28

    David has to prove (on BoP) that the suit which he has brought to the decision-maker, Cabinet, is a valid claim.

    Onus is on David to prove (on BoP) he didn’t kill. He can show this how he likes.

    To convince the decision maker he might be tempted to try and show that someone else did it. The onus to do this, and how he does it, is always on the claimant.

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

    Dotcom re 8:25 if he doesn’t he doesn’t get that part of the payment. He can’t claim and get a payment based on an injustice then create one himself so by apologising goes part way to undoing besmirching Robin’s name and the affect it must have on the rest of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,844) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    However, someone could take a private prosecution against David.

    That, I would like to see……

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

    Chuck at 8,30

    Ain’t gunna happen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Of course. But it is implicit that someone else did it, if he manages to prove, or show, he is innocent. That’s what innocence is!!!

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

    gamefisher at 8.33

    Okay then

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Sofia (850 comments) says:

    Dotcom – The onus of proof is on David. He has to prove both that he is not a killer, AND that there were exceptional circumstances. And he has to prove these to Cabinet.

    So, when and in what form does David do this?
    And why did Power commission the Binnie report before Bain has put his case for his compensation?

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

    How David does this is up to David and his lawyers. I’m not doing the work for him here. Completely against my interests to answer your question, Sofia, so play on your own with this one.

    Power commissioned Binnie to get what he thought would be an expert opinion. Power is gone, and Collins isn’t impressed by what Power did, and as is her right, she is not going with what Power did (as Labour wouldn’t either if Labour had won the 2011 election)

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

    DPF, I nominate this thread as having just broken the inaugural award for most consecutive comments without invective. Love it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Sofia (462) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    So, when and in what form does David do this?
    And why did Power commission the Binnie report before Bain has put his case for his compensation?

    Powers nominated Binnie to hear the claim on behalf of Cabinet and report his findings.
    When Bain proved his innocence to Binnie it was as if he had done so to Cabinet.
    The rest is simply posturing.

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

    Not so, and it is Power, not Powers.

    Not so. Binnie was only commissioned to make a recommendation to Cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    David is the claimant, and as with any legal suit,
    it is the onus on the person bringing the suit to prove his case.

    Which is kind of ironic, given the claimant is the one who has been fucked up the arse by a cunty system for 13 years of imprisonment and a million hours of bother, isn’t it.

    And even when the system itself has held up its hands in surrender and released him and everything, after trying not to for ages, even after all of that, still some opinion exists that this is all OK, he really did do it, the system just couldn’t pin it on ‘im.

    This is despite the exhaustive history shouting, yelling and screaming and letting off fireworks and setting flaming messages in giant lettering in the sky, that it’s over. Literally hundreds of people all with much higher IQ’s than almost every single one of us, all of them experts in their respective fields, have picked over the minutia in great detail with careful attention. What the HELL does any of you possibly think you can significantly add to all of that collective thinking, that’s already happened, years ago?

    The injustice is that the system has so doggedly pursued obduracy at every single turn and continues to do so. Rodney Hide put up a good column on it the other day. That’s why people have swung against it and like I said, my estimate is 65% and climbing in favour of compensation. Collins and all her advisers are risking a lot because her current path will increasingly draw contrast to the “hard core” of conservatives versus the rest of the country. Anyone who thinks this is about mom and apple pie values in the justice system is wrong and I suspect one or two actually do think that. It’s not seen that way by most people. Imagining people will climb on board once they “realise the truth” is not going to ever happen with this issue. It never will. It long ago transitioned from an intellectual into an emotional issue. That’s where the Justice system operates, the emotional element of peace and security is at the heart of their need to make justice be seen to be done in society.

    That’s the feeling I’m talking about when I said above it tipped over 50% after the PC and is now in my estimate around 65%. That emotion is what is driving this poll result and Bain skeptics need to recognise the feeling is growing and will continue to as the more unaware amongst the voting segments gradually become aware of who the hell this Bain guy is, as Collins announces her new report and the saga drags on, yet again, along the very same obdurate path that’s been de rigeur throughout the whole lamentable (and unnecessary, and destructive, and divisive) affair. For no reason.

    For people will never accept no compensation. What about that doesn’t anyone understand? It will be political suicide because this is a political issue not a legal one, and it has been that way for a long, long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Kanz, you suffer the same misapprehensions as most others. Binnie had been specifically asked not to make a recommendation as to whether or not compensation could be paid and whether or not there were areas that cabinet could consider to be extraordinary circumstances. But he did both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Was that digi-Pol nation-wide,or was it just in Auckland?
    I would suggest if the same poll was carried out in Dunedin then the percentages would be the other way around.
    Anyway,what is the use of asking a whole lot of uniformed people whether Bain should get compensation or not? Very scientific ,I don’t think.
    Having spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the Bain murders there is no doubt in my mind that David Bain is guilty.
    Chauvel says he thinks Binnie’s report is perfectly adequate. If he really believes that then I don’t think much of his comprehension skills.
    For example, Binnie stated that Robin Bain brought the paper in before David came home. How did Binnie the ninny come to that conclusion? David Bain said he didn’t bring the paper in,but that he normally did if he ran the paper round which is what he did that morning. He said his father brought it in at around 7am if he [David] walked the paper round.
    Did it not occur to Binnie that David Bain could well have been lying.? I mean why wouldn’t have brought the paper in that morning? Or did he deliberately not bring it in for some reason. Maybe he hid in his bedroom with the light out until his father finished praying/meditating . Then his father comes out of the lounge at around 7am,sees the paper is not there,so goes down to the gate to get it,giving David the chance to go into the lounge and set up an ambush.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Reid, I largely agree with the tenor of that comment. I think Bain did it. Absolutely he did. But I’d pay him compensation also.

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

    Nick is right. Mine was bad wording at 8.44

    Didn’t read 8.45 as soon as I saw invective in 1st line, I realised it was a waste of internet capacity.

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

    You are asking the Justice Minister to break the law, just like they do in North Korea and Afghanistan. If this is what you want, then expect the Taliban next. The reason we have such a great justice system (not foolproof) is that we have massive respect for the law EVERY TIME.

    Don’t leave this legacy for you kids to have to unravel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Dotcom (439) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    45. Accordingly, at this time I seek your advice on :
    • whether you are satisfied that Mr Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities and, if so, whether he is also innocent beyond reasonable doubt; and
    • any factors particular to Mr Bain’s case (apart from your assessment of innocence beyond reasonable doubt) that you consider are relevant to the Executive’s assessment of whether there are extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice to consider his claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    http://www.akl.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/8121256/Time-to-accept-Binnie-findings-on
    Note the comments.
    Moral of this story. If you are going to write an editorial it might pay you to do some research.

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

    The only valid public opinion poll that should be asked in this issue is:

    Do you think that David Bain is a killer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    The only valid public opinion poll that should be asked in this issue is:

    Has Bain had a Fair Go?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    There were no extraordinary circumstances. Bain was correctly found guilty at the first trial and by rights should have served at least 16 years in prison.
    Even the Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him was a strong one. I would venture to suggest that had those five Law Lords been on the jury there would have been at least a hung jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Dotcom says:

    Rex, one more time for you.

    …then you can guarantee that it will become the subject of a Judicial Review in the High Court.

    Dotcom, one more time for you. You said:

    The public opinion in the poll, is pointless. The question relies on Members of Parliament taking a lazy, political and unlawful path. This is not an option for the Justice Minister. If anyone is required to follow the processes of the law, it is her. [my emphasis]

    Judith Collins is under no legal obligation or constriction whatsoever as regards Bain’s claim. There is no process of the law she must follow at this point. Her only guide is the Cabinet Manual, which I’ve quoted from and linked to above.

    If Collins makes paper airplanes out of Bain’s application, or awards him a squillion dollars because he drew her a nice picture of his cat, she will not be acting unlawfully.

    She would undoubtedly make her decision the subject of an application for judicial review (it’s not automatic) but she would not have acted ultra vires.

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

    Sure has had a fair go.

    But now he wants compensation. So, fairly, he should have a fair go at that too.

    Please David, tell us why you should get the compensation payable to anyone who can prove to BoP that they were imprisoned for a killing that they didn’t do.

    What’s unfair about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Bain has had more than a fair go. He was bloody lucky to get out of jail after only 13 years. About two and a half years for each murder.

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

    Rex at 9.02

    Already answered

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

    If David Bain wants a fair go, he will withdraw his claim for the compensation he is not entitled to.

    If a person claims a WINZ benefit they are not entitled to, they are prosecuted for a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Bain did not prove his innocence to Binnie. Binnie asked him a number of questions and believed his answer to every one of them. He even believed that shagging the goat story.
    He would probably have believed Bain if Bain had told him he saw that bloke shagging an elephant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    You are asking the Justice Minister to break the law,…

    What law is this?

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

    Yet there are people on this thread tonight who would compensate David even though they think he is a killer, and even though he has claimed compensation from you and me, that he knows he is not entitled to claim.

    One of the problems of course, is that people think it is not our money, that it is government money, and government money doesn’t count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Yes, Dotcom, it is not “answered”, as Nick K seems to have missed it too. You’ve said that if she were to make a decision to award compensation now, Judith Collins would, in your words, be taking an “unlawful path”.

    I’ve said no such law exists, and you’re dead wrong. So come on, what law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    You are asking the Justice Minister to break the law, just like they do in North Korea and Afghanistan.

    Dotcom not sure if this was addressed to me but if so, naturally I don’t see it like that.

    To me, the law is not some unchangeable edifice, it’s an evolving solution to a civilisational problem that has always and will always be with us until Armageddon, then it won’t be required because those of us who are left by definition will know how to behave ourselves.

    But it’s a solution that’s fluid, as we know, with the common law and statutes all playing active roles.

    Sure, I understand the abhorrence of compensation to a murderer. Duh. Yeah I get that.

    But how come some don’t understand that the system, the only legitimate determinator of questions like these in our society, has spoken. So why not get with the program?

    Bain is not the last. Tamihere is next then it will be Watson. You wait and see. And if the system plays it this way again for Tamihere, they’ll have a big problem.

    It’s a shame the Ministry of Justice clearly doesn’t have an effective unit who speaks for the “justice seen to be done” component of their job, as they have played their cards very badly on that front, in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    In my ‘umble opinion Bob Jones is breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder how many hours he has spent researching the case?

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

    The law, Nick, that applies to the payment of compensation. The written rules that Cabinet must comply with, to be allowed to compensate David. The rules are published and are cited in both the Binnie and Fisher reports. You do the research, Nick, if you need an answer to this. I’m too busy to do your homework for you. If you don’t know this basic stuff, you shouldn’t be here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    No. David thinks he is entitled to compensation. He has convinced himself he didn’t do it. He has practically hypnotised himself over it. He just tells a lie so many times, it becomes the truth. Regardless, the State cannot lock someone up for 13 years who is eventually found not guilty and not compensate him. You just can’t. No decent society would do that.

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

    Rex, too busy to do your homework for you. It’s in both the Binnie and Fisher reports. If you don’t know this, you don’t belong here. Play on your own now, Rex, I will be ignoring your comments from now on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Paying compensation to David Bain will make us look like a bunch of idiots.

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

    Reid, not interested in Tamahere or Watson, and as soon as I see these mentioned in a comment, I move on. I know some David fans only want to sabotage threads, and a common tactic is to shift to people other than David Bain, the mass killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom, Rex knows like I do, that the Cabinet Manual is not the law.

    Deadlines and late papers

    5.40 Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers must be submitted to the Cabinet Office before the relevant deadline, which is usually several days before the relevant meeting. See the CabGuide for the current deadlines. Submitting papers on time ensures that Ministers have sufficient time to read and seek advice on papers, and to discuss them with colleagues if required.

    5.41 If a Minister wishes to submit a late paper for Cabinet or Cabinet committees, the Minister concerned should, by the deadline for submitting the paper to the Cabinet Office, write to the chair of the committee through the Secretary of the Cabinet or the appropriate committee secretary seeking approval for acceptance of the paper and explaining why inclusion on the agenda is necessary. The Secretary of the Cabinet or committee secretary will consult the Prime Minister or the chair of the committee, and advise the Minister of the outcome.

    For example, what would you do if Cabinet made a decision after a breach of the above rules? Do you think you could apply for Judicial Review?

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

    “No. David thinks he is entitled to compensation. He has convinced himself he didn’t do it. He has practically hypnotised himself over it. He just tells a lie so many times, it becomes the truth. Regardless, the State cannot lock someone up for 13 years who is eventually found not guilty and not compensate him. You just can’t. No decent society would do that.”
    __________________________________________

    You don’t get it Nick. They can. It is the law, so they can. And they do.
    Change the law for the next killer, Nick, but the law as it stood in 1994, is the law that applies to David Bain’s killings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    They can, but they shouldn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Nick K.
    David Bain told Binnie that his mother was into self-hypnosis. Binnie should have asked him if he was as well. I don’t believe in mumbo jumbo but I wonder if David Bain was able to somehow hypnotise himself before committing the murders.
    A friend of the family who visited David Bain in prison said she believed he was “under possession ” when he committed the murders.

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

    Muggins at 9.18

    Almost, not only make us look like a bunch of idiots.

    We would be no better than North Korea ignoring the law for convenience, and when it suits us. But what happens next time, and the ignoring of the law works the other way, and you are the one damaged by it. We would be no better than the Taliban.

    Ignoring the law in favour of one person, is ignoring it at the expense of another.

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

    The Cabinet Manual is the law. Just ask the Speaker of Parliament. End of debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    *headdesk* Rules =/= law.

    Meanwhile, for the people following who actually understand the law, because I wasn’t sure I asked Graeme Edgeler for a second opinion on the issue of judicial review. His response:

    I don’t see who would have standing to judicially review such a decision other than David himself.

    So that pretty much confirms for me that if Collins gave Bain a sum with which he was satisfied, there’d be no room for judicial review. So she’d not only “break” no “law” (on which I call nonsense) but also not trigger a review (which I agree is a possibility if Bain were dissatisifed).

    However if you prefer Dotcom’s view that some “law” he can’t be bothered detailing (unlike his ongoing efforts to be Kiwiblog’s Miss Marple) will be broken, you are of course welcome to that opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rex,
    How many hours have you spent researching the case?

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

    Jees is was good for a while with no invective on this thread. Ah well, all good things … …

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

    “They can, but they shouldn’t.”

    But they should. Otherwise they are the same as North Koreans, and the Taliban.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    So it’s down the dunny with Binnie’s report then.? I coudn’t agree more.

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

    Rex, unread at 9.29

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Reid, not interested in Tamahere or Watson, and as soon as I see these mentioned in a comment, I move on. I know some David fans only want to sabotage threads, and a common tactic is to shift to people other than David Bain, the mass killer.

    Dotcom give someone whose made 12000+ comments credit for the ability to know how to troll if he wanted to do it. Crikey.

    Bain, Tamihere and Watson are three cases of systemic injustice. The reason they are relevant here is because they all affect the same peace and security emotional element. Those three all have their elements of disquiet and I note this deathbed confession which may aid Tamihere.

    I mention them because I’ve been pointing out the politics of this case, not the legal aspects, for I consider the legal aspects mere technical background, part of the environment. The real action in Bain is in the politics of it. And Tamihere and Watson build on this 65% and climbing political factor.

    So no, not trying to divert the thread, just pointing out some things that will happen.

    As I’ve said, I don’t believe that Bain’s guilt or otherwise is the issue, anymore. You seem to think Bain is guilty. Good on you. But why does this affect compensation? Why? You seem to be either a lawyer or to understand it, so why is this question so pivotal in your determination?

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

    Reid, I saw my name mentioned at 9.33. I read to the point about Tamahere, and stopped.
    Play on your own on this one, don’t bring my name into it, please. I have no inclination to comment on Tamahere, understand, so please don’t link my handle in the same post. It is common courtesy that you respect that I don’t wish to discuss Tamahere on a thread about David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,824 comments) says:

    So when is the Government writing a big fat compo cheque?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Er.

    OK?

    Er.

    Sorry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    muggins:

    None. I haven’t formed an opinion of Bain’s guilt or innocence other than to note that some very intelligent KB commenters can advance detailed and rational arguments as to why they believe he’s guilty, so I accept that there are good reasons to doubt his innocence.

    I’m interested purely from a legal standpoint in terms of how Collins has handled this application, and how future governments could (and should) handle those that will no doubt be made in its wake.

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

    I can’t stop YOU talking about Tamahere. But don’t flame me when I don’t respond to your wolf-whistle when I have the option of offing myself from that off-topic bilge-water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    So why is Bain’s guilt or otherwise so pivotal to your position?

    Why is that the raison d’etre to denial of compensation?

    If that’s your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Dotcom

    Unconcerned at your unreading at 9.32.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom, we will be like North Korea and the Taliban if we don’t pay him compensation. The Cabinet Manual is NOT law, despite how many times you assert it is.

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

    OECD rank 22 at 9.39

    When it has as much respect for the law as North Korea or the Taliban has.

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

    Nick at 9.42

    Whatever. Either you want to learn or you already know all there is to know. Go and see what it says in your hero’s report which you obviously haven’t read, Ian Binnie.

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

    Ask Lockwood Smith if the Cabinet Manual is law or not. He will tell you that it is not only law, he will say that it is constitutional law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    he will say that it is constitutional law.

    Oh really? And just when does the GG give Royal assent to the Cabinet Rules? It can’t possibly be law without it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Here’s a quiz, Kiwibloggers. The CVabinet Manual which Dotcom continually holds forth as akin to holy writ is here. There’s also a searchable pdf.

    A bottle of good West Australian wine to the first person who finds any mention of compensation, and the power to award such, within.

    On the other hand, the Cabinet Minute entitled “Compensation and Ex Gratia Payments for Persons Wrongly Convicted and Imprisoned in Criminal Cases (POL Min (01) 34/5, 12 December 2001) – an entirely different kettle of piscine vertebrates – does set out a procedure which Collins has to follow. The Minute has become a Guideline and is here.

    So, for those of you still playing, we’re up to here:

    The Queen’s Counsel shall report to the referring Minister, certifying whether he or she is satisfied that the claimant is innocent on the balance of probabilities. If concluding this is so, he or she will also recommend an appropriate amount of compensation/ex gratia payment, taking into account the following factors…

    The QC in this instance was substituted for Binnie. Once she’d received the Binnie report Collion could therefore do anything she wanted (including paying or refusing compensation) without breaching the Guideline and certainly not the Cabinet Manual which has nothing wehatsoever to say on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    For God’s sake bring in capital punishment to stop this endless relitigation and relitigation and looking for handouts from the State! Only a few score women sat around the guillotine knitting during The Revolution. In NZ hundreds of thousands idle away arguing whether X is innocent; debating did Y do it? as Z framed? Did W get away with it?

    For fuck’s sake just pull the trapdoor lever!

    Kerplunk, kerplunk, kerplunk, and only one in a hundred or so will be a mistake. Meanwhile five or ten of a hundred murderers will never get charged and will live scot free. Mercy lies in these odds.

    We might have to abolish the jury system though. Juries are getting soft. The diligent avoid duty to please their bosses, and the benches begin to fill with the unemployable, the uneducated, the mentally unfit… idiots who wouldn’t send a Jack the Ripper to the scaffold. They would not implement justice. Perhaps juries should be paid, with fines for employers who hamper jury duty, and, if capital punishment is reintroduced, each would-be juror asked to swear he or she will not be influenced by the ultimate penalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom – fuck Binnie. And fuck Fisher. The simple fact is the State has locked someone up for 13years who has been found not guilty. You cannot have a system that you agree with, but only when it gives you the result you want. I don’t like that result. But the “justice system”, and indeed our democratic, egalitarian & , “fair” society requires us to write a cheque. I’d throw the Cabinet Manual out the door give him a confidential ex gratia settlement to make the thing go away. I’m thinking $1.5 million would do it.

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

    Charles Chauvel is still a member of the NZLS. Relating back to the original post here by David Farrar, I wonder if Charles Chauvel would survive a complaint to the ethics committee at the Law Society. It costs nothing to ask, if anyone should be interested.

    Just so happens amazingly that I have the email address for the ethics committee. Now I wonder why I would have this.

    paul.byers@lawsociety.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    When I said (9.58) jury members should be paid, I meant paid more – a realistic amount for their time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rex
    It would be my thinking that Judith Collins will play this with a straight bat. She will have another report done,probably by Robert Fisher ,then accept his findings. If he finds Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities then cabinet will have no option but to pay out. If Fisher or whoever finds Bain is not innocent on the balance of probabilities the she wont pay out.
    When Simon Power wrote to me in November 2009 he stated
    The position in New Zealand is that there is no legal right to compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Compensation may,however,be paid at the Government’s discretion on an ex gratia basis in accordance with a process agreed by cabinet.
    A fundamental principle is that compensation is only paid to persons who can prove they are at least innocent on the balance of probabilities. A person’s acquital by jury does not in itself establish innocence for the purposes of claiming compensation. It simply means that the jury is not satisfied the prosecution has proved guilt to the very high criminal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

    bhudson at 9.55

    When does the GG give royal consent to any decision of the courts, each of which adds to the pool of common law. My God there is some bilge-water coming out tonight. But I have this effect on comments, sorry. People just can’t resist arguing for the sake of arguing. Next day they end up terribly embarrassed. I don’t because I’m rarely wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Perhaps juries should be paid, with fines for employers who hamper jury duty, and, if capital punishment is reintroduced, each would-be juror asked to swear he or she will not be influenced by the ultimate penalty.

    Perhaps we should just have Star Chambers Jack and be done with it. Damn them all to Hell and all that.

    That’ll learn ‘em.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. duggledog (1,491 comments) says:

    Collins is not going to allow Bain compensation one way or another, because most people (and that’s right, Nat voters are most people) would have a shit fit if she did. The collateral damage would be too much. Ordinary people don’t give a fuck about Binnie,the P.C. or any of the rest of it.

    Ordinary people recognise the whole thing from start to finish was a young man’s plan and Bain pretty much got acquitted because there was no video camera rolling. A Herald poll is meaningless. I mean who reads the Herald anyway? It’s embarrassing. Some journo rings Judith’s office: ‘Oh g’day, look we did this poll and um…’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Reid (10.03 post):

    At least three in ten New Zealanders support capital punishment.

    What is your argument against it?

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

    Rex. at 9.57

    Told you so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nick K (1,210 comments) says:

    Dotcom, Parliament is sovereign, which is why it needs the Queen’s assent to every law passed. Your comment on the courts is just obscure and spurious.

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

    Nick at 9.58

    No-one got locked up on being found not guilty.

    David Bain, quite rightly was locked up after being found guilty on five counts of murder. You seem to be overlooking this small snippet of information. Sadly, you cannot reverse history, unless you own a Delorien (or however it is spelt).

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

    duggledog at 10.04

    Superb post. Give that man/woman a medal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @Dotcom,

    The Cabinet Rules are not common law. Just because the Courts generate common law through decisions, does not mean that other bodies can. Certainly Parliament cannot (which includes the Executive.) Parliament can only create law through the passing, repealing or amendment of legislation – all of which require Royal Assent

    The Cabinet Rules are not law – legislative or common

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

    Nick at 10.08

    In the Justice Department, just for an example, there is a security service – they are men who stand around in white uniforms and in some courts they screen you like in airports. This service has an operations manual. I can assure you that the Security Officers Operations Manual is part of the law, and can be cited as law in the District (or higher) Court. It has no royal assent.

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

    Nick/Rex none of this is solving the problem of compensation for David Bain. Move on please. Or leave my name out of it, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    muggins says:

    It would be my thinking that Judith Collins will play this with a straight bat. She will have another report done,probably by Robert Fisher ,then accept his findings. If he finds Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities then cabinet will have no option but to pay out.

    Collins is shopping round for someone to write a report giving her the answer she wants, for the reasons set out by duggledog.

    That it may well result in a just outcome will have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics and will mark a new low point in justice in New Zealand, not because of anything Bain might or might not get, but because the failings of the people who led us to this debacle (Collins included) will swept under the rug and the system will remain faulty and easily capable of wrongfully convicting someone else, who may well actually be innocent.

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

    Nick at 9.58

    No-one got locked up on being found not guilty.

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

    No takers on the NZLS ethics committee complaint against Charles Chauvel. Guess I’ll have to do everything myself, as usual.

    paul.byers@lawsociety.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    What is your argument against it?

    My sympathy with the human condition Jack tells me that to eliminate killing, you shouldn’t kill.

    I think society should sentence quite a few people to life inside, you die behind bars. I think the cost of that is measly in context of all the millions of other budget line items, by comparison with the humanity that is exercised in not killing.

    The 6th commandment says: Thou shalt not murder, it doesn’t say: Thou shalt not kill. Because that is necessary sometimes. But the Bible also says one of the two greatest commandments is love thy neighbour as thou lovest thyself. So it’s a complex Biblical topic but personally given the complete bollocks we normally get with line items the size of the annual expenditure for all the lifer inmates, it seems to me on balance that’s the preferable way to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Good luck taking a complaint through legal system against an MP who’s acted wrongfully. Even if the MPs a lawyer. And even if you can prove you personally suffered as a result. Been there, tried that. They’re immune from the rules that apply to their subjects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    No takers on the NZLS ethics committee complaint against Charles Chauvel.

    Speaking of takers Dotcom were you thinking of answering my 9:41 anytime soon? It’s just I’m very interested in what your answer will be.

    So why is Bain’s guilt or otherwise so pivotal to your position?

    Why is that the raison d’etre to denial of compensation?

    If that’s your position.

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

    Rex at 10.18

    So we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t.
    In which case, we might as well do it according to law (Cabinet instructions to itself and Cabinet precedent), rather than as North Korea or the Taleban would do it — make it up on the spot on the basis of expedience.

    George Orwell warned us we would be doing this. How on Earth have we avoided doing it for 28 years longer than Orwell predicted we would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    @Dotcom

    But “law” (in reality nothing more than a Cabinet Minute) says that the Minister must get 1 report, from 1 QC. Then he or she is free to act.

    Collins chose to commission a second report – she didn’t have to. As soon as Binnie’s report landed on her desk she was free to recommend whatever she saw fit. That’s not acting like the Taleban or “making it up”, that’s following the rules you say (and I agree) she should follow.

    In fact one could argue that commissioning a second report breaches the Cabinet Minute – there is no authority in it for her to do so.

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

    Reid at 10.25

    Your wolf-whistle. My option as to whether to take it up.

    But seeing as you insist.

    David Bain’s guilt or innocence is no longer an issue in anything. He is innocent, and this much can never change.

    His entitlement to compo has precisely no relationship — none, get it — to his guilt or innocence.

    Reid, that’s  N _ O _ N _ E     NONE

    His guilt or innocence is not one shred of a factor in determining his entitlement to compo. Get this into your head, and when you have got it into your head, please tell the other three million New Zealanders who have this wrong.

    For this very reason, you might notice that to avoid confusion, I never use the term guilt and i never use the term innocent in relation to the case as it now stands. I always say instead, that David is a killer.

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

    Rex, stop wolf-whistling me please. I have the option of not replying to you, troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Reid, your argument against capital punishment in your 10.21 post is the humane, religious one, and deserves respect, if not my acceptance.

    However, Christians for centuries, for millennia even, carried out capital punishment.

    And I wonder whether it is more inhumane to lock people up like laboratory rats for decades than it would be to execute them. I think there in the past was discrimination between those given life imprisonment and those sentenced to die, and that would presumably be the case in any return of capital punishment.

    Deterrence is another aspect. Those opposed to capital punishment dredge up figures from here and there alleging death sentencese are no deterrent, but there were a helluva lot fewer murders per capital in the days of capital punishment in New Zealand.

    Opponents typically imply or state that those who support capital punishment are emotive and are making a knee-jerk decision. I believe that now the emotive arguments lie on the side of the opponents. It’s similar in the arming the police debate. Opponents of arming them imply or state the few supporting the police calls for guns are emotive rednecks (to borrow a somewhat racist term from the liberals).

    NZ police were armed until a little over 100 years ago, and the constabulary didn’t go around taking pots at innocent citizens. There were few if any OK Corral type shoot-outs. Again there were fewer murders.

    It’s of interest that the only other Western unarmed police force is the Norwegian police, and we are following them by slowly implementing weapons in all police vehicles. That police force didn’t do much of a job in heading off Brevik, though to be fair he was on a difficult-to-get-at island. Still if there had been even one Viking policeman there with a pistol and a modicum of marksmanship he might have been able to put a bullet in the back of Brevik’s head and saved the lives of scores of young folk.

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

    But capital punishment is not part of the current debate. Are you trying to sabotage the thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Reid, re my 10.41.

    I presume you wouldn’t oppose what would have amounted to the summary execution of Brevik, if an armed Norwegian policeman had by some miracle been placed to shoot him.

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

    Goodnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Dotcom:

    No I’m not trying to sabotage the thread. Just pointing out that all the energy being wasted on the Bain case, and others that activists want to relitigate, would be unnecessary if we had capital punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    His guilt or innocence is not one shred of a factor in determining his entitlement to compo. Get this into your head, and when you have got it into your head, please tell the other three million New Zealanders who have this wrong.

    Well duh. This is also what I’ve been saying Dotcom. But you appear to think because you “know” he’s a killer, he therefore shouldn’t get compo? Do you think that?

    If so why? And please don’t give us the legal reason of “it’s not possible because this and that says such and such” because that can and will be changed, because the politicians can do so, if they want to, and they will want to, eventually, when they see how unpopular their decision is becoming. And it’s not a question of will it, it’s a question of when.

    As a conservative myself of course I don’t wish this, I’m merely one of the canaries in the mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    At this pace DPF will be competing with Whoar and The Drudge Report for the highest number of postings.
    He must be thanking the local obsession on Bain and his crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    I presume you wouldn’t oppose what would have amounted to the summary execution of Brevik, if an armed Norwegian policeman had by some miracle been placed to shoot him.

    Not at all Jack. Never ask someone to do something you wouldn’t do yourself.

    I wonder whether it is more inhumane to lock people up like laboratory rats for decades than it would be to execute them.

    Look if you were facing a life sentence and you knew it, what would you do? Probably fight it and fight it hard at first but for how long can you keep up that attitude year after year, decade after decade?

    I don’t know precisely the US death-row conditions, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn some are very spartan with no stimulation, 24/7/365 and that is just plain cruel, even to an animal let alone a human. So I don’t suggest that.

    Over time, I imagine, life inside becomes a bit like the Shawshank Redemption and you could easily manage lifers with that sort of attitude, humanely, with proper stimulation.

    I wouldn’t see a problem with them for example doing university degrees and us paying for that, provided they could explain in detail, what the benefit would be to we the taxpayer, of their courses.

    I realise that’s purty touchy and feely but it’s because a lifer by definition has no hope. That’s it, mate. Bugger. So you can’t treat them the say way you do someone who gets out in say, ten years.

    Opponents typically imply or state that those who support capital punishment are emotive and are making a knee-jerk decision.

    They’re just great big silly mentals Jack.

    Muldoon in his Young Turk book told how when the question of repealing the death penalty question came up as a conscience vote and Marshall gave all the young MPs Muldoon included, the chance to meet with the State Executioner. Muldoon said that after that meeting, he just couldn’t vote to retain it.

    I could confidently ask a man to execute a kill shot on Brevik because I know if I was that police sniper, I would have no hesitation in doing it myself and I never ask anyone to do anything I wouldn’t do. But asking someone to kill another in a state execution, is why the US has moved toward more and more mechanical ways to distance as much as possible those individuals most involved, which says a lot about the nature of what we ask people to do, in respect of carrying out this act.

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

    If the government takes polls into account then let’s have a poll on whether the government should borrow money to give away in TOW claims.

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

    Reid, please don’t assume you know what I might be thinking, especially on a thread in which I have already said the exact opposite. I have not said that David Bain should receive no, so don’t put words in my mouth, and I won’t put words in yours.

    I have said (including saying on this thread), that because of Crown errors in the investigation and prosecution, David might be entitled to $50,000. If it gets the matter over and done with, give him the $50,000 to shut the killer up.

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

    Good morning, Rex. I am not sure whether you are still following this thread. I am grateful for the link to the Cabinet Guidelines. Although I had found the Cabinet Manual and, like you, had noted that there was no mention of the compensation procedures, I had not in fact found the Cabinet guidelines. You will note that these guidelines do not apply. Bain does not come within the guidelines because his conviction was not quashed on appeal and he was not pardoned. He was acquitted following a retrial. I am reasonably certain that there is a supplementary guideline promulgated by Simon Power and which allows compensation for those falling outside the guidelines provided there are exceptional circumstances. I also understand that there is no obligation on the Minister to obtain a report from a QC although the option of doing so is mentioned. I read this supplementary summary (I think it may have been on the Ministry of Justice website) some time ago but have not been able to catch up with it.

    Collins has a wide discretion in this case. Because any payment of compensation to someone not within the parameters of the guideline is likely to set an expectational if not binding precedent, she has to get it right. Otherwise the floodgates will open.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Nookin, are you a lawyer? You sound like you may be.

    I find it hard to understand some lawyers on the blog think the process is more important than justice.

    I can understand some people arguing David is innocent because it hard for some people to acknowledge they may be wrong when they have taken a strong stance on an issue.

    I find in harder to understand a lawyer arguing that someone who they believe is almost certainly guilty of murdering there family because the law is more important than common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    Don’t pay the killer. The jury were 12 retards that were denied seeing the full list of evidence. And luckily NZ law has a process in place to prevent killers from profiting from their time in prison – so at least prevent David Bain being the beneficiary of another injustice by following that process.

    Also, Justice Binnie seems to be a man trying to deny his dementia. Not only did he go outside his terms of reference, he made the same mistake the jury made, assesed each bit of circumstancial evidence on its own rather than as a whole ie, never asked himself “What is the probability that so many items of damning circumstancial evidence could have been found against someone other than the killer”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown, Your comment is most unfair on at least some members of the jury. I would be outraged if I was denied the following suppressed evidence.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    I would be interested if any lawyer other than Nick K do not think testimony relating to motive is evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    Chuck- even without the denied evidence, a rational jury would still have found him guilty. As evidenced by the 70% of people that think he deserves compensation, a jury of our pairs means that most jurors will be retarded – especially as the smart ones will probably get out of jury service or will be removed by the jury selection process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Reid posted at 11.19pm this opinion on those who support capital punishment:

    …They’re just great big silly mentals Jack.

    So those who executed the Nazi war criminals,or supported this, were mental, Reid? That includes Churchill and Attlee and our NZ politicians of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Paulus (2,591 comments) says:

    Whatever the Government does with Bain they will be damned by the media, and all the opposition parties, whatever.

    they will be damned for paying out Taxpayers money, or

    they will be damned for not paying out Taxpayers money.

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

    DISGRACEFUL ERRORS IN IAN BINNIE’S DISCREDITED REPORT HELP TO FIND ROBIN BAIN GUILTY.

    Another major error in the Binnie report. This error of “incorrect assumptions and or not reading the evidence correctly” by Binnie unfortunately connects Robin Bain to the murders, I cannot understand how such an error could have been made.

    From the Binnie report page 38

    David Bain told the Police at the initial interview after the murders that when he got
    home Robin had already collected the newspaper. This meant Robin was already inside the
    house.

    David Bain answers questions asked by Detective Dunne on the Tuesday after the murders.
    Q. When you came home did you bring a paper with you?
    A. NO.
    Q. Is one delivered?
    A. Yes, its delivered by Kieran Garbutt of 6 Mahon Street to the letterbox at home.
    He’s usually past our gate at a quarter to six.
    Q. Did you take that paper inside on Monday from the letterbox?
    A. No I didn’t.
    Q. {Just thinking}
    David: I haven’t thought about it until now. I normally would take it in but
    sometimes, if I walk my run, Dad may get it at 7am.
    Q. Do you remember if the paper was in the letterbox?
    A. NO I DON’T.

    It’s ironic that Ian Binnie in his report was highly critical of the Dunedin police for not following certain lines of investigation in the Bain case but at the same time when detectives did investigate and ask David Bain key questions about whether he had noticed the paper in the letterbox or in fact brought in the paper on the Monday morning Binnie then seems to have ignored the information and statements from David Bain that the police investigation had gathered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Good morning. :)

    Twenty four hours (almost) have passed and the circular argument folk are going still going around in circles.
    Relevant questions have been directed at some, but they are rarely answered. More often than not, the same cracked record played by the JFRB folk keeps turning – in one form or another.
    A few points to restore some sanity to the thread:

    • At 9.40am yesterday on the GE thread I posted”
    ” … Now, Granny Herald produces a poll this morning which says 74% (Yes, seventy four %) of New Zealanders say: “Enough is enough. Pay David Bain compensation for 13 years’ incarceration.”
    …. ….
    ” To recap: Bain was found guilty and served 13 years in prison before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council as being unsafe and “a substantial miscarriage of Justice”. The Crown Law Office ignored the Privy Council’s nudge and sent Bain to retrial – Not Guilty.
    ” Ergo, 13 years unjustified incarceration, says former and independent Canadian SC Justice (supported on points of NZ law by two (2) Auckland professors of law, Rishworth and Optican) Binnie. Pay the man, says Binnie.
    ” Lordy. Shock and horror in the crusher’s office, in Mike Heron’s Crown Law office and in the corral of the Molesworth Street cowboys.
    ” One thing is for sure about all this: when the MSM finally gets around to publishing Binnie’s report in full, and also publishes his full his response to the Porno Judge, the number in favour of compensation will rise to closer to 90%. There will, of course, always be idiots like the revisionists, the re-litigators, the red necks, and the cult-like JFRB groups.”

    And then later:
    • ” Graeme Edgeler (2,682) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    DPF – I’m not sure that you have yet explained why New Zealand evidence law is relevant to this assessment. In what other decision is the New Zealand cabinet bound by the rules of evidence that only otherwise apply in the assessment of whether someone has been proved guilty of a criminal offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt?”
    Given that Rishworth and Optican dealt with (clarified?) 23, or was it 28, esoteric points relating to NZ law, can you give us an answer to GE’s question?
    Perhaps FES or Nostalgia [or Nookin?] could help. ”

    • The Cabinet Manual or Cabinet Minute. Can someone point to the Statute Law that gives either any “legal” standing?
    Both, as I understand it, are internal operating procedure documents developed by bureaucrats, and embraced (or otherwise) by each successive Executive. Payments authorised by The Cabinet have to be made pursuant to some Statute Law (or specific regulation deriving power/authority from such law), do they not?

    • Is this whole question now one of Law or Politics?
    I believe it was Reid who argued, coherently, for the latter, saying he now placed the number of those who want the matter closed in Bain’s favour at 65%, and rising.
    As I posted yesterday, when the MSM finally get around to posting (a) Binnie’s email (on the hoof) from Geneva in response to media queries, (b) Binnie’s amended (in deference to Collins wish) report and conclusions, AND (c) Binnie’s demolition/pulverisation of Fisher, the number favouring an early and [properly generous financial settlement (Note: He has not, to my knowledge asked for the apology that Governments seem readily inclined to give in relation to matters of some 150 years ago :) ), the number will increase to about 90%.

    At that point any Govenment,m any politicakl party, would be a muggins to keep accepting the sort of advice that has seemingly been provided by the MoJ, Crown Law and the Molesworth Street Cowboys, would it not?

    So, again I say, Good Morning. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Another example of the affect of language was the advice given, by the judge, to the jury in David Bain’s second trial: “Any doubt is reasonable doubt.”

    CharlieBrown, I picked this up from another site so I cannot guarantee its accuracy. If true, the judge is wrong. When I was on a jury the judge said a reasonable doubt is a reasonable doubt.

    Did you hear what the juror said who wrote to Binnie? She did not believe David was innocent on the BoP but could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I heard her speak on radio and I would not want to criticise her when I did not hear any evidence.

    The issue here is not David’s guilt. He was found not guilty by a jury of which a number of jurors acted improperly. However, that cannot be changed.

    The main issue is if David can prove himself innocent on the BoP.

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

    ERRORS IN IAN BINNIE’S DISCREDITED REPORT HELP TO FIND ROBIN BAIN GUILTY.

    Another major error in the Binnie report. This error of “incorrect assumptions and or not reading the evidence correctly” by Binnie unfortunately connects Robin Bain to the murders, I cannot understand how such an error could have been made.

    From the Binnie report page 38

    David Bain told the Police at the initial interview after the murders that when he got
    home Robin had already collected the newspaper. This meant Robin was already inside the
    house.

    David Bain answers questions asked by Detective Dunne on the Tuesday after the murders.
    Q. When you came home did you bring a paper with you?
    A. NO.
    Q. Is one delivered?
    A. Yes, its delivered by Kieran Garbutt of 6 Mahon Street to the letterbox at home.
    He’s usually past our gate at a quarter to six.
    Q. Did you take that paper inside on Monday from the letterbox?
    A. No I didn’t.
    Q. {Just thinking}
    David: I haven’t thought about it until now. I normally would take it in but
    sometimes, if I walk my run, Dad may get it at 7am.
    Q. Do you remember if the paper was in the letterbox?
    A. NO I DON’T.

    It’s ironic that Ian Binnie in his report was highly critical of the Dunedin police for not following certain lines of investigation in the Bain case but at the same time when detectives did investigate and ask David Bain key questions about whether he had noticed the paper in the letterbox or in fact brought in the paper on the Monday morning Binnie then seems to have ignored the information and statements from David Bain that the police investigation had gathered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Paulus, regardless of the truth about Bain, the poll was flaky. There is no 50-50 split on Bain! And Chauvel is also a flake.
    Before you read the link below, which damns Chauvel, consider whether it is right for a potential Attorney-General to be championing Bain. Chauvel is further evidence that the Greens will soon be the major part of the Opposition in NZ.

    Chauvel’s famous promotion exposed http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/charles_in_charge.html#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rex
    Judith Collins is not shopping around for someone to write the report that she wants. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators of which you appear to be one. The only reason she has to get another report written is because Binnie’s was woefully inadequate. She knew that report would have never stood up to the test when presented to informed members of the public. We would have torn it to shreds and she knew that.
    So forget this “shopping around” nonsense.
    Personally I think she should ask Robert Fisher to do the job. He has the experience, I know that Bain’s supporters will wail and beat their breasts but why should we keep kowtowing to them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Jack5 (2,675) Says:
    December 29th, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Paulus, regardless of the truth about Bain, the poll was flaky. There is no 50-50 split on Bain!

    You are correct. The split was 73.9% for paying compensation, 19.9% against paying. 50-50 has long gone. The long and loud campaign of the JFRB group has caused many more people to take a closer interest in the case, now seeing just how many cock-ups were made by the original investigators. In foot ball that would be called an own goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    So Jack5, the Herald poll was “flaky” (not sure what that means, unless it is something only you can behold).

    My comment yesterday is the best response:

    ” 1. flipper (1,264) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Opinion polls are wonderful, are they not? [ :) ]

    When one agrees, one can say: “See, I told you so”.
    When one disagrees, one can say: “They are just rubbish (or worse)”

    So in 2011 the Nats, that I proudly helped [and worked bloody hard to that end] elect, got almost 49% of the vote (an unprecedented MMP high).

    But the naysayers screamed: “They have no mandate.” ”

    So, Jack, Chuck et al, please stop with the circular arguments. Do it. Pay the man.

    Oh, and memo to MoJ, Crown Law, and the “Molesworth Street Cowboys : Please apologise to Bain, and to taxpayers for your malfeasance. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Flipper posted at 9.55:

    When one agrees, one can say: “See, I told you so”.
    When one disagrees, one can say: “They are just rubbish (or worse)”

    So the whole study of mathematical statistics, of the need for true randomness, of arcane measures such as standard deviation and levels of confidence, all of this is just hocus-pocus?

    Statistics plays a huge role in our society, from the testing of products to analysis of health risks and consumer tastes, that to dismiss it as meaningless is ignorant.

    Incidentally, I think that Kiwiblog’s publisher/editor, DPF, is a statistician, and I understand he at one stage won a prize for mathematics, and is professionally involved in polling analysis. I back DPF’s conclusion on the Herald poll as expressed at the top of this thread:

    The results are reasonably meaningless.

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

    Flipper, your post from yesterday was ignored for a reason.

    Posting it again will have the same result, treated with ignore. Your repeating it is spamming.

    Instead of discussing your spam yesterday, others held a constructive debate; not the debate you wanted, but there is no need to ridicule it just because your comment got he treatment it deserved; it didn’t once get mentioned.

    Take the hint!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    More on Chauvel. He is usually regarded as an ethnic Tahitian, and may well describe himself as this. But his name is French, and he obviously has French genes, perhaps as many as Polynesian genes. So Chauvel is a Euronesian, like so many of the rest of us in NZ, including Hone Harawira, who is said to be of the Hatfield clan, who were in the English-speaking world’s most famous feud, with the McCoys.

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

    The only poll if this thing has to be poll driven, is one which asks

    “Do you think David Bain is a killer? Yes/No”

    I notice we still have too much of a habit of talking about “guilt” or “innocence”. I suspect it is a bit like the word “death” and its ilk. In life generally, we just can’t use the word like “death”. We have to say people passed away, and other euphemisms, to avoid actually saying that someone has died. Or in this case, that someone has killed.

    We like to speak in softer euphemisms, it’s softer, it’s socially nicer. Let’s call what we used to call a spade a spade (till that expression too became politically incorrect). David Bain killed. Got it? There are a thousand complications associated with the legal terminology “innocent”. Hundreds of books have been written on the complications.

    Ian Binnie was asked to investigate whether David Bain could prove his innocence. I suspect that if Binnie had been asked to determine whether “David Bain killed or not”, Binnie might have come up with a different answer. I think the difference between “is David innocent?” and “did David kill?” is incredibly profound.

    I challenge people here to talk about whether David Bain killed or not; instead of whether he is innocent or not.

    By a very long way, I know the case better than most ordinary New Zealanders, and my opinion is that David killed. Please don’t ask me though whether he is innocent of not. He killed, and that should be all that matters.

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

    As an example of the above:

    if I write to a newspaper and talk about David being a killer, the newspaper won’t publish my letter. But if I base the same letter around David not being innocent, the same letter gets published.

    Is it any wonder the “great unwashed” are confused? Most so confused that they have the legal situation completely wrong, and they just want it to end? Legally or not, the great unwashed just want it to end.

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

    Jack5 at 10.33

    Off-topic and blatantly racist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Dotcom: why racist? Racist to say someone is partly European? That’s sick. Please elaborate the reasoning behind your statement, or is it just a smear?

    And off-topic? Chauvel is championing Bain compensation and was raised in the first post in this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Dotcom, you surely seem to know more than most of us about the Bain case, but would you mind please also elaborating on your comment at 10.43:

    I know the case better than most ordinary New Zealanders

    Are you saying that you know the Bain case better than most OTHER ordinary New Zealanders, or that you are an extraordinary New Zealander and know the case better than most ordinary New Zealanders? Also, who are the extraordinary New Zealanders or other extraordinary New Zealanders.

    Footnote: Keep the posts coming. Can they reach 300?

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

    Because neither Chauvel’s skin colour, nor the derivation of his name, are of the remotest relevance to whether David Bain is entitled to compo or not. Your post was gratuitous racism. End of debate from my side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Scott1 (500 comments) says:

    flipper,
    Is there more to binnies response than what i would have seen from those links on scoop back when dpf origionally linked to them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    Dotcom (11.14 post): you are the only poster to mention Chauvel’s skin colour. I don’t even know what hue his skin is, and I don’t care what it is. It’s his politics and character that I find questionable.

    Chauvel is often described as NZ’s first Tahitian MP. Presumably you think that description is racist. Tahitian ethnicity has favourable connotations in the minds of most of us. What does “Tahitian” conjure in yours, Dotcom?

    If we aren’t to mention ethnicity then the word “Maori” will have to be barred from all debate. All iwi names will be out, too. And “Scots” and “Irish” and “English”. What will we call their rugby teams? And what will we call the Maori seats in Parliament?

    Under your views, derivation of names is out as well. So ban Ancestors.Com and genealogy groups.

    Get real! The cry of “racist!” or “racism!” these days is nearly always the last resort of someone with no argument to offer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Some “spam” dot (dolt? :) ) …..

    Are you really as silly as you indicate, or is it simply that in your dottage you cannot recognise your own fantasies?

    You and your like really are boring.

    All you have done in the past two weeks is regurgitate earlier fantasies.

    Your inability to respond, or comment sensibly, on views contrary to yours, is a clear indicator that you need urgent phshrink clinical attention. In another age you would most likely have been sent to Lake Alice. But this almiost 2013, so why not visit the Mason Clinic? (Or is it really a spell in Odyssey House that you need?) They may provide you with the necessary medication. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Muggins
    From your so called shoe theory in the three law professors post

    David told Police he wore a pair of Laser shoes on the paper run.
    They were located in his room and were inspected by
    investigators but through oversight were not sent for full ESR
    examination. The only forensic attention they received was a
    visual check during the trial. No blood was detected. … It has
    been confirmed in the course of our [post‐trial 1997 investigation
    by ESR] that the Laser shoes had no blood on them. (emphasis
    added)

    The lasers were NOT sent to ESR prior to the first trial they only had a visual examination, so now the ESR examined the other shoes and found blood traces?? Maybe you should check the facts before making up stories

    “David wore gloves on the paper round”
    Muggins I would expect this sort of stupid comment from you, maybe he wore the bloody gloves that he then wiped the rifle with and then placed them under Stephens bed once he returned from the paper round
    Ok I missed a 1 in my timing 11.30 not 1.30 big deal, is it really a normal think for Margaret to do at 11.30 on a Sunday?
    A lot of speculation but as I say check the facts first

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Your inability to respond, or comment sensibly, on views contrary to yours, is a clear indicator that you need urgent phshrink clinical attention.”

    The pot calling the kettle black.

    When will you or any of David’s fan club explain how or why Gareth would tell his wife about David’s ideas about the female joggers.

    Why should the following not be admissible.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Chuck
    “Your comment is most unfair on at least some members of the jury. I would be outraged if I was denied the following suppressed evidence” …
    Remember there was suppressed evidence both ways, the swimming pool conversation between Arawa and her friend where the friend was shown by Arawa where she could stick her finger and who had shown her this (am aware that at least Muggins thinks that this is a perfectly normal thing for a father to do to his daughter) also what a close friend of Margarets who was going to say how Margaret was worried about Robins depression to the point of what he might do to the family with a loaded gun

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

    Jack5, whatever
    flipper, whatever

    Kanz, we agree on something at last. The poll was flaky. And it was dated, and hence irrelevant. Doesn’t mean we have to ignore the pointers it gives us.

    Kanz, (asking a loaded question here, and not really expecting a genuine reply) but what do you think would be the outcome of a poll of 1,000 New Zealanders today, on this question?

    “Do you think that David Bain killed?”

    Of course, I know what your vote would be, Kanz, and you can tell us if you must, but what would be your prediction of the poll result. For mine, I think that about 75-25, or maybe even 80-20 would think he killed.

    Kanz, willing to have a stab? Anyone else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Chuck
    There was some effort to find the mentioned female prior to the retrial, it was not even established that she existed. I wonder why Taylor & Buckleys evidence didn’t come out for 15 years? Yet it is now ‘factual evidence’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Scott1..

    Sorry, dont know.

    I have simpl,y downloaded the PDFs and gone thru them all many times.
    I have also discussed them with non involved Barristers from Auckland and Wellington.
    They, like an Auck Uni Law Professor and former prosecutior of 30 years experience who wrote to the NZ Herald, believe that Binnie’s approach and conclusions were absolutely correct. They also noted Fisher’s proclivity to leaning toward “The Crown”, while actually saying that, by another route, he may reach the same conclusion.

    For myself, I have always been of the view (and have posted on KB to this effect) that whatever Binnie decided was acceptable to me, and final.

    In a Nation of just 4.4 million it is/will be impossible to find a truly “independent mind, or panel.
    H A N D :)

    Jack5…

    Good points all.
    Incidentally, Sir Douglas Myers, who needs no introduction, is married to a charming and beautiful Tahitan.
    But somehow I do not think Douglas would share Chauvel’s politics, though based on what I know of his views on the NZ Judiciary, he would probably deny them a pass mark on Bain and siude eith Binnie. Bob Jones, might be kinder toward the Judiciary, but we all know what he thinks of Collins.

    I guess the merry go round will continue. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    “What a number of people don’t realise is that Robin Bain wore glasses as well. His glasses were found in the caravan. He needed them for reading”
    Again Muggins check the facts, David was near-sighted, Robin was far-sighted, now why would he need glasses to do ‘read’ or type a message on the computer?

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

    Oh no. The Bain Poll just got hijacked. The “Three Professors mob” has turned up to argue forever on the irrelevant question of whether David Bain should have been convicted in 2009 or not.

    Guys, that issue is over. David Bain was found ‘Not Guilty’. This can never be reviewed again ever in the history of the world, no matter how many threads you want to take over debating it.

    David Bain will NEVER finish up back in a criminal court again, even if he comes out today and has a massive pang of conscience, and admits it. He can never be tried on the killing of his family ever again, or anything connected with it again.

    Get it?

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

    I also wonder what this poll question would produce?

    “If David were to admit he killed five people, should he still get compensation for being wrongly imprisoned?”

    I reckon 40 percent of New Zealanders would say he should be compensated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Reid posted at 11.19pm this opinion on those who support capital punishment:

    …They’re just great big silly mentals Jack.

    So those who executed the Nazi war criminals,or supported this, were mental, Reid? That includes Churchill and Attlee and our NZ politicians of the time.

    Jack that was a comment on those who think those who support the death penalty are being emotive and who are making knee jerk decisions.

    Reid, please don’t assume you know what I might be thinking, especially on a thread in which I have already said the exact opposite. I have not said that David Bain should receive no, so don’t put words in my mouth, and I won’t put words in yours.

    I have said (including saying on this thread), that because of Crown errors in the investigation and prosecution, David might be entitled to $50,000. If it gets the matter over and done with, give him the $50,000 to shut the killer up.

    Dotcom thanks for the clarification, however I myself still put you in the camp of those who don’t think he deserves any compensation whatsoever, since 50k is such a derisory figure that in my book you might as well be saying you don’t think he deserves any at all.

    I challenge people here to talk about whether David Bain killed or not; instead of whether he is innocent or not.

    By a very long way, I know the case better than most ordinary New Zealanders, and my opinion is that David killed. Please don’t ask me though whether he is innocent of not. He killed, and that should be all that matters.

    You raise a canard Dotcom. This question has already been determined by the system, years ago. It is now quite irrelevant to this issue as a political phenomena. See, the voters don’t actually give a fuck about whether or not he killed on the balance of probabilities since they see this question being an artificial one generated by the system in order to get out of recognising that it has failed. People in your camp who don’t think Bain should get a dime (or in your case a measly 50k) desperately cling to this test because it suits your vested interest which you have disguised as an intellectual conviction, in your own minds.

    However 65% and climbing of the voters who are the only ones who count in this issue have seen the system which is responsible for determining guilt or innocence try and fail time and time again to conclude Bain is guilty. This is all they care about and the extreme nature of the system’s attempts is the basis for their conclusion.

    So people like you and those politicians who think like you can bray all you like about how relevant it is to establish Bain didn’t kill on the balance of probability, but you’re talking to an increasingly empty hall. The only reason you and people like you can’t recognise this is because all of you second-guessed in your own minds everyone in the entire system long ago and decided that regardless of what all those real experts concluded, which is that he isn’t guilty, he is, in fact, in your own “expertise” guilty because you have apparently some special perspicacity which others don’t possess and you know, with certainty, the answer which hundreds of real experts haven’t been able to prove.

    And this puts you and people like you in the camp of the Don Quixote’s of this world on this subject, tilting at a windmill called ‘did he kill on the balance of probability’ when everyone else not in your camp has been looking at the real issue, which is ‘did the system which is the only one we have that makes these decisions, cause a man wrongly to serve 13 years and then fuck him around big time as it took move after move designed to make it as difficult as it possibly could for the wrongly convicted?’ And 65% of us and climbing, have decided the answer to the real question, is yes.

    That’s the issue, the only issue and while those of you in your camp would love to continue tilting at your stupid windmill, no-one else is interested, and consequently you will watch your supporters dwindle as voter after voter wakes up to the real question and makes up their mind based on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Chuck
    There was some effort to find the mentioned female prior to the retrial, it was not even established that she existed. I wonder why Taylor & Buckleys evidence didn’t come out for 15 years? Yet it is now ‘factual evidence’ ”

    Rowan, firstly I do accept there was some evidence from David’s side not allowed. This is a fault to a system that i think even Joe thinks should be changed. There obviously has to be a limit. We cannot have Bill told me that Mary him that sue overheard this conversation. However, if we are to keep the jury system they should not be kept in the dark.

    Did you watch the video?

    I have not seen the transcripts of the trial of depositions. However, I understand Buckley contacted police at least before the first trial.

    I would like to knew if Binnie seen this video. I find all these people very credible. Why did Binnie not want speak to them? Why Mrs Taylor lie about what her husband had told her about what David had told him 1990 out of his concern for his wife’s safety? Gareth Taylor told his wife about his concerns before the murders.

    I bought Joe’s books as this was after Thomas and David Dougherty. The police obviously did some things wrong so I believed Joe’s honest belief. Unfortunately, Joe like all of us cannot always spot an reasonably intelligent sociopath. He has made the mistake of accepting David’s word and based everything on that.

    It is most unfortunate we bring in a former activist judge who thrives on controversy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “David Bain will NEVER finish up back in a criminal court again, even if he comes out today and has a massive pang of conscience, and admits it. He can never be tried on the killing of his family ever again, or anything connected with it again.”

    Dotcom, you seem to have discounted perjury.

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

    No I haven’t. No defendants ever get charged with perjury in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “No defendants ever get charged with perjury in this country.”

    Nor should they. However, David is not a defendant. He is trying to defraud the taxpayer by telling lies under oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Why are you asking me questions on this thread that relate to another thread?
    Are you not allowed to post on that thread?
    As per usual you have got your facts wrong.
    I will point out your errors on the Three Professors thread.
    And Rowan,stop telling lies.
    I have never said that I think it is a normal thing for a father to do to point out to his daughter where her clitoris is. And as far as I am aware that girl only said that Robin showed her where her clitoris was, he didn’t touch her.
    I daresay when David was young he pointed to his penis and told him that was his penis. I am sure he wouldn’t have grabbed hold of it.
    You have to remember the Bain’s were unconvential.I mean in Papua New Guinea Robin and Margaret used to have sex out in the open.
    Now maybe you do that,but I certainly don’t.
    I know what you are trying to do Rowan. The word went out long ago,try to discredit muggins,anything to shut him up.
    Well,it ain’t going to work,not now,not ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird
    Yes I have seen the video, I agree Justice Binnie should have spoken to Taylor and Buckley, The judge on the suppression of the defence evidence also regarded the evidence as very credible.
    If Mark Buckley had the falling out with David (I’m not going to speculate either way) then maybe this is why he has come forward after this time. Maybe they could have investigated DBs comments about what was actually written on the Bayfield leavers remarks to see if this would give any credibility?
    To me you can debate the strength of both the defence and crown suppressed evidence till the cows come home but at the end of the day neither would swing the case very far IMO. Just as Binnie put the motive issues aside as not proving anything I would likewise.
    I to read the Karams books and also McNeishs, to me the crown argument wasn’t that strong, McNeishs pyschological theories a work of fiction based on very little fact, also what really swung me was reading that “In the grip of Evil” book which had extravagent theories, absolutely no evidence and was contesting things that weren’t in dispute.
    To me I find the crown argument very weak, it relies on heavily discredited evidence i.e. Jones fingerprints, Weirs lens and Hentschells footprints together with a very guilty mindset.
    What should Binnie find by looking at the cumulative effect of around 5 weak pieces of evidence? To me Robert Fisher’s report and criticism was far to academic and legalistic.
    Would be interested what actual evidence turned you?
    Regards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Chuck,
    If it can be proved that David Bain lied to Justice Binnie, would that mean he is guilty of committing perjury?

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

    Reid, fortunately the only voter who really counts, Justice Minister Collins, disagrees with your 900 words of elegant claptrap above.

    And one reason why Collins disagrees, is that some of us, brought it to her attention when the rumours about the Binnie report were bubbling under the surface.

    Yes, I have my causes that I believe in. In particular, I like observing the law. I like living in a country that respects the law. I have lived in countries that don’t respect the law, so I don’t take the law, like most New Zealanders do, for granted.

    I am a great fan of Albert Venn Dicey. Obviously you know who A V Dicey was, but for those who don’t, he was (about 100 to 150 years ago without me looking) a British legal genius and pretty well universally recognised as a legal genius.

    A V Dicey broke the law down to only three simple principles. Today they are commonly referred to as Diceyan principles. Two of the Diceyan Principles essentially say (using my liberal words) that society breaks down, when:

    a) When the law doesn’t apply equally to everyone

    b) When the law is unpredictable, or is applied unpredictably.

    In the Bain case, people — indeed a dangerously large number of people — want (b).

    If you sidestep the law when it suits, what’s to stop sidestepping the law when it doesn’t suit. Tyranny is the potential result. Remember this, Saddam Hussain was a freedom fighter when he came to power, as were most tyrants. You don’t think this could happen to New Zealand. You’re a dreamer. As with Zimbabwe, it can happen in half a generation. With disrespect for the rule of law, it can be just around the next corner.

    Not on my watch Reid ol’ buddy. This is much bigger than illegal compo for David Bain. This is Diceyan. This is The Rule of Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Rowan (2,066 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Pot calling the kettle black who is it that has the facts wrong? When were these shoes sent to the ESR?
    So STFU as I previously mentioned you need half a braincell to answer my questions and as you don’t appear to please don’t.
    All you have offered to any of the Bain threads is utter speculation

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

    Yeah, okay, I did say that David can’t be charged with anything to do with what happened in 1994.

    You are right (almost), Chuck. Not quite “perjury” per se — they are different sections of the Crimes Act — but David did lie under oath to Binnie, and yes, there is potential for him to be charged for this.

    Which only leaves one question, Chuck Bird. Are you going to take a private prosecution for this, because I guarantee you no official is going to, ever, no matter what.

    I know you have a bee in your bonnet about still hitting David for further criminality, but Chuck, the reality is that it will never happen. You might want it to happen, but your army of one on this, Chuck, is not going to cause it to happen. I’m with Reid on this one.

    Chuck, you have simply decided to argue with me on this, as arguing for the point of arguing, because it is me. You just wan to contradict me on something, and this is what you have set your sight on. Put your money where your mouth is Chuck.

    I’ll bet you my mortgage-free house against your mortgage-free house, that David will not have faced another criminal charge arising from the Bain family murders by, say, the next election date. And if you can’t take me up on this, then STFU on it. You are wasting New Zealand’s internet capacity on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Why should the following not be admissible.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    Because it shows what a freak and manipulative social misfit Bain is.

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

    Rowan
    Why are you asking me questions on this thread that relate to another thread?
    _________________________________________

    I agree, Rowan, why?
    Btw Rowan, consider this a rhetorical question that requires an answer in the form of action, rather than words.

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

    Rowan, you are not only bringing off topic debate to this thread, you are also bringing rancour with it, something that refreshingly, the debate here has mostly avoided.

    Rowan, without rancour, please go back where you came from.

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

    Reid basically you are demonstrating just how successful propaganda works. So what if a book come out that is clearly able to convince people that Robin is innocent after any payment based on innocence then Government going to have a lot of pissed off voter. Collins and Co are not that stupid.

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

    Muggins, without looking it up, it is in the vicinity of s111 of the Crimes Act, or in that general area. It is not “perjury” as such, but lying on oath carries the same penalty as perjury — seven years prison (?? again without looking it up ??).

    Btw, it is not uttering a false oath. It is making a false statement under oath, a separate crime. Very, very rarely prosecuted in all of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Reid, fortunately the only voter who really counts, Justice Minister Collins, disagrees with your 900 words of elegant claptrap above.

    At the end of the day she and the Cabinet are subject to the will of the people Dotcom and as I was saying last night, she and the Cabinet go against that at their peril. It’s a no brainer equation and it won’t go away or die down but will just keep getting worse, like a cancer. If Key had Hulun’s political skills, he would have already have compensated Bain and closed it down.

    b) When the law is unpredictable, or is applied unpredictably.

    I don’t agree it is being in this case. Both your side and my side agree I think that this is about justice seen to be done. However the reason you see this as being unpredictable is because you are convinced he killed and you can’t see this isn’t a factor in most people’s thinking because to you, it’s the only factor and nothing else matters.

    Well, other people don’t think about that, rather they think about the injustice of the process as it forced appeal after appeal and trial after trial.

    While someone intelligent can hold both concepts in their heads at the same time, most of the voters out there can only do one of the other because they are polar opposite concepts.

    The political reality is however what it usually is, which is that the emotion has spoken and people have plumbed for the peace and security inherent in the seen to be done Justice system, seen an injustice and factored that into their decision.

    Not on my watch Reid ol’ buddy. This is much bigger than illegal compo for David Bain. This is Diceyan. This is The Rule of Law.

    I don’t understand why it’s inconsistent to your position to reconcile your issue by using the simple legal principle that even if the defendant did it, if the court finds him not guilty, he isn’t liable. He may be culpable, but so what, when he isn’t liable? If he isn’t liable, then he isn’t liable. Is he. In that he is not subject to any penalty. And legally, the assumption of innocence that rests on all citizens unless proven by law otherwise, returns to rest on Bain’s shoulders just like it rests on all of ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Please refer to my answer on the Three Professors thread. If you have been banned from posting on it no doubt you can still read it.

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

    Well, how about that. Looked it up. It is s111. But it is 3 years prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Re perjury ,thanks.
    So if I could prove that David Bain lied to Justice Binnie,and I am not saying I can, it would be most unlikely that Bain would be prosecuted.
    Would it affect his claim for compensation?

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

    Not so Reid, don’t put words in my mouth in your elegant verbiage. By all means have your say. But don’t incorporate into your prolixity, a misrepresentation of what I said, or even what you think I might have said.

    More in a moment on this.

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

    And what a load of rubbish. The system didn’t force appeal after appeal, if offered appeal after appeal, which David took advantage of. Sheesh, what a propagandist you are (as gamefisher also alluded to above).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    I have managed to get Rowan back on the right thread, and,better still,he says he is not going to answer any more of my posts.
    Another one bites the dust.

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

    Nice way of thinking muggins. 100 percent with you on this. So good indeed, that I wish I’d thought of it myself.

    Have you been and had a look at s111 Crimes Act in the meantime?

    I suspect that a successful prosecution for lying under oath, would have a massive bearing on the outcome of a claim for compensation. Probably a fatal bearing. Not only that, but the filing of an “information” as it is called, asking that David answer in Court to a charge of lying to Binnie under oath, would hold up the decision which Cabinet is expected to be considering at the end of January.

    The only question would be one raised here by someone else on this thread yesterday. The question is that of “standing”.

    I imagine, but very unsure on this, that Justice for Robin Bain, as an authority which is being sued, has thereby acquired a huge interest in this matter, and would thereby have standing if it didn’t otherwise.

    Email me to discuss further
    dotcom@inbox.com

    You could file an information against David Bain on Monday, and it would have massive repercussions, instantly. It would have to be filed indictably of course. There is no fee for filing indictably.

    Well done you. Good spotting. You are assuredly onto something here. (All else is forgiven).

    File indictable information say, Wednesday, with statement of claim. The headlines start flying Thursday.

    Yes, Muggins, this has the potential to be a serious game-changer.

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

    For ‘statement of claim’ please read ‘summary of facts’.

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

    And remember this, muggins. Saying one thing to a policeman one day, then saying another thing which contradicts it to say, an Ian Binnie later;    means that at least one of them, prima facie at least, breached s111 Crimes Act, and hence is indictable.

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

    But we should shut-up now. We don’t know who’s watching.

    Look forward to your email, muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    The system didn’t force appeal after appeal, if offered appeal after appeal, which David took advantage of. Sheesh, what a propagandist you are (as gamefisher also alluded to above).

    I try to use words that reflect the nature of the thing I’m describing. As I stated above, this is an emotional issue based on injustice perceived to have occurred. Whatever you think of it in an intellectual context, is not relevant to this emotional component. It’s the same reason people call a firetruck when they see a kitten stuck up a tall tree. This is the sentiment behind the compensate Bain 65% and climbing and which you can’t fight against.

    People in that 65% don’t care about individual events, they care about the whole cycle to date and continuing and they see it as a total event series, that’s why I described it like that, from start to finish, because that’s how people see it. They don’t care that it was only after the PC decision and the decision to take a second trial, that this was when the wheels fell off.

    If I want to use propaganda, I’ll get a job in a Minister’s office, I don’t care to convert people on a blog to my arguments with propaganda and I’d be pretty disappointed if anyone quite so stupid actually was converted to my side after reading those five or so words, I wouldn’t want them in my camp, they can stay in yours and that would raise the IQ in both camps :)

    You know it’s just like a lawyer to raise a point of order like that. We’re not in court you know Dotcom :)

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

    Reid, no court has said that David Bain didn’t kill.

    Sure a court has said that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but this is not saying that he didn’t kill.

    You talk of the great unwashed (my term) not being able to hold in their collective heads two seemingly contradictory ideas. I like your description of this, and agree with the premise.

    But then you go on to show that neither can you hold in your head what you see as two seemingly contradictory ideas.

    Can I ask you a simple question, just for the sake of carrying on as we might if we were discussing it in my lounge room?

    Simple question. Do you think a killer should be compensated? I know it is hard to answer yes or no, but this is what I’m hoping against hope that you might be able to do. Otherwise the lounge room idea plunges over the cliff at the first hurdle. You’ll suspect a trick question, so you’ll explain in your prolix way why you can’t just answer just yes or no.

    Please try it. Reid, yes or no. Do you think a killer should be compensated? (Anyone else is welcome to play on a one-word “yes/no” basis)

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

    Btw, Reid. I’ve had the word “prolix” stored away in my head for years, for use only in crosswords and scrabble. Thank you for providing me with my first real-life opportunity to put it to good use. It has been a long time coming.

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

    Muggins, of course if the indictment for lying to Binnie failed, Judith Collins would have to be waiting at the courtroom door .. … … with her cheque book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Reid, no court has said that David Bain didn’t kill.

    Sure a court has said that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but this is not saying that he didn’t kill… Do you think a killer should be compensated?

    Yes.

    I’ve explained why above, but here goes again. Because even if he did it, the law, the only system we have which addresses this question, says he didn’t.

    Period.

    Over and out.

    Question answered, so now you tell us why this palpable injustice of messing around a person who didn’t do anything wrong, according to the system, the only system we have, which addresses this question, shouldn’t be compensated.

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

    Reid, then we will have to agree to disagree. You say that the law says that David didn’t kill.

    I say that the the law has not yet determined one way or the other, whether David killed. The law has not attempted to determine this question.

    And to answer your last question, it would be unlawful to pay compensation while the question of whether David killed or not, remains unresolved. Both Binnie and Fisher, and Collins as it turns out, agree with me, that the question of whether David killed or not has not been determined yet at law.

    But you and I, as I say, might just have to agree to disagree. You will not be convincing me. And clearly I will not be able to convince you. Leave it there.

    As you say yourself, over and out.

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

    Remember also muggins, that an indictment against David, would transfer the onus of proof back from David having to prove his innocence, to the private prosecutor having to prove that David lied to Binnie.

    Though in reality, and on balance, Cabinet is probably ready to break the law, and to waive the need for David to have to prove his innocence. I am not as confident as you are, that our National John Key government respect the law. Most likely now, is that John Key will do a North Korea, or a Taliban, and deliberately break the law to meet expedience.

    And Heaven help the long-term consequences for a country which is prepared to abandon the Rule of Law for convenience as and when it sees fit.

    Next time, it might be the other way round, and innocent people might be losing their freedom, for administrative convenience. And won’t the Green Party be kicking up a stink then. Well we’ll have brought it upon ourselves.

    I won’t be round to live through it.

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

    Geez, people love to throw the Magna Carta into the conversation as our magnificent salvation from all evil of the Crown. Comes into the debate in rank second only to Godwin’s probably.

    But where’s the Magna Carta in any of the above from the pay David compo brigade?

    Pay David compo with one hand, and rip up the last vestiges of the Magna Carta with the other. Fools.

    Over my dead body.

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

    > If it can be proved that David Bain lied to Justice Binnie, would that mean he is guilty of committing perjury?

    He did like to Binnie, on multiple occasions. He claimed he didn’t drive a car that weekend because he couldn’t drive without his glasses. But he did drive that weekend. He suggested his family was like the Waltons, one big happy family. That was nonsense. He hated his father. When Binnie called him on that, Bain bleated that something he said during a private conversation had been used against him. Why should that concern him? I would have thought the fact he found his siblings and parents dead, apparently murdered, would have been most distressing to him. Revealing details about a private conversation would presumably be inconsequential in comparison. The bigger issue is that in an unguarded moment he acknowledged to Val Boyd that he hated his father, a fact which he seemed unwilling to disclose to Binnie. But he was required to tell Binnie the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

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

    He did *lie* to Binnie

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

    When evidence detrimental to David’s case was cited by Binnie (B), David would typically say that he had no memory of the event in question, would simply deny the allegation, or would criticise the witness or raise doubts about the accuracy of their evidence. For instance,

    Page 8: B says there was “a locking door, that you had the key and that you controlled access to the lounge and was quite restrictive insofar as your father was concerned and letting him in to use the computer.” David denied this was true.

    Pages 10-11: B mentions that there was a target with 5 circles in David’s bedroom. The targets had numerous bullet holes. David claimed that his father had created the target.

    Page 12: B asks David when he last used the rifle. David replies “Roughly January or middle of February”. (According to Bill Wright, who prosecuted at David’s first trial, David’s fingerprints were found on the rifle in “pristine” condition after the murders.)

    Page 14: “Jan Clark said that your mother told her on one occasion that she felt that you were dealing inappropriately with your brother and sisters, that you had been taking…on too much responsibility.” David denied this.

    Page 17: B refers to two witnesses who said David was the “instigator” for bringing Laniet home that fateful weekend. David denied this, but also said he had no recollection. On page 22, you quote a witness who said David had “gone to the museum cafe and talked her into coming home.”

    Page 18: Q: Did you sense any reluctance at all on the part of Laniet to come home on that weekend? A: No. (This contradicts evidence from other witnesses.)

    Page 19: David: “one of the pleasurable aspects of our family is that we all supported each other, we had good relations and we liked being in each other’s presence.” (This is contradicted by various witnesses.)

    Page 24: B refers to a witness (Jan Clark) who said David had been wearing Margaret’s glasses. David: “I can’t remember that actual conversation…I don’t think I would have said that to her.”

    Page 24: Q. Had you been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses at any point since the Thursday, I think it was, when you took your glasses in to be fixed? A. No. No, I haven’t thought of them, seen them, worn them, let alone wear those glasses at any time that (inaudible).

    Page 29: Q. …there’s some evidence that you did the paper route earlier than usual, is that correct? A. It’s incorrect. I did it at exactly the same time I always did it. (This is contradicted be several witnesses.)

    Page 45: Q. Did you – why didn’t you, at that point, call emergency? A. I’m sorry, I can’t give you any rational answers from this point on.

    Page 49: After B draws attention to statements that David gave to police on June 20, statements that he does not recall making, he infers that police may have made mistakes in their hand-written note-taking. (How is David unable to recall the statements he made to police, yet clearly recall that police did not record his statements accurately?)

    Page 52: B reminds David he told police that a V-necked green sweater found in the washing machine was worn by Arawa. In his interview with B, he said it was Robin’s.

    Pages 55-56: B refers to evidence from ambulance officers claiming that David feigned having a fit. David denied doing this.

    Page 57: After B refers to evidence regarding scratch marks on David’s chest, he said: “that’s just proven to be ridiculously false.” (Two witnesses testified at his retrial they had seen scratch marks on his chest days after the murders.)

    Page 60: David informed police that he was the only one who knew the location of the trigger lock key. He told B, however, that “it’s been proven that that is probably false by the fact that there were spent cartridges in my father’s van.”

    Page 72: Q. I mean, it is put forward to establish that you were quite a disturbed man. A. Well, yes, I was disturbed. (David admits to being disturbed, a comment which B seemingly ignores.)

    Page 74: Q. But you do say that these experiences, whether it’s blanking out or day dreaming or trances or deja vu, that the intensity and frequency seems to have increased in the time leading up to June 20th, is that right? A. Oh, I’m – apparently – I’d say that and I have no memory of saying that. Q. Well, I’m asking for your view now. A. Now, I have no memory of the frequency increasing or decreasing at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Rowan, I will tell you when I started to be swayed and that was during the second trial. I was pleased to hear the PC decision. I cannot say exactly when I started to have my doubts about David’s innocence but I think it was a little before the second trial. Joe was trying to avoid the trial when that was what I thought he went to the PC for may have helped with my doubts.

    I went weekly to a sports club and we would stay for a meal there on club nights. There was this woman there who strongly believed David did it. She followed things more than me. Sometimes the two of us would discuss the case more often it would be a group. After the verdict on the evidence that has been discussed here I thought a guilty man had got off. I was not that upset as if would not be the first or last time that had happened. I thought many members or the jury thought even if he is guilty he has done 13 years which is maybe a little less than average for a murderer. However, if he is innocent we would be imposing a great injustice on someone who has already done as much time as most for murder.

    When the suppressed evidence about the alibi came out I started to swing strongly to the David did in point of view.

    Reading Fisher’s review and most of Binnie’s interview of David make me think it is highly likely David did it.

    I have to do a little checking but I believe that Buckley others about David’s idea of an alibi before the murders. Even if Buckley have a grudge against David why wold he make up a story involving the alibis before the murders if David had not told him.

    I do think it reasonable to expect to locate a female jogger who used to have a morning jog around David’s paper run 22 years ago. She could be overseas or maybe not still alive.

    When I find out when Buckley first spoke of David’s fantasy alibi I will come back to you. David did not tell Gareth Taylor about the alibi but he did speak to him about sexual offending he was considering and Taylor told his wife before the murders.

    If you were doing Fisher’s job would you have accepted David’s word about Buckley and the goat?

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

    It would be interesting to know how many witnesses David contradicted or disagreed with in his interview with Binnie. It would probably exceed 20. What are the odds that so many people with no axe to grind would be wrong, and the one person with an axe to grind – David – would be correct?

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

    Chuck,

    Gareth Taylor informed police before the first trial about David’s plan to rape a jogger. I believe Buckley came forward later.

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

    In New Zealand, anyone can file an information alleging a crime has occurred. Anyone needing a pointer to this, is welcome to find out more from me by email. The relevant legislation is the Summary Procedures Act (even though it isn’t a summary procedure, I assure you it is here), plus the Crimes Act.

    As you have already seen above, it appears that David Bain might have breached s111 Crimes Act, in what he said to Ian Binnie. The shaved bits of s111 are:

    “”FALSE STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS

    “” Everyone is liable to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before (a cop, a Binnie or a justice of the peace etc) makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.””

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    ross69
    With all due respect none of those”lies” you mention are provable.
    I am checking on something that might be a “provable” lie.
    David Bain’s supporters know what I am talking about.
    If it turns out I am wrong,so be it.
    But if it turns out I am right,goodbye compensation.
    I hope to have a definitive answer early in the New Year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Of course we all know the goat story is a lie,but we can’t prove it is a lie.
    Buckley can say that David Bain is lying about that goat and Bain can say he saw Buckley shagging that goat.

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

    > But if it turns out I am right,goodbye compensation.

    He is most unlikely to get compo whatever happens from here.

    But FWIW it’s simply not credible that all those witnesses who said damaging or negative things about him are wrong.

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

    > As you have already seen above, it appears that David Bain might have breached s111 Crimes Act, in what he said to Ian Binnie.

    I’m sure police would never prosecute even if they believed he lied. No need to give the cult of Bain more oxygen.

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

    There is a trade-off. As things stand, in theory David still has to prove his innocence.

    But I think the chances of this actually occurring are dwindling by the day, and by the time of a Cabinet meeting at the end of January, the need for David to have to prove his innocence will have dwindled at possibly even a Prime Minister level.

    So realistically, I don’t think David will ever have to prove his innocence.

    The way of forcing his hand, is to charge David under s111 Crimes Act.

    But of course, this changes the onus from David’s proving his innocence, to the private prosecutor proving that David lied to Ian Binnie. (There is the remotest of possibilities that Crown Law might also think that David lied to Binnie, but I wouldn’t rely on this one.)

    BTW, don’t even think about going to police and reporting it as a crime. If you do, you lose control of it to the Crown. Remember, anyone can charge a person — in the District Court — with a crime. But the charge next requires a Judge to sign the summons calling the alleged criminal to come to Court to answer the charge. The charge must be laid in the District Court nearest to the person’s home or business who is laying the charge (with a few exceptions).

    When the Judge signs the summons, the District Court returns it to the private prosecutor, who then has to serve it on the person named in the information.

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

    So IMHO, it’s a case of standing by and watching David get compo by public apathy. Or ask David to defend a charge of making false statements to Binnie. If you lot don’t charge him, I will. I think the people to do it though, are those with strength of numbers, Justice for Robin Bain. Keep us posted.

    Where are you Kent?

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

    The best provable lies, are when David told police or the court, something in 1994/95 … …
    then told Binnie something different.

    Remember though, that there has to be criminal intent (mens rea). It has to be INTENT to commit a crime, for the crime to stick.

    You need to be able to prove that he both committed the crime (lying), and that he meant to lie.

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

    The point about the contradictions between the 1994/95 evidence and what he said to police, is that you don’t have to prove which one is the lie (though it helps if you do). In such a situation, one of the two statements must be wrong, and a crime.

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

    Having said that about intent (mens rea), mens rea is almost always inferred by the decision maker, from the circumstances.

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

    Another thing. A case brought against David for lying to Binnie, would almost certainly end up being heard by yet another jury. And if the Crown or Court does not stipulate a jury, then David as the defendant would have the option of requesting a hearing before a jury.

    IMHO, a jury is likely to be more friendly to David than a judge would. Others may see this differently. Discuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    One the guys here must be Bain himself. No doubt about it.
    Self-confession is welcome.

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

    On second thoughts. you can only go for lying to Binnie. You can’t go for lying in 1994/95. The 1994/95 one would be seen as double jeopardy.

    The 2012 lies are a new instance, and David has no double jeopardy protection for anything he might have done this last year.

    So who can prove that David lied to Binnie?       dotcom@inbox.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815
    Buckley did not come forward until 2007.though he had mentioned it privately to other people in 1994,apparently,after he heard of the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    I might be able to prove that David Bain lied to Binnie. There again I might not.

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

    David lied when he said he hadn’t used his mother’s glasses and hadn’t seen them for a year. He told his lawyer he’d used them, as well as telling an aunt. David told Binnie: “I don’t think I would have said that to her.” Hmmm “he doesn’t think?” Surely if he knew he hadn’t worn them, he would have been more definitive. Something like “I could not have said that because I know I wasn’t wearing them”. His equivocal comment is not what I would expect.

    He also said he couldn’t drive without them, and of course he drove that weekend…so presumable wore the glasses while driving.

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

    In proving that David lied to Binnie in 2012, you could of course rely on David’s evidence from 1994/5 — not as part of your claim, but as part of your proof. Or of course, you could rely on proof in the physical evidence.

    Muggins, at 6.43, might be your last chance to stop compensation, and last chance for justice for Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    ross69
    Yes ,we know David lied about those glasses,but we can’t prove that. His word against hers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Nothing to do with the first trial.
    This only came up at the retrial.
    And David only mentioned it to Binnie,apart from a brief mention at that injustice conference.

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

    >Yes ,we know David lied about those glasses,but we can’t prove that. His word against hers.

    But why would she lie? Why would Michael Guest agree pre-trial with Bill Wright that Bain would not contest that he wore the glasses?

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

    It’s a question of “what a jury would believe”. All that matters is, if you think you can get a jury to return a guilty verdict, then you file a charge in the District Court. Of course you have to assume that David would not enter the witness box.

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

    ERRORS IN IAN BINNIE’S DISCREDITED REPORT HELP TO FIND ROBIN BAIN GUILTY.

    Another major error in the Binnie report. This error of “incorrect assumptions and or not reading the evidence correctly” by Binnie unfortunately connects Robin Bain to the murders, I cannot understand how such an error could have been made.

    From the Binnie report page 38

    David Bain told the Police at the initial interview after the murders that when he got
    home Robin had already collected the newspaper. This meant Robin was already inside the
    house.

    David Bain answers questions asked by Detective Dunne on the Tuesday after the murders.
    Q. When you came home did you bring a paper with you?
    A. NO.
    Q. Is one delivered?
    A. Yes, its delivered by Kieran Garbutt of 6 Mahon Street to the letterbox at home.
    He’s usually past our gate at a quarter to six.
    Q. Did you take that paper inside on Monday from the letterbox?
    A. No I didn’t.
    Q. {Just thinking}
    David: I haven’t thought about it until now. I normally would take it in but
    sometimes, if I walk my run, Dad may get it at 7am.
    Q. Do you remember if the paper was in the letterbox?
    A. NO I DON’T.

    It’s ironic that Ian Binnie in his report was highly critical of the Dunedin police for not following certain lines of investigation in the Bain case but at the same time when detectives did investigate and ask David Bain key questions about whether he had noticed the paper in the letterbox or in fact brought in the paper on the Monday morning Binnie then seems to have ignored the information and statements from David Bain that the police investigation had gathered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    Dotcom. Do you think it likely Bain will sue anyone; slander, libel? I think he believes he is innocent. (Does this give you an idea?)

    I have to say the NZ Herald has decided the issue is not innocence. It has decided compensation should be paid, based on the Binnie Report and a gaggle of dunces. I know that for a fact.

    I think there is enough, some of it your work, to reinforce Collins’ fort. I hope someone is mining the paydirt in the blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Reid (16,179 comments) says:

    I have to say the NZ Herald has decided the issue is not innocence. It has decided compensation should be paid, based on the Binnie Report and a gaggle of dunces. I know that for a fact.

    Hooray. Even the media is getting it now. About time.

    I think there is enough, some of it your work, to reinforce Collins’ fort.

    Do you? But Dotcom’s “work” isn’t related to the main issue of the political phenomena which is driving the Bain polling.

    So since this isn’t addressing the issue currently assailing “Collins’ fort,” how do you conclude it’s helping?

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

    Dennis re quote” Do you think it likely Bain will sue anyone; slander, libel?”

    Yes I believe it is posible and most likely given the tenure of the supporters behaviour so far, the counterspin situation is on hold and I think it is a stalling tactic and if the Government don’t specifically make a payout for the inheritance he will sue for that as well. Once on a roll could target many people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. RF (1,363 comments) says:

    Stuff the Herald. I would be more interested in a poll from the ODT.

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/62748/fewer-nzers-think-bain-is-not-guilty-survey

    you can vote here to then see the results

    http://www.odt.co.nz/polls/59909/do-you-agree-with-not-guilty-verdicts-david-retrial?t=1356770637

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    To receive compensation Bain MUST show innocence on the basis of probability (AND persuade cabinet he deserves it).

    The second trial was a travesty. Maybe the prosecution was weak but some jurors were bored and foolish. Nothing we can do now.

    The Binnie Report is deeply flawed. The reasoning is wrong AND the conclusion is wrong. The state need not accept it and it hasn’t.

    Reid, you are arguing that Bain should be compensated because the state did not present a strong enough case against him to convict him in the second trial. That it’s our fault he wasn’t convicted. Lucky, isn’t he?

    Bain can never show he’s factually innocent on the basis of probability because he isn’t. Robin didn’t kill himself, of that I am 99.99% certain. There is a very small likelihood David was set up by a third party. Clumsy though, the suicide “note” was the work of a twerp.

    The police might have conducted, especially with benefit of hindsight, a better investigation. True. But there is ample forensic evidence Robin did not kill himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    i would like to see a poll done of Dunedin residents who were at least 15 in 1990. I have heard plenty of stories about David. If anyone was shagging a goat it would on the balance of probability more likely be him rather than someone he is accusing.

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

    Shit this has the makings of a fantastic headline in the daily papers. International news, I’m sure.

    I’m trying to think of a way to make something happen. Not new, but a new slant on what many of us have already discussed. All hands to the deck please with enhancements.

    I think that Judith Collins should announce publicly in the new year, that she will further consider David Bain’s claim for compensation when at least one of the dubious facts that David has claimed in his submissions to Justice Binnie can be authenticated.

    For example, David Bain blatantly tried to discredit one of the Crown witnesses who gave lawful evidence against David in the 2009 trial.

    David Bain has done this through making unsustainable and lewd statements to Justice Binnie in respect of this witness. David Bain made some utterly unacceptable claims in an attempt to unfairly influence the determination of his compensation claim.

    David Bain told Justice Binnie that he (David) had witnessed something on the Bain property many years ago, which cannot in any way be permitted to stand unchallenged in a rights-focused New Zealand. David Bain informed Justice Binnie that he had seen the witness performing a sexual deviancy on the Bain goats which were being kept on the Bain property.

    In the circumstances, Collins should announce that the Bain compensation enquiry will be held in abeyance until such time as the claimant Bain can show that the dubious information as adduced:   (a) has integrity that can be substantiated to at least a standard of balance of probability;  and (b) was not a tortious attempt to improperly influence the outcome of the compensation process.

    I think that David would have some difficulty in satisfying either (a) or (b) above. Good luck David Bain. If I get my way, David, you are about to be hoist by your own petard.

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

    Btw, if it helps anyone, the word tortious is pronounced “torshus” (4th last line) and it means wrong at law.

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

    The word “malicious” is screaming out at me, and demanding to be given a role in the above submission.

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

    And who in their right mind, doesn’t think that it might have been Joe’s idea for David to have just happened to have the school year book with him when David spoke to Binnie. Two in one stroke, hoist by their own team petard. Whoopee. David, you can thank Joe for everything, including the rope that is now about to hang you.

    Great line someone came up with. A male goat is a BILLY. A female goat is a NANNY.
    So presumably a hermaphrodite goat is a BINNIE. Loving it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    I see you have been burning the midnight oil again,and to good effect,I might add.
    I think I said a hermaphrodite goat is called a Binnygoat. Bi—nny.

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

    Dotcom good work people have said the goat accusation could bite Bain back in the bum and you have shown why. No wonder Joe has to be the spokesman and if Bain was interviewed by a panel of three unbias Judges they will make micemeat of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    As much as it will pain me to see Bain made wealthier than me and nearly everyone else in the country, people who have worked hard and contributed much, simply because the second jury wouldn’t act on their instincts and the normal and decent argue with the dullards and zealots … at the risk of a bollocking from Tony … it seems to me we need to address the structural defects in our legal system. These lawyers are self serving parasites who savour the adversarial system.

    Examining magistrates to lead investigations into serious crime
    Panels of judges, maybe with some jurors to represent the common man
    Judges to be inquisitorial not babysitters or referees
    No right to silence
    Rights of appeal limited, Criminal Cases Review Commission to arbitrate
    Introduce science-orientated people into the system. People who love truth
    The winner should be the people, not some cunning lawyer.

    Something is seriously wrong with our system. This proves it. We want a justice system. (Just thinking aloud.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    ross69
    Re the glasses. You ask why David’s aunt would lie.
    Q. We’ve heard from the Trustees that there was enough money in the estate for this large house to be built.
    A. Sorry,it’s not my place to speak on behalf of the executors.
    Q. But the estate was actually distributed later and you were one of the beneficiaries of the estate,weren’t you.
    A. Do I need to answer these questions?
    Q. I’m just asking you.Are you afraid to answer for some reason.
    A. Not at all. Yes,I was. And so were all Margaret and Robin’s sisters and brothers.
    Q.Just to be clear,how many of you benefited.
    A. Six of us.
    Q. So six of you shared equally in the proceeds .
    A. Yes.

    No prizes for guessing why those questions were asked.
    And it caused one David Bain supporter,when posting on another public website,to refer to the witness as “his greedy aunt”.
    Binnie should have asked more questions of David Bain re that conversation. Put it to him bluntly “Would your aunt have any reason to lie about that conversation you say you can’t remember?”
    Binnie also asked Bain “Is it true that you said that you had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses,to which Bain replied ” I don’t think I would have said that to her”.
    Once again Binnie should asked another question. “Would your aunt have any reason to lie about that?”
    And why did Binnie not ask Bain why he told his lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing the glasses that were found in his room. He told his lawyer he would admit to wearing them on the Sunday and the days prior.
    Why no question from Binnie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dennis
    You have hit the nail on the head.
    Unfortunately changes to the system take years.
    Judith Collins has already been asked about removing the right to silence,but she reckons it wouldn’t make any difference because some criminals are convincing liars.
    I honestly believe that if Bain had been allowed to be cross-examined at the retrial, even though he is a convincing liar,he would have been found guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00288/biggest-changes-to-criminal-justice-system.htm
    There have been some recent changes to the justice system,but they don’t go far enough.

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

    > ross69 Re the glasses. You ask why David’s aunt would lie.

    Well, we don’t know if the six relatives all benefitted equally. We don’t know anything about how the estate has been distributed. The sale of 65 Every St didn’t happen until 1996.

    I also said that Michael Guest agreed pre-trial that the evidence re the glasses wouldn’t be contested.

    That’s the problem with believing David is innocent – you have to believe that there has been this huge conpsiracy against him by so many different people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    A reminder to the dolts and dunces, zealots and bigots.

    The first requirement is that Bain be factually innocent, not that Binnie be treated with the respect he doesn’t deserve. Binnie is not part of the justice system. He was asked for a considered opinion and he delivered a hugely expensive crock.

    For the purposes of awarding compensation, a panel from Cabinet to interview Bain, as already suggested. Just pick a part of the case against him, such as Robin’s death.

    Letter to Herald:

    [Mr Binnie's argument that David Bain is factually innocent seems to be based on (1) One problematic footprint in an incomplete series of partial prints, (2) That Robin Bain killed himself, a narrative is so far fetched it could reach the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, (3) That he found David plausible.]

    A “note” on a computer, a magazine on its edge millimetres away from Robin’s hand, no fingerprints on the rifle. Suicide? Yes, possible. No others’ blood on him. Yes, possible. But it was a very awkward shot. Yes, possible, Mr Reed QC showed that. But he didn’t show it was likely. The magazine dropped on its edge? Impossible. Placed? Possible. Why under the table and not on the table or in the pocket? Ask the audience or phone our friend?

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

    Just for people like me, can someone explain the full significance of the bestiality allegation?

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

    Good post Dennis Before the last trial I was of the opinion jury trial in their present set up are long past their used by date and now we have seen the inner workings I can see why. What surprises me that the court don’t use more technological aids eg computer simulations etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    muggins. Some criminals may be convincing liars but liars usually trip themselves up eventually under pressure. Bainie is a parrot. I watched the speech at the conference. Codswallop. He smiles too much.

    The simple fact is men love their mothers. No man could ever recover from his father killing his mother enough to smile about it. Bainie has a mental picture that does not represent reality. He’d lose his place on the page under pressure. That’s why the rhinoceros guards him from unprepared questions.

    I think Judith is wrong. I am bound to say I wouldn’t regard myself as a natural supporter of Collins, but I think she is absolutely right on this one and I admire her guts. I am also very grateful to her. And I have conveyed that to her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Dennis, i do not think you are on your own being opposed to the adversarial system. I am still awaiting to get to the District Court on a Civil matter to recover an outstanding debt from a former lawyer who fancied himself a developer. I would hope to win my case in Court but stand little chance of recovering the debt. For that reason I am representing myself as there is no since throwing away good money after bad.

    Unfortunately, many Judges do not like people representing themselves. I certainly would like to see a change from the adversarial system where Judges are more interested in justice than that all the “i”s are dotted and “t”s are crossed.

    Ordinary people should be able to represent themselves in Court more easily.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    There have been some amazing insights posted here. A lot of thoughtful people and I thank you all for explaining so much to me. Even Reid taught me how to skim and skip.

    I don’t dismiss anything in David’s favour lightly, but I just don’t see anything except lies and innuendo. It doesn’t make any difference if Robin did have a reason to stop allegations of incest, or that there is a remote possibility he could have shot himself the way he did, he had nothing to gain by sparing David, and everything to lose, as we have seen. It just doesn’t make any sense at all, even if he were severely disturbed, and there is no evidence he was. Unhappy, probably. That would be a normal reaction to a loony wife and a difficult son, without them keeping him out of his own house, which they did.

    That some people cannot see this, is the reason democracy has got our world into a mess. A few clever bastards manipulating a flock of sheeples (and taking the rewards of their labour).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    Well, everyone has a reason to be here, Chuck. Mine is the high personal cost. Every time I see Reed I throw the TV out the window.

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

    In his 60 Minutes interview with Melanie Reid, David was asked how he felt about people thinking he was guilty. He replied: “You would think that whether you believe I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say ‘well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…’” He later says he probably would’ve spent 30 years in prison because he would not have admitted guilt. (He apparently thinks that 13 years is long enough for killing your family.)

    “I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there” (Hmmm so his innocence is based on a core belief.)

    “Well the argument I would give is what family in NZ or in the world for that matter isn’t dysfunctional to some degree…we were no different to anybody else.” (His family was no different to anyone else’s! He really does have difficulty telling the truth.)

    http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-The-David-Bain-Interview/tabid/59/articleID/5577/MCat/22/Default.aspx

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

    Not burning the midnight oil, peops, different clocks setting from you.

    If we are talking to the public, say in letters to the editor, we ought to prefer use the more commonly used expression “bullet clip” (even though not technically correct), in preference to ‘magazine’ (esp when used without ref to bullet magazine). The use of the word “magazine” is not public-friendly. People conjure up a picture of Women’s Weekly or the Mass Murderers Monthly, and wonder how the hell it could be sitting on its narrow side.

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

    > He smiles too much.

    If you watch his interview with Melanie Reid, he frequently smiles, even when talking about things that ought to be difficult and which he says are difficult!

    I find it hard to believe that he thinks that 13 years is an adequate sentence for murdering his family and that he should be able to “get on with life”. That shows what he really thought about his family.

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

    Oh and I liked the advert during the Bain piece on TV3 where a woman tells her hubby that the commute was murder. :)

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

    Can someone explain to me please the significance of the allegation of bestiality?

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

    Back over on the Three Profs thread, ross69 made a very pertinent observation about what David said at Perth. Quite rightly, ross69 observes that David recounted something that points to David’s story being a crock of .. and confession to mass murder.

    But the Perth speech had in it an example of David saying something that was a much more profound confession of mass murder. Yet to my knowledge, no-one has ever spotted it. Clue, I recommend reading the transcript of the speech, rather than listening to the sickening bile of Perth video clip. The video will cause mass vomiting. You will not need to read far into his speech to see where he virtually confesses to mass murder.

    So not wanting to tread on your toes, ross69, your point is incredibly valid about David:

    a) on return from the paper round and finding L, A, M and S bodies
    b) supposedly not knowing where his Dad was when he came in from the paper round
    c) “all I wanted” said David “was to find my Dad”
    d) this was earlier than Robin’s normal entry-to-the-house time
    e) yet David desperately wanting his Dad, didn’t look for him where he was likely to have been – in the caravan?

    So according to a 2010 David Bain confession to mass murder in Perth,

    Why didn’t David look for his Dad in Dad’s caravan?
    and the $64,000 answer is .. .. ..

    Because David knew that his Dad was already lying murdered on the lounge floor.

    But … …
    like I say, there was a much, much, much more direct confession to mass murder in Perth than the above one.

    More soon.

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

    Clue: In Perth, David Bain confessed to seeing something that all of you J for RB people know David could not have seen if Robin had been the murderer.

    More soon … ….

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

    Clue:   In the Perth speech, David made this “confession” twice.

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

    Clue:  In the Perth speech David confesses, twice, to having seen something that only the murderer could have seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    Hello folks. Haven’t read all of this so I apologise. Good comments from Rex and Flipper on procedure. Good comments by Reid also on the gnarly politics, Kanz and Rowan on the evidence.

    I’m still surprised that many have not grasped that what Collin’s wants to do is not without examination. This has been discussed in other threads earlier, Collins took advice that the Binnie report could be subject to review. In fact she must be fair and just in how she acts, at the moment she’s looking like one of the ‘hangbainer’ crowd and not a politician. She’s lied about the content of the report before being forced to release it. She has also claimed that David Bain would not be happy with it, that it went beyond its mandate – all simply untrue. Collins has placed an albatross around her neck and Key is asleep at the wheel as his errant women ministers continue to run amuck out ‘manning’ him. He needs to grow a backbone, he’s not even the shadow of Muldoon.

    This poll shows the disaster of Collin’s behaviour. She is right out of touch with New Zealanders whose interpretation of fairness is very high by world standards, she is out of touch with the Bain case and Binnie report. She has neither the intellect or political savvy to negogiate something which it appears she has a ‘cult’ like obsession with. Her experience in Law is limited and she is outshone by all that inquired into the Bain case with international experience. Rex entered NZ’s position on Compensation at the UN, Collins is portraying our backward policy on it, and the inepitude that a person of insufficent understanding of the law – or indeed ability to be neutral, as a haphazard peril. I’m glad I’m among the 74% majority not driven by hate. The fight endures. Someone has broken an agreement elsewhere and for that he will be taken to task, in the same place the Minister may yet find herself, in the Courts.

    I’ll take a look in later to see how many of the ‘going round in circles’ crowd have convinced themselves of being ‘right thinking New Zealanders.’

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

    Dotcom,

    Binnie does ask Bain why he looked in the lounge for his father. He replies that that was where he spent a lot of time and had influence. That should’ve given Binnie a clue that David could have expected that Robin would be there, but instead Binnie says it was “incompetent” of David for Robin to enter the house first.

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

    Hoist by his own petard again.

    David couldn’t resist the temptation to tell the world about his persecution.

    But criminals and liars have a tendency to get tripped up by their own lies.

    And David tripped himself up in Perth in 2012, (sorry, not 2010 as I typed before).

    Perth was March 2012, and David hoist himself by his own petard, because he couldn’t resist telling his “poor me, poor me” tale of woe to his lapdog audience. David forgot that people like me, not a David lapdog, would also be paying attention.

    … ….

    Twice he confessed to mass murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    “and the inepitude that a person of insufficent understanding of the law – or indeed ability to be neutral, as a haphazard peri”

    No offense, but I think I prefer the credentials of all the law professors who also said Binnies report was flawed over someone whose not a lawyer and never studied law, claiming that Collins was wrong.

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

    Nostalgia arrives just in time to sabotage the thread.

    Clue:      Nostalgia knows exactly where I’m going here, and Nostalgia is in panic mode.

    Hence the crap post to divert your attention.

    I strongly recommend not reading it, and not answering it. We have a much more important issues at hand.

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

    Clue:  Up until Perth, everyone has believed that the solving of the whodunit is only available from the bedrooms of S and R, that there is nothing in the L, A or M bedrooms, that points to who the mass murderer was.

    What David said in Perth, and twice he said the same identical words, changes the void of evidence related to L, A or M.

    David virtually confessed, twice, to having been present at the time of the death of one of L, A or M.

    Come on … … …

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

    (For bedroom of R, of course I should have said Lounge room. Sorry, didn’t mean to put anyone off track here.)

    Come on, team. I’ve practically dished it up on a plate here for you.

    Anyone ??

    How did David twice confess in Perth to mass murder?

    You’ll kick yourselves for not getting it.

    What did David twice say in Perth to indicate that he was present at the time of the murder of one of S, L, A, M?

    It is an image that obviously has not left David’s brain for 18 years.

    It is an image so impregnated into David’s brain, that he obviously cannot eliminate it, and he told Perth lapdogs about it.

    Come on, there it is on a plate.

    Is anyone out there?

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

    So as not to spoil the whodunit for others, you might like to send your solution to
    dotcom@inbox.com

    Come on Judith Collins. There is a $2 million prize for you if you get this right. As soon as you solve this Judy, you can put aside rather firmly, any thoughts of having to pay out any compo to Raving Dave.

    What in his Perth speech, did David Bain say (twice) to indicate that he was present at the time of one of the murders?

    You’re going to kick yourselves. The answer is bloody easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    I don’t have a copy of David’s Perth speech, but I suspect he made a reference to Laniet gurgling.

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

    No, not the gurgle. Much, much, much better than a gurgle.

    (Now would Dotcom be going on like this about the gurgle? C’maarn)

    Both the video and transcript are online. Google “Bain Perth transcript” and you have it.

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

    They looked the killer in the eye

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    @Dotcom. Make your point, I’m not listening to that again.

    @Nostalgia. I am prepared to read your first line, so make it brief. You are as as tedious as you are tendentious. Try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    I would just like to change the topic a little while everyone is waiting for the answer.

    I just watched the interview of Robin’s brother after the second trial. I knew David had asked for his gun back. Now it hear he got it.

    Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is innocent he would have to be on sick puppy to want the gun back.

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

    Bet its wiped completely down now …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    I can find out if that is true; doubt it. Bain has recreated himself. Blah blah blah. I fucking nearly believed him myself. Frightening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “I fucking nearly believed him myself.”

    I initially got taken in by Joe and David. When did you pick that it was far more likely David?

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

    Me ?, Chuck

    by the end of that day, for sure, by the end of the week.

    :)

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

    Me? When I saw coverage of David in Perth.

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

    Dennis at 1.41
    Make your point
    ______________

    Dennis, please moderate your tone. I don’t tell people what to do. Dentists might — “Open!” “Rinse!” “Suck!”, but the rest of us don’t.

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

    Dentists’ foreplay.

    Crouch, touch, pause, engage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Sorry,forgot you were posting from Outer Mongolia. Bet it’s pretty cold there at the moment. We are having a bit of a heat wave here.
    Hey,you know a while back we were posting about the inheritance and you gave the figure as $600000 and I said no it was $320000 and you said no,it was $600000 and I said no, it was $320000 and you said Bain told Binnie it was $600000.
    I see Bain did tell Binnie it was $600000, but the Trustees received $320000,so I can only think that Bain told Binnie the 1994 figure plus interest up to today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    What some people don’t realise is that Binnie was a political appointment to the Supreme Court. Berore that he was associate Minister of Justice,which is one step down from our Minister of Justice.

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

    Cool. $600,000 today it is then. Changes nothing about my motives argument.

      600,000 reasons to kill.
    Or
    1000,000 reasons to kill

    Splitting hairs really.

    No wonder when the Binnie/Bainie interview turned to this David wanted only to STFU.

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

    Yes, muggins, and before politics, he was a public servant lawyer who couldn’t make it in the real world of lawyering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Dennis Horne (2,310 comments) says:

    I can’t wait any longer for you to make your point, Dotcom – going out. Will give you a standing ovation when I get back.

    By the way, do you know the story about the chap who picked a girl up at the bar? She guessed “afterwards” he was a dentist — good dentist — because she didn’t feel a thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. flipper (3,928 comments) says:

    Nostalgia..,., Good afternoon. :)

    It was nice to read your sane discourse, amid all the cracked recordings.

    Some of these folk are so twisted in their ideas, their knowledge, and their ability to think straight, that they simply live on a diet of regurgitated rubbish. Thery even claim ownership of a thread after diverting friom the actual subject matter.

    Nostalgia, you made several interesting points, among them:

    “….Collins has placed an albatross around her neck and Key is asleep at the wheel as [t]his errant woma[e]n minister continue[s] to run amuck, out ‘manning’ him. He needs to grow a backbone, he’s not even the shadow of Muldoon.

    ” This poll shows the disaster of Collin’s behaviour. She is right out of touch with New Zealanders whose interpretation of fairness is very high by world standards, she is out of touch with the Bain case and Binnie report. She has neither the intellect or political savvy to negogiate something which it appears she has a ‘cult’ like obsession with. ”

    But good news.

    One hgears that the secure phones and the secure email net has been kept busy in the past week as the enormity of Collins’ stupidity has dawned on many National Party Caucus members and party leadership. There still can be many a slip, but strong minds, with strong and influential connections, have now read Binnie, and Binnie on Fisher, I hear from good sources . They are less than impressed by Collins’ porkies.

    I feel sorry for all the amateur sleuths, revisionists, re-litigators and also for the looney JFRB mob. :) Ha, Ha ! :) I wonder how thry will spend their time in future.

    Would they turn their “minds” back to A A Thomas? Or will they simply fold like the proverbial paper tigers that tey are?

    I am past the point where they deserve a courteous response. Ridicule is the proper response. My renewed suggestion is that they check thermselves into the Mason Clinic. :) :) :)

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

    Binnie never once had to make a judicial decision ON THE FACTS.

    As a judge in appellate courts, there is no fact-deciding role for the judges to make. ALL their decisions are on points of law.

    This means as well, that he never once in his career made a decision on “Balance of Probability”. And doesn’t his lack of this experience show to all Hell and back in this instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3572
    Cameron Slater hits the jackpot.

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

    Hey, Dennis, do you promise to pull the tooth, the whole truth, and nothing but .. … …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    The goat cinched it for me. When I heard about his staged alibi that really upset me. I heard a lawyer on this blog say motive is not evidence. I disagree. I did not think he would be silly enough to try for compensation. When I heard that Binnie had interviewed him I downloaded the interview not long after it was available. I then did a text search on alibi. I could not believe how he could be dumb enough to concoct his story about the goat. I found it harder to believe how Binnie just accepted it and moved on to another question.

    I then looked at the issue of the socks. No one here has been able to give a logical reason why Robin would take his shoes off. This seems to be what Binnie has hung everything on.

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

    Bugger, the whole tooth ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Bring back the edit.

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

    I see the rancour is again about to infest the thread. Let’s not rise to it, JfRBs.

    Let’s (not follow my example on other threads); let’s be polite, noting that nearly every post on this thread by Robin Bain supporters has been above reproach. And it has been for days now.

    Robin Bain supporters have right on their side, and don’t need rancour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    I see Bain told Binnie that his father drew up that target that was found in his room, but Binnie forgot to ask Bain what happened to the rabbit’s ears he said his father drew on it.

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

    Dentist preparing to fill a tooth ..

    Crouch, touch, pause, engage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    I see Bain told Binnie he was taking a zoology degree but he lost interest before the year was out.
    Maybe he lost interest after seeing that goat being shagged.

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

    Sorry, not my dentist of course.

    Denist the dentis

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

    Dear IPissintheshower, this is not YOUR blog and you are not a patch on Kim Dotcom, whos name you unfortunately stole.

    May I suggest you start your own blog, then you can rule over it like you want.

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

    And he told Perth that he was studying something different — music and drama. Couldn’t have the lapdogs thinking he might have studied zoology to learn something about what kills animals, and what doesn’t.

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

    tiz :-)

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

    What else did David say in Perth, muggins?

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

    > Cameron Slater hits the jackpot.

    Well, there’s no surprise that Michael Guest knows David lied. Why didn’t Binnie talk to Guest, and why did Binnie swallow the garbage that David fed him? I got the feeling that Binnie was outraged when he heard that David had been strip searched; Binnie even asked Doyle what it was all about. The strip search had nothing to do with Binnie’s terms of reference. But clearly it got on his goat (pun intended).

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

    Oh, tiz, you think this email address wasn’t taken years ago? dotcom@inbox.com

    I have owned this email address for some years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    the person may also display dominance, arrogance, show superiority, and seek power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

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

    I like to break evidence into component especially when working out the odds or probability off that event happening.
    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

    1. If 100 people were ask would they have taken that ammo clip with into the lounge or posibly put it in the pant pocket I would say you would be lucky to get 4 that 25-1 odds
    2. If 100 people were ask where they would place the ammo clip on table or slightly under it perhaps 2 would thats 50-1 odds
    3. In the absent of an arm being there if 1,000 people were asked if they would have taken the effort to make that ammo clip stay on its edge perhaps 2 thats 500 to 1
    4. If an arm was made to land at 20 Kph 5-7 mm from that ammo clip 1,000 time it may stand up 1 time

    Odds in a sigular event such as this are compounded (eg lotto)
    Those odds compound to 625 million to 1 and thats just for starters
    I could be wrong in viewing it like this but it would take a statitician to convince me.

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

    What David Bain told his lapdog audience in Perth, revealed that David Bain saw something that only the mass murderer could have seen. And he said it to his audience twice.

    Hold the presses.   This is actually front page news (though we know it will not be, because whatever you do, you don’t give credit to blog commenters for ANYTHING, especially a commenter whom the host totally despises and is looking for any excuse to give demerits to).

    THIS is front page news.

    All will be revealed at 4.00 pm today, if no-one comes up with it beforehand.

    (I have to post it eventually, or someone will will work it out and claim it on another blog somewhere. I’ve given more than enough clues, FGS)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Hey Truthiz,
    Don’t be too tough on the new Dotcom ,he means well. And I guess he wouldn’t be the only male that pisses in the shower.

    I see Binnie keeps referring to witness Nader- Turner as Madder Turner. Could be the typist just not being able to understand his accent.
    Binnie was asking Bain about Laniet saying he was a bit freaky,and that he told Laniet he would take her home kicking and screaming if he had to.
    Bain said he didn’t know about that comment but from his point of view there was no truth to it. He then went on to say that another witness in that group that said Laniet was quite excited and looking forward to coming home,
    I would like to know who that mysterious witness was.
    He also says that after rehearsals he walked down to the Museum cafe where his sisters were working and had a cup of coffee with them while they finished their shift.
    He seems to be quite confused. First of all he went to the cafe at 4pm because he had arranged to meet a female friend there at that time.
    Secondly,his sisters finished their shifts at different times. When Laniet finished her shift she went back to her flat and was picked up from there.

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

    But whatever you do, don’t feed either Dotcom’s ego, in spite of our Dotcom solving things repeatedly, that others for years haven’t even dreamed of.

    22 minutes to 4.00pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    My apologies,Dotcom,I thought you were the new Dotcom,but turns out you are the old Dotcom and that other Dotcom is the new Dotcom.
    Re Perth.
    I would presume Bain would be telling the audience what he was studying in 1994,not what he studied in 1991.
    Hope you do better at 4.00pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    ross69
    I don’t believe there was any strip-search.
    I have contacted two of the three police officers who were in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain and they both said he wasn’t strip-searched when they were there,but the both left the room for a few minutes. The third police officer isn’t available at the moment. I hope to hear from him early next year,then all will be revealed.

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

    Could David see the blood streaming down his mother’s face if he wasn’t wearing glasses?

    ‘streaming’ implies fresh and flowing.

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

    Oh no 4 o’clock and Tony Dot has pissed in the shower again, obviously he has no missus or kids,

    or maybe he does !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    Great work on that magazine. Best let Judith know that,she has the photo.

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

    Doesn’t matter though muggins. Study in 1994, Study in 1991, what he told Perth he was studying, was not what he told Binnie he was studying.

    Anyway, you ought not to be making excuses for David’s inconsistencies. David’s Ravers are experts at making excuses for David without your help, muggins.

    Of course 4.00pm will be better. 4.00pm will be nothing less than Agatha Christie standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Truthiz
    Maybe he meant 4pm by his watch. Don’t forget he is posting from overseas.

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

    Damn, we didn’t make it to 4.00pm

    Oh so close, twistedlemon. You are correct of course, but you only got half way there.

    But you can’t see the wood for the trees.

    And here it is.

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

    ONLY THE KILLER COULD HAVE SEEN BLOOD STREAMING DOWN MARGARET’S FACE.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Sorry Dotcom.you’ve got me so excited that I climaxed a couple of minutes early.

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

    IF ROBIN HAD BEEN THE KILLER, BY THE TIME DAVID WAS LOOKING AT HER, THE BLOOD WOULD HAVE LONG SINCE STOPPED STREAMING.

    Yet in Perth, David twice told his audience that the blood was streaming down Margaret’s face.

    Of course, David saw blood streaming down Margaret’s face. He had just shot her.

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

    Yes, I posted one minute early, muggins, to cater for premature ejaculators.

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

    Now here come the predictable “is that all”s

    Credit where credit is due for once.

    Hello.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    What are the odds of someone shagging a goat? I would say at least one in a million.

    What are the odds that person would be someone who David wants to discredit? Probability one in a million again.

    What are the odds of David catching that person in the act as most people with that sort of behavior would tend to be discrete. Say 1 in 1000.

    Multiply those figures and your chance of winning Lotto would be better.

    This of course does not prove David is a mass murderer. It just proves he is liar and Binnie is a ninny.

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

    Like pulling teeth, Dennis, trying to get credit from this mob. Glad your not my comedy audience. Laughing would break their faces.

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

    Are you trying to upstage me, Chuck? Or are you just a prick?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Excellent find.
    Only problem is Bain didn’t say that in court,nor did he say that to Binnie, ie he wasn’t under oath when he said that.

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

    Stunned silence.

    Is credit where credit is due, so fucking hard, you lot?

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

    ‘your’ or ‘you’re’ ?

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

    The bigger faux pas was to admit to hearing gurgling. But JK came up with an ‘explanation’ for that.

    I do not believe David wrote his own speech for Perth. It would be written for hin by JK et al.

    JK would just say that dried blood could ‘stream’ down a face.

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

    Ahh, found it. You’re. First time someone has pinged me in 554 posts. Good spotting.

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

    Is that all you peasants have got to say.

    If anyone is going to make excuses for David, let it be David.

    Credit where credit is due?

    Not in a month of Sundays from a New Zealander.

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

    “Is credit where credit is due, so fucking hard, you lot?”

    And now you have lost all credibility …

    .

    and Twisted, you are so right, the gurgling is indeed the guiding light, and the lack of action in response to the gurgling, unless you count putting another bullet in her head as an appropiate action.

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

    muggins at 4:10 pm Dotcom Excellent find.
    ________________________________

    Thank you muggins. Nice of you to say so. You must come from an older generation which remembers what giving credit where credit is due, used to mean.

    Re the “on oath”. No, but it works the other way round. What David said to his audience (and is recorded on video evidence) is certainly evidence that what David told Binnie (under oath) was a bunch of lies.

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

    Ok good spotting Dotcom another to add to Davids freudian slips.
    us.

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

    tiz at 4.20

    Predictable and predicted

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

    Thank you gamefisher. Now how to use it?

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

    Press statement, Counterspin?

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

    Press statement, DPF, claiming credit where credit is due to you Blog. That’s genuinely due, btw, no tongue in cheek.

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

    Chuck Bird, what do you reckon?

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

    I’m very late to this show, but was wondering about the conflict regarding what David stated when he dialled 111 and what he has said in the Perth address. On the one hand he tells 111 they’re all dead but only saw Robin and Margaret; and on the other hand he tells the Perth conference he saw Margaret, Stephen, Laniet and Arawa before finding Robin in the lounge and then dialling 111.

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

    Genuine thanks, DPF, couldn’t have solved this crime in any other place. Big ups for the platform and the hospitality.

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

    Are freudian slips indicative of psychopathy? because only a psychopath or a person that was suffering from psychosis could had done those murder. Robin had no signs of psychosis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Scott1 (500 comments) says:

    re the streaming blood,
    I think we know what david /karam’s response would be to that, and i imagine it would pretty much diffuse it. But we can leave it to them if Dotcom wants, if they ever hear about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Tony, what are you trying to accomplish? i know what I am do you?

    David is not going to get compensation.

    There important thing is to convince as many of the public as possible. There is no silver bullet.

    I think many here that are very sure that Robin in innocent believe David is a sociopath.

    If one catch’s a sociopath with his hands down a little girls nickers he will have an answer.

    He was probably trying to educate her what pedophiles do. As far as I know Capill has not admitted his guilt.

    When I ring talk back I do not try an talk over the host. That will put the public off.

    You did well in spotting that and I am sure it will help but as I said there is no silver bullet.

    You would get more credit if you did not try portray your self as some sort of genius.

    A high IQ will not get you anywhere near as far as a high EQ.

    As has been pointed out this is David Farrar’s blog and if you want to make the rules start your own.

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

    IF ROBIN HAD BEEN THE KILLER, BY THE TIME DAVID WAS LOOKING AT HER, THE BLOOD WOULD HAVE LONG SINCE STOPPED STREAMING.

    _____________
    Not necessarily…the great Canadian jurist thought it was possible that Robin was roaming the house at the same time that David had returned from his paper run! But it is curious that David didn’t tell Binnie that blood was streaming down her face. He was, after all, required to tell the whole truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    “Is that it, Dotcom? Streaming? I just meant there was a lot of blood – many rivulets, covering her face, but no, not rivuletting nor streaming really, not still moving when I saw it. Just as I wrote on the computer “Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay” rather than “deserving”. Father was the teacher, no me. I’d not even passed any of my uni subjects, for God’s sake.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Nostradamus (3,248 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:

    Ssshhh… Dotcom is a legend… but only in his own mind. Best not to spoil the moment for him.

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

    > David is not going to get compensation.

    I agree, Chuck. Actually, it could backfire spectactularly on David, with more of the public thinking he got away with murder. Certainly, the more he says the more lies he tells.

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

    Nostradamus at 4.46

    Dotcom is a legend.
    +++++++++++++++++

    Thanks Nostradamus.

    Ross69, you’re welcome. Would it hurt so much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    I still reckon that is a good find by the old Dotcom.
    I have posted it on JFRB.
    It is not a gamebreaker,but it is still worthy of some applause,in my opinion,anyway.

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

    > I don’t believe there was any strip-search.

    I believe there was but it’s neither here nor there. I mentioned it because it seemed to get Binnie rather annoyed, so annoyed that he questioned Doyle about it. But it was well outside his terms of reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Nostradamus (3,248 comments) says:

    Dotcom:

    You left out but only in his own mind. Selective quoting is a very dishonest practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Nostradamus (3,248 comments) says:

    So, 432 comments into yet another Bain thread, here’s my question: has anyone changed their mind about whether he should receive compensation? Or is this debate a case of “huff and puff, but no stuff”?

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

    Why don’t you give us your opinion on compo, Nostradamus…have you changed your mind? Should David get compo?

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

    Yet, of course, we should not be so quickly overlooking what twistedlemon added to my revelation.

    Not only did David see the streaming blood. It was also without any glasses that he saw the streaming blood, at least according to the David scenario.

    And then, when he saw the streaming blood without any glasses, did he assume that his mother might be unwell? Did he call for an ambulance for this person who had blood streaming down her face?

    Well, yes he did actually, but you tell me, how many minutes later (25 minutes was it?) was it that he called for this ambulance for his blood-streaming-faced Mum.

    Yes, this is just one more of the coincidences. And yes, the combined resources of the team of “JFRB-and-David’s-Ravers” can collectively come up with excuses for why I might not be so fucking clever.

    But how many coincidences? When do all these coincidences start to cast doubt on the fact of Robin having committed murder/suicide? How many coincidences?

    Gamefisher, if I were writing your book, I would be calling it — “How Many Coincidences?” (and my proposing this of course guarantees that this will NOT be its name).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Thanks Chuck. DPF would love nothing more than to find me a few more demerits. I don’t have the demerits because I don’t break his rules. You are accusing me of breaking Kiwiblog rules. Can you please give me one example on any Bain thread, (you who has 60 demerits, Chucky), so I can have right of reply.

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

    Before Chucky dobs me in, yes I got 40 demerits on a gay thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    Add to the streaming blood, which may have indicated his mother was not actually dead, hearing Laniet gurgling [whether physically explained as just air escaping, was again a good reason to call an ambulance then, not nearer to half and hour later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    It was about $330,000, the estate.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577298

    It would be higher once adjusted for inflation.

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

    Kiwiblog rules apply on all threads not just Bain ones.

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

    Yvette, snap

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

    David Bain told Justice Binnie the estate was $600,000. I will go with David Bain, SPC, thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Nostradamus (3,248 comments) says:

    Ross69:

    I haven’t followed the Bain case as closely as some here.

    In those circumstances, like Rex Widerstrom, I prefer to analyse the compensation issue as a matter of principle. That, after all, is what Judith Collins has to do. The difficulty here is in determining what the guiding principles should be, and I think the to-ing and fro-ing over the evidence (which has consumed a large chunk of this thread) is a separate debate.

    It seems reasonably clear that Bain’s case falls outside the Cabinet Manual and the Cabinet Guidelines. However, I’m quite interested in what Nookin had to say above.

    Do you know anything about the supplementary guideline that Nookin suggests may exist, which apparently “allows compensation for those falling outside the guidelines provided there are exceptional circumstances”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 comments) says:

    David Bain has told many conflicting stories and gave selected memories of what he remembered. He is a fucking liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. SPC (5,532 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Binnie#David_Bain_compensation_claim_scandal

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

    Nostradamus, first half of this thread was exclusively on the questions you raise, and those who wanted to go into the never-ending circular questions of evidence, were shooed away promptly. Both sides participated in a robust debate, so you don’t have to take my word on anything.

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

    Have you been contributing to wikipedia, Kanz?

    No doubt when the government tells David to bugger off, wiki will have to be updated. :)

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

    Nostradamus, December 28th at 3:15 pm would be as good a starting point as any.

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

    “Do you know anything about the supplementary guideline that Nookin suggests may exist, which apparently ‘allows compensation for those falling outside the guidelines provided there are exceptional circumstances’?”

    Exceptional guidelines are a side issue. Firstly, David has to prove he’s innocent. If he can’t do that, he doesn’t qualify. I can’t see him doing it, and when he has to lie to make his case, you know he’s in trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Nostradamus (2,300) Says:
    December 30th, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Claims outside guidelines

    In making the guidelines, Cabinet reserved the discretion to pay compensation to an applicant who was not eligible in extraordinary circumstances, where it is in the interests of justice.
    Non-eligible claimants include persons who have had their convictions quashed or set aside under the following circumstances:
    • where a retrial is ordered by an appeal court but the trial does not proceed;
    • where a retrial is ordered by an appeal court and the person is acquitted at the retrial; or
    • where the conviction is quashed on a rehearing in the District Court.

    Investigation and determination of claims outside guidelines

    Cabinet prescribed no additional criteria or process for consideration of claims falling outside the Cabinet guidelines. However, current practice is to ensure that, where relevant, important principles in the Cabinet guidelines are applied in a consistent manner to such claims.
    Claimants outside guidelines must show, at a minimum, that they are innocent on the balance of probabilities. They must also show that there are extraordinary circumstances that justify compensation.
    Unlike claims inside the Cabinet guidelines, there is no requirement that the claim be considered by a Queen’s Counsel. The Ministry of Justice may, however, seek a Queen’s Counsel’s assistance in relation to any or all aspects of a claim.

    Types of compensation

    There is no requirement to apply the Cabinet guidelines relating to calculation of compensation. However, an approach is usually adopted that is generally consistent with the guidelines.

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

    All irrelevant if the door to the whole thing is not open, the door being David’s showing to Cabinet that he has not killed, on the balance of probability.

    (as ross69 said (giving ross69 credit where credit is due)).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    No, Dotcom, ‘streaming’ is isn’t such a big deal – to say with “blood streaming down her face” is far more natural than with “blood streamed down her face”

    In the crisis [had he found her, rather than actually shot his mother] he wouldn’t think “No, there is no blood flow now, she is dead” – you’d use the word streaming to describe an overall appearance.
    But Laniet gurgling would not occur to him in the instance to be just air escaping, or any similar medical explanation – a noise indicates life.
    So hearing Laniet makes noises then finally ring 111 and say “They are all deeeeaaad …” is very inconsistent

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

    David Bain on Wikipedia is monitored constantly by two David Bain lovers … No contrary views allowed.

    The whole article has been rewritten since early December (coincidence ? ) by OFFENDER, hmmm wonder who that could be.

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

    One other thing that hasn’t been mentioned:

    David comes home and finds 5 members of his family dead. Is he more than a little scared that the killer might still be in the house wanting to kill him? At that stage he doesn’t know Robin might or might not be the killer. Does David rush outside and wave down a car? Does he go next door and tell them what’s happened? No, he buggers around before calling 111…and then stays 10 minutes on the line. He seemed utterly unconcerned for his own safety.

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

    Crap, Yvette

    I think a jury of all New Zealanders would interpret “blood streaming down” as meaning he saw blood streaming, no matter how you want to distort the English language.

    Sorry, I’m sick of people here discounting one after another after another after another after another after another coincidence.

    People here are not this dumb. No not dumb, just a bunch of total liars and deniers. You have no credibility left.

    We will see what newspapers have to say.

    Yvette, believe it or not, New Zealanders are not as stupid as you are deliberately wanting to expose yourself to being.
    Fancy any New Zealander being prepared to show, wanting to show, how stupid they are, just to protect a mass murderer. Who would throw all common sense out the window, just to support a mass murderer. Madness. Utter madness.

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

    Tiz (giving credit where credit is due) nice revelation, thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. SGA (982 comments) says:

    @Ross69
    “David comes home and finds 5 members of his family dead. Is he more than a little scared that the killer might still be in the house wanting to kill him? At that stage he doesn’t know Robin might or might not be the killer. Does David rush outside and wave down a car? Does he go next door and tell them what’s happened? No, he buggers around before calling 111…and then stays 10 minutes on the line. He seemed utterly unconcerned for his own safety.”

    To be fair Ross69, if that’s what happened there would also be a rifle on the floor next to his Dad? If you see what I mean?

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

    No, SGA, I don’t see what you mean…

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

    ross69 (giving credit where credit is due) correct.

    He doesn’t even know who the Hell it is ross69. At the time he suppoosedly finds Margaret, he has no idea where Robin is.

    Could have been the madman of Alcatraz for all he knew, said madman still inside with an AK47 for all David knew. Didn’t stop David that there might have been a madman in there with a gun. No, David went and had a shower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. SGA (982 comments) says:

    @ross69 “No, SGA, I don’t see what you mean…”

    Ok, doesn’t matter.

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

    “One other thing that hasn’t been mentioned:

    David comes home and finds 5 members of his family dead. Is he more than a little scared that the killer might still be in the house wanting to kill him? At that stage he doesn’t know Robin might or might not be the killer. Does David rush outside and wave down a car? Does he go next door and tell them what’s happened? No, he buggers around before calling 111…and then stays 10 minutes on the line. He seemed utterly unconcerned for his own safety.”

    Yes it has been mentioned and is another one of the unbelieveable things about dave bain that morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    Dotcom – Fancy any New Zealander being prepared to show, wanting to show, how stupid they are, just to protect a mass murderer.

    I believe David Bain killed his family
    I don’t believe “streaming” is the big deal you built it up to be by your ‘amazing, tell-all, smoking gun announcement 4pm.
    It is another factor not in Bain’s favour.
    His fake 111 call is more damning – but that is an instinct, not a fact in it.
    Yesterday’s shower came closer to what you are looking for – a cincher – if you can find it.
    Meanwhile your own cleverness is starting to defeat your purpose.

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

    and if you read OFFENDERS previous editing, you will see not only is he in trouble with the Head editors, but has altered heaps of threads about NZ courts, parole systems, justice ….

    Hmmm, sound familar ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    ross69
    What makes you believe there was a strip-search?

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

    SGA, David said he discovered his mother first.

    AT THIS POINT, unconcerned for his own safety, David goes in search of his Dad. All he wants is his Dad to save him.

    Yet he never checks the caravan where his Dad would normally be at this time of the morning.

    Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence.
    Just how far is our gullibility supposed to stretch?

    This is not a beyond reasonable doubt case any more. It is a how-the-Hell-do-are-we-expected-to-believe-SO-MANY-coincidences-one-after-another case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    “Before Chucky dobs me in, yes I got 40 demerits on a gay thread.”

    That is the topic I got my demerits on. DPF and I do not see eye to eye on that topic either.

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

    No, Yvette, you don’t like me, and the way I do my work. So you have decided to show your stupidity rather than give ME credit where credit is due. People called Yvette can be like this.

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

    So you are arguing for the sake of academic arguing, Yvette. You are trolling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    SPC
    At the retrial Michael Bain said the final settlement figure was $320000.

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

    Chucky. Yawn

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

    Muggins, to Justice Binnie, David said that the estate was $600,000

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. It is this sadistic tendency that is characteristic of narcissism as opposed to other psychological conditions affecting level of self-worth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

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

    troll

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

    God Kiwiblog has a lot of self-appointed police officers in it.

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

    Depends which version, you choose, as to where davey went …

    Originally, he found his mother then sensed his father was in the lounge.

    Never mentioned the others, until his recaptured memories … lol

    :::
    And his father would have been in the lounge at that time or heading in to the lounge at about that time, so why would he look in the caravan ?

    Seems IP inShower, you need to read a lot more of the evidence, especially the first trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    Dotcom – So you are arguing for the sake of academic arguing, Yvette. You are trolling.

    No, to both.
    I did commend yesterday’s ‘”shower” link – that is what is needed.
    Someone who can take one piece of evidence people have looked at for bloody ages and link it to another thrashed piece of evidence and see an implication no one else has. Great! You impressed me.
    But not with “streaming” _ and the standard I may apply to that, is “What does Karam have to say to utterly dismiss it.” Not much, “streaming” doesn’t cut it – but that is my opinion, on which in this case I would be very happy to be wrong.

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

    With my post at 3:27 does anyone think this is valid and you can pretend you are a statistician and argue against me please because I am about to do one on the likelyhood of Robin peeing. Thanks in advance.

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

    You can’t really do that way, GF,

    but you can guesstimate all you like .. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Scott1 (500 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    ,
    Ok here are the relevant points

    1) how many facts about the case would you have checked.
    think – if i test 100 facts about the case there is a good chance one of them will be a 1 in 100 event. Note this fact has been selected for you as a ‘strange fact’ by the procecution.

    2) what is the criteria for determining the fact about the casing is odd – ie every placing of the casing might be in itself “unlikely” (eg 30% chance pocket 30% chance table 30% chance elsewhere)

    3) are any of the factors related, particularly are they related in a certain scenario – for example my suggestion before about him trying to shoot himself on the floor and realising it didnt work (and any other plausible scenario)

    It will be hard to rule out 3 or to calculate it’s effect and 1/2 significantly lower your number – but maybe you can still make a guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    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.

    As to the importance of keeping things factual I realise I made a mistake when I said that Dempster knocked the magazine over. In fact Binnie was accused of knocking the magazine over by those that kept him from the house for 4 hours, and the evidence of the magazine being knocked over and moved around wasn’t (couldn’t be) contested because of the photos, only who did knock it over could be. Of course by then Dempster was on the outer, having written to The Crown pointing out a recent experience of his hearing a body ‘gurgle’ and other matters he thought they should consider before going for a retrial. At the time Judith Collins was Minister of Police and Dempters sage caution fell on unwilling ears. So to discredit him in this way might have been ‘helpful.’ Anyway my apologies to him. He was of course the man who confirmed that suicide was quite possible, and whose ‘boss’ had never been convinced of David’s guilt because of the ‘perfection’ of the murder/suicide scene.

    I’m using another computer at the moment and can’t be bothered looking for the ‘photo’ of Margaret but I wouldn’t anyway have wished the die hards to stop chasing ghosts anyway. They’re so ‘good’ at it, I’ve heard the venerable Michael Guest has ‘consented’ to a interview. Of course Ian Binnie commented as to his decision not to interview Michael and to this point Binnie’s view is that which stands innocent on the BOP.

    I note more ‘splitting’ in the ranks. This time from ross, never one to absorb the truth or not adorn it with his own wee ‘truths’, who has now absorbed that there was a strip search. Good work, all that evidence of it finally sunk it, perhaps he’ll next read the police manual on the subject as referred to by Doyle in his cross examination by Reed.

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

    Thanks for your opinion, Yvette.

    My native language is NZ English. David Bain’s native language is NZ English. Yours must be something else. You’ve made your point. I could of course ask you what you think “blood streaming down her face” might be interpreted as meaning to a majority of native NZ English speakers, but I can no longer trust your objectivity on this. So never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 comments) says:

    Should have said ‘Dempster’ accused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration-all of which must be consistently evident at work and in relationships. People who are narcissistic are frequently described as cocky, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. Narcissists may concentrate on unlikely personal outcomes (e.g., fame) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. SGA (982 comments) says:

    @bhudson
    Your intentions are good, but I fear you may be just feeding the troll as well. Just let him play with his new “friends” (I’m sure he’s got other, more real, friends as an audience of his manipulative prowess – it would hardly be worth it otherwise). He’ll get bored eventually.

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

    Yvette, I was wrong to accuse you of trolling. I sought opinion. You gave yours. I didn’t like it.

    Sorry, that is not trolling on your part, and I shouldn’t have called it trolling. My bad.

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

    gamefisher, I would have done it only slightly differently, but probably similar results.

    625 million. Not bad.

    First, I’d have had 100 people in each sample. This is so as to keep the sample base as one less distraction that your guinea pig has to keep track of — i.e. while some people are switching from 100 to 500 to 1000, you’ve instantly distracted them, as much as it would distract some of them if Richie McCaw just walked in the door during your project. So they are unnecessarily distracted from the main point at issue.

    I know this is picky, but you asked for contributions. This in the context that I like where you’re (not your) going. More later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @SGA,

    Alas, I think you’re right. There is always hope that the Bain news will die down…

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

    Second point gamefisher, is that each point needs to be weighted.

    I think (and you may have legitimate reasons to differ), that the putting the ammo clip (thanks) on the table, is of five times more significance than the fall-over potential is on the crashing of Robin’s hand, and I think the fall-over issue is five times more significant as “would you bring the clip into the room”. I put most weight on the clip placement on its narrow side (ala placing a coin on its circumferential edge) as being the most significant of all. As in a killer would do this to draw attention to it, where a suicider would simple be rid of it the most frivolous way available. Am I being too technical?

    You concept btw, is not wrong. I am not criticising, just hoping to contribute.

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

    Dotcom so the concept is OK it the odds baseline needs to stay the same then the input is variable which is opinion based anyway. The component of the peeing
    1. How many men would stay awake in a state of anxiety most of the night and not pee outsid a secluded caravan.
    2. How many men when getting uo would not have a pee walking frm caravan to house(note being exposed from warm to cold tigger a peeing reponse in men)
    3. How many men could resist having a pee when showering especially with a toilet next to that shower.
    4. How many men could still resist having a pee once dress especially remembering to still get the paper.

    Let you all do the number crunching the main point of this exersize is should some of the evidence be broken down into components for probabily calculations.

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

    Wish I could edit my post at times lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    Dotcom – In looking at something else, I happen across –

    Justice Ian Binnie interviewed David Bain at Auckland’s Copthorne Hotel over a single day in July. Here are some of the highlights from an interview which took 113 pages to record.

    Q. And can you just briefly describe what you saw?

    I saw [Margaret Bain] propped up [inaudible] several pillows, I wouldn’t say it was a sleeping position, it was just – she was slightly elevated and, um, ah, I just remember the, you know, there was blood on her face, um, just purple in this, in the eye, well, of the eyelid.

    The pathologists say it is more likely they were closed?

    It, it, it’s that image I have is only through trauma and I believe because now I’m sorry the images that I have of my family are so distorted that, as in, you know, I sometimes if I’m recalling a scene, I see a photo from the evidence, other times if I’m recalling a scene, it’s something that has come from a dream that I’ve had …
    __________

    See? – Karam ,would just point to this and say “That is David’s comment – just ‘blood on her face’ and he can’t really remember anyway – confused by court cases, lawyers, trauma and jail”

    What I was looking for was David’s glowing words to Binnie regarding life in general, to compare to “being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”. David in Karam’s booklet “Innocent”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Chuck Bird (4,821 comments) says:

    Just show I bear the David Bain supports no ill will. If they go to the following link they could make a lot of money if Cabinet caves and decides to compensate someone who is more likely than not a mass murderer.

    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
  492. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Re value of estate. We have already been over that at least twice. Yes, Bain told Binnie $600000. Michael Bain told the Court $320000. As I have already said I believe that Bain was quoting what the estate would be worth if that original $320000 had been invested at 4-5%.
    Either that or he just plucked that figure out of the air.

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

    I might be tempted to ask anyone who was debating with me on the narrow-sided placement of the bullet clip.

    After explaining to the debater the competing arguments in the situation of the bullet clip being on its narrow side, I might then ask them

    A)  On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is “never happen in a million years” and 10 is “eternal damnation in the hell-fire and brimstone of the devil if it isn’t so”):  assuming that David killed Robin, what do you think the chances are of David having placed the bullet clip on its narrow side as part of staging the scene?

    And

    B) On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is “never happen in a million years” and 10 is “eternal damnation in the hell-fire and brimstone of the devil if it isn’t so”):  assuming that Robin suicided, what do you think the chances are of Robin having placed the bullet clip on its narrow side before he died?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Did you know that Brimstone is sulphur? I learnt this on a gay thread here on Kiwiblog recently. Amazing isn’t it.

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

    Yvette, did you see my 8.12?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Yvette
    At trial David Bain said his mother’s eyes were open. When the police arrived her eyes were closed. Experts said he eyes would have closed shortly after she was shot.
    So David Bain must have seen her eyes open when or shortly after he shot her.

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

    Yvette, I’m sick to death of everything being explained away as if it is still trying to cast a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. This is why I left the bullshit on the Three Professors thread to others. I didn’t bring that bullshit over here. I tried to keep the topic here on what it originally was, and I note for a while we kept out people who didn’t respect this. Today the Three Professors people invaded, and I gave in. 1700 comments on the Three Professors thread, 90 percent trying to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. All talking out of arses and in an echo chamber.

    Yvette, what would 100 ordinary New Zealanders reckon “blood streaming down” means? Stop talking theoretical bullshit to me. I’m not a child. You don’t have to put your case to a jury here Yvette. Stop bullshitting yourself, and trying to palm it off as bullshit to me. You can’t bullshit a bullshitter, Yvette.

    Answer the question honestly. Out of 100 ordinary Kiwis, who would say that “blood streaming down” presents a picture of clotted blood on the face. You are talking out of your arse, Yvette, and I don’t like it. Leave it there. I have more important things to be discussing here. I’ll let the public decide. You can tell the public differently if you want. Move on.

    Take up the cudgel with people who think that Robin is a murderer. Okay, a far more worthwhile project right now.

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

    muggins at 8.53

    Thanks you good thing you. I didn’t know that.

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

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

    You’re kidding me Judge Binnie

    David has never metioned touching it and why would he place it there.

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

    What does the ipredict mean in my layman’s terms please, Chuck?

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

    500th comment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Yvette (2,761 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
  502. 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
  503. 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
  504. 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
  505. 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
  506. 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
  507. 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
  508. muggins (3,341 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
  509. muggins (3,341 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
  510. muggins (3,341 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
  511. 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
  512. 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
  513. ross69 (3,652 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
  514. Chuck Bird (4,821 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
  515. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  516. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 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
  517. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 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
  518. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  519. 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
  520. 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
  521. SPC (5,532 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
  522. Scott1 (500 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
  523. Scott1 (500 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
  524. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  525. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  526. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  527. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  528. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  529. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  530. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  531. 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
  532. ross69 (3,652 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
  533. ross69 (3,652 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
  534. ross69 (3,652 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
  535. muggins (3,341 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
  536. muggins (3,341 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
  537. muggins (3,341 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
  538. muggins (3,341 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
  539. ross69 (3,652 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
  540. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    *to witnesses* = two witnesses

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  541. muggins (3,341 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
  542. ross69 (3,652 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
  543. muggins (3,341 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
  544. Chuck Bird (4,821 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
  545. muggins (3,341 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
  546. flipper (3,928 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
  547. Yvette (2,761 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
  548. ross69 (3,652 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
  549. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  550. muggins (3,341 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
  551. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  552. 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
  553. ross69 (3,652 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
  554. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  555. ross69 (3,652 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
  556. Dennis Horne (2,310 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
  557. 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
  558. Chuck Bird (4,821 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
  559. 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
  560. ross69 (3,652 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
  561. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 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
  562. 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
  563. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  564. 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
  565. 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
  566. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  567. ross69 (3,652 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
  568. ross69 (3,652 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
  569. 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
  570. ross69 (3,652 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
  571. ross69 (3,652 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
  572. 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
  573. 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
  574. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  575. 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
  576. 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
  577. flipper (3,928 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
  578. 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
  579. muggins (3,341 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
  580. 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
  581. muggins (3,341 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
  582. ross69 (3,652 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
  583. 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
  584. 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
  585. muggins (3,341 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
  586. Falafulu Fisi (2,178 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
  587. muggins (3,341 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
  588. 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
  589. 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
  590. 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
  591. 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
  592. muggins (3,341 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
  593. 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
  594. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  595. 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
  596. 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
  597. Chuck Bird (4,821 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
  598. 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
  599. 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
  600. 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
  601. Nostalgia-NZ (5,085 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
  602. 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
  603. Yvette (2,761 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
  604. 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
  605. flipper (3,928 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
  606. 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.