The Bain review

December 4th, 2012 at 8:13 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key denies the Government is casting around to get the advice it wants on compensation for .

He confirmed yesterday that Justice Minister Judith Collins had sought a second opinion on recommendations from retired Canadian judge Justice Ian Binnie.

Robert Fisher, QC, has been asked to look at Justice Binnie’s report, which the Government has had since September.

Asked if it was a question of the Government looking for the advice it wanted, he said: “No, I don’t think so . . . she [Ms Collins] had some concerns, or at least issues, that she wanted to flesh out a bit more before she took the next step.

“There will be a lot of public interest in what happens here and obviously the Government needs to ensure it’s fair.”

Justice Binnie concluded Mr Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his parents, two sisters and brother in Dunedin in 1994.

Mr Bain is seeking compensation for the almost 13 years he spent in jail after being convicted in May 1995. Mr Bain was acquitted at a retrial in 2009 and stands to get about $2 million. But the Government is not obliged to pay compensation.

It is unusual for the Government to get a second opinion. It makes you wonder why.

I don’t think it is in anyway a fiscal issue – that the Government just doesn’t want to pay out money. To be blunt $2 million is less than 0.01% of Government expenditure – it’s loose change. So this isn’t a case of the Govt being stingy. In fact getting a second opinion in itself will cost money.

I also don’t think it is an issue of not wanting to do something unpopular, which they might be criticized for. Quite the contrary. While NZers have a variety of views on the competing David v Robin theories, I don’t think the Govt would be criticised for paying compensation if they were following the recommendation of an independent review as per long stated policy. In fact, if they do not pay compensation they will face serious criticism on Karam and other Bain supporters. The easy thing for the Government to do is to simply rubberstamp the report and recommendations. Certainly my assumption has been that this is what the Govt would and should do.

If it has been reported correctly that the report concludes Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities and should be compensated  and the Government is seeking a review of the report, then I can only conclude that they have serious issues with the quality of the report. If they did not, then you’d simply follow its recommendations – that would be the popular non controversial thing to do.

Auckland-based Mr Fisher was a high court judge for 15 years. He was asked by the Government to look into a compensation claim from Aaron Farmer who was accused of rape. He found in favour and Mr Farmer was awarded $350,000.

This indicates that Mr Fisher is not predisposed to assuming guilt in these reviews.

Until both the Binnie report and the subsequent Fisher report are released, I guess we won’t know what the reasons are for the review – and how substantive they were. But I don’t think this unusual step is something the Government would do lightly.

While the amount of money is insignificant at a Government level, the principles are important. If David did kill his family, then it is repugnant that profits from it by getting a large payout. If however  Robin killed his family and himself, framing David for it, then it is repugnant that he spent over a decade in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

Tags:

127 Responses to “The Bain review”

  1. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    This indicates that Mr Fisher is not predisposed to assuming guilt in these reviews.

    Does it?

    Mr Fisher, a former High Court judge, has advised the Government on compensation claims, including from Rex Haig after his murder conviction was quashed.

    In that case, Mr Fisher found it was more probable than not that Mr Haig had participated in the murder.

    He recommended that compensation be declined and the Government accepted his recommendation.

    I’m afraid Collins is not going to win on this one. Her credibility will be damaged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. jims_whare (389 comments) says:

    If they have to give him $$ give him the 2 milllion however it has to be given directly to a charity of Bain’s choosing.

    Still something that stinks about this case though – legalities aside – its not right that most member of a family are murdered and at this stage there is no one held accountable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    If you don’t think that Bain should get compensation, then do sign the petition: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/add/signature . We will be presenting this to the Minister early next year. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    David, David….

    On most things I acknowledge your political accumen.
    But on this and several other high profile cases that have gone against public opinion, you and your mate Orca are away with the fairies. Some might well describe you as a naif. But I think you are just closing your eyes.

    There is NO doubt that the Bain issue is controversial – one way or another. There was a similar pro-prosecution groundswell among non Auckland Star scribes ( I know. I was there to witness it) – before , during and after the Royal Commission) , lawyers, the Judiciary and police camp followers over A A Thomas.

    There is an old saying, which I think is pertinent, one does not buy a dog and then bark oneself (to paraphrase).

    In this case, reservations over Collins’ political nouse notwithstanding, I do not believe she would be silly enough to ask young Fisher to review Binnie. That would be the equivalent of asking a Community Magistrate to review a decision by a PC Lord Chief Justice.

    I believe that you are wrong on the politics, David. It is all about politics and it is about mollifying the great red neck mob.

    If she had received the a report she wanted, there would have been NO review by Fisher.

    You, David, and you Cam, could do the entire nation a service by demanding under the OIA (it is not a matter of legal advice to a client) the terms of reference for Fisher’s “examination” of Binnie.

    Bob Jones is absolutely correct: Collins actions are disgraceful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Slow down, DPF! You’ll make yourself ill if you spin too hard!

    DPF on National Key / Collins rejecting an expert report that doesn’t endorse their preconceptions:

    Until both the Binnie report and the subsequent Fisher report are released, I guess we won’t know what the reasons are for the review – and how substantive they were. But I don’t think this unusual step is something the Government would do lightly.

    Compare and contrast:

    DPF on Green MP Gareth Hughes rejecting an expert report that doesn’t endorse their preconceptions:

    This just demonstrates that the Greens parliamentary wing are putting politics ahead of the environment. They demanded this inquiry, and then rejected out of hand the main conclusion that there is no evidence to justify a moratorium (a Orwellian term for a ban).

    Basically, it’s terrible when the Greens do it, and perfectly reasonable whenthe Nats do it.

    Noted, and squirrelled away for the next time there’s a “Hey look – the hypocrisy of the left” type post :-)

    [DPF: Nice try but the Govt has not rejected the report. We do not know what their decision is. When the reports are released, we will see how well they stack up.

    If the PCE report was found to be significantly flawed - ie had overlooked a major fracking disaster, then it would be fine to criticise it. But as far as I know, no one has suggested the PCE report has not covered all the evidence and arguments. The Greens just disagreed with the conclusion.

    I think it is unwise to claim a report is infallible before you have even read it.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nookin (2,890 comments) says:

    Flipper

    What would you say if Fisher reveals a fundamental error in Binnie’s report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    Mike Hosking is beside himself.

    It will be interesting to see the report once its released. Until then, who knows whats going on.

    If he does get money i hope its as piddly as 2 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    I’m inclined to agree that a cut-and-dried finding by Binnie, of innocence on the balance of probability, would have seen a quick compensation payout.

    Since it’s inconceivable that anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, could believe that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabililty, I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the original leak of his findings was garbled and that Binnie found some other “exceptional” reason to recommend compensation – a reason that Judith Collins didn’t like, such as Police behaviour in the investigation and first trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (6,717 comments) says:

    I think the gummint should give him the compo.

    Afterall we live in Aotearoa,the land of the long white perpetual give away,why stop now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    Since it’s inconceivable that anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, could believe that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabililty

    That’s exactly what he’s found according to Bob Jones who has talked to Bain’s counsel who has read a leaked copy of it. Good job.

    Now, what about Scott Watson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    James – you might be onto something there.

    Unless the canadian is the activist judge from hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    Nookin..
    Asking Fisher to review Binnie is like asking a Community Maistrate to review a PC decision.

    To point: It woiuld provide a convnient divergence of “legal” opinion, would it not?

    I am ambivalent on Bain – guilty/innocence; compensation/no compo.

    But I am keen on process. This has a very nasty smell and we should all be concerned over Colliun’s axtions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (6,717 comments) says:

    They can always make an award ……..of $1,now that would send a message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    according to Bob Jones who has talked to Bain’s counsel who has read a leaked copy of it.

    Chinese whispers much? Reference? I’ve heard various people assert that the report says that, but I don’t recall anyone (Jones, Reed, Karam, whoever) actually saying they’d read it. I’m suggesting that what is known, is that Binnie has recommended compo, and that people are therefore assuming that it’s because he’s concluded Bain is innocent and that assumption may be incorrect.

    Unless the canadian is the activist judge from hell.

    Well he comes with that sort of a rep, doesn’t he? It’s another reason why I think he may have stepped outside the narrow confines of the balance of probability to recommend compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    RRM….
    I hesitate (after previous disagreements) to praise you.
    But your comment is very much to point.
    (Actually, I think the fracking report was poor because it was full of weasel words. But that is another issue).

    On this, David is far too unquestioning of Collins. That silly woman has taken one step too far – unless she has asked for CONFIRMATION of Binnie’s report as a means of “silencing” the red neck brigade. How could Fisher could be “independent” ?

    Was he in Tibet for the past 20 years?

    The mind boggles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Ms Collins credibility would have been damaged if she had accepted Justice Binnie’s report and then found,on releasing it, that Binnie had made a number of errors and /or incorrect assumptions,which in my opinion he must have done,as it seems he has found David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities.
    All anyone has to do is take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. Write up the evidence against David Bain on the left side of that line and the evidence against Robin Bain on the right side. You will soon fill up the left side,while the right side will be virtually blank. What would you write on Robin Bain’s side of the line? That blood on his left hand? Almost certainly his own blood, probably caused by him raising his left hand to try and stop himself being shot in the left temple.
    Those abrasions on his right hand? Insignificant,according to the only pathologist that actually saw them in the flesh. At the first trial that pathologist said he thought those abrasions were over 18 hours old. At the retrial he said they could be anywhere between 1 and 24 hours old.
    As for the evidence against David Bain,heck ,there is so much one wonders where to start. I would have thought the glasses evidence alone would have been enough to find him guilty. Let’s go through that evidence step by step .
    [1] On the morning of the murders David Bain asks a constable who is in the room with him to pass him his glasses. That constable looks around and finds a pair of glasses on a chair with the glasses case next to them. He actually picks them up to give to David but then realises he shouldn’t be touching them because they are part of the crime scene so he puts them down again. They weren’t any use ,anyway ,because the frame was damaged and one lens was missing. The other lens was on the chair with the frame.
    [2] The next morning David Bain,who is staying with an aunt and uncle,comes into the lounge after breakfast complaining that he really needs his glasses because his eyes are hurting him. His aunt goes to get up and get them ,asking him where they are. He says he had damaged them the previous Thursday when leaving his music teacher’s residence and that they are in being repaired. His aunt asks him how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing an old pair of his mother’s glasses. He said they weren’t perfect but they got him by. He then says his glasses will be ready to be picked up on the follwing Thursday and would someone be able to go and get them for him. His uncle says he will do that,and he does so on the Thursday.
    [3] In the meantime the lens that was missing from those glasses that were on the chair in David’s room was found in Stephen’s room,which means the wearer of those glasses must have been in Stephen’s room,almost certainly when those glasses were damaged.
    [4] Just prior to trial David Bain told his lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing the glasses that were found in his room. He would admit to wearing them on the Sunday and the days preceding. But when he took the stand he said he didn’t know how those glasses came to be in his room. He said they were a pair of his mother’s that he had had worn before but that he had forgotten about them,he hadn’t seen them for at least a year.
    [5] This came as a surprise to the Crown prosecutor who had been expecting David Bain to admit to wearing those glasses.
    So he asked David a few questions. David said he only used his mother’s glasses for watching TV or going to lectures. He admitted watching a video on TV on the Sunday night. He said he thought he went to lectures on the Friday.
    [6] It also came as a surprise to his aunt,who,having finished giving her evidence,was sitting in the court listening to David giving evidence. When she heard David saying that he hadn’t seen those glasses that weekend or at least for a year she immediatly said to herself “That’s not what he told us”.
    Now I would have thought that,despite the defence trying as hard as they could to muddy the evidence relating to those glasses, that it would have been obvious to anyone that David Bain had been wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend. It should certainly have been obvious to Justice Binnie. So I have to wonder what Justice Binnie was thinking when he apparently said in his report that David Bain was innocent. I will certainly be interested to read what he has to say about those glasses.
    Even the Law Lords of the Privy Council agreed that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when in a struggle with David was a tenable one based on the evidence. They even went so far as to say that,in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s room where he was killed ,the Crown thesis was a strong one.
    They said there was no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses Stephen never wore,and had no need to wear,was already on the floor of his bedroom prior to him being shot.
    And that is just the glasses evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Flipper – don’t worry chap I won’t take an occasional bit of agreement too personally.

    But you’re making a lot of sense on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Positan (378 comments) says:

    “I guess we won’t know what the reasons are for the review – and how substantive they were … ”

    As an admirer of the Queen’s English, not the corner-cutting insufficiencies so often rendered by U.S. English, and without at all wishing to appear academic – my consideration of these Bain case developments was jarred with its use of “substantive” instead of “substantial.”

    It’s become a sloppy habit – in recent times our politicos the most constant offenders. Key, English, Shearer, Cunliffe, the lot – all doubtless having picked it up from interplay with US counterparts, and believing such use of the word to convey erudition. There are distinct differences in the meanings of these two words, and if those who want to convey clearly the actuality of their intended message, they should at least make efforts to ascertain the meaning of their chosen words.

    Indeed, it may be said that government’s measures in addressing the Bain case have been “substantial” – but they’ve yet to be shown as “substantive.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Beneath contempt Judith Collins is working hard to block Bain for a mere $2 mill. Politicians usually scoff when questioned about those amounts. The waste the Nat/Lab coalition has amounted to after 70 years is incredulous and their paradigm must be seen to be winding down. Corporatism/socialism has to be educated as distinctly working against the common and societal interest. Far too narrow scoped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    Chinese whispers much? Reference?

    The judge delivered his report some months ago. The Government immediately gave a copy to the Crown Law Office but refused one to Bain’s counsel, let alone the media. You will see what I mean now about the consistent raw deal Bain has received from go to whoa. But the Binnie report result was leaked to this newspaper and revealed that the judge concluded on the balance of probabilities, Bain did not murder his family.

    muggins, I doubt a Supreme Court judge would be so unversed in law as to fail to do what you suggest. Just because you can’t see how Bain could possibly be innocent doesn’t mean he isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    I for one don’t care how small a porportion $2mil is. It’s still a lot of money, and I don’t want it paid out.

    Remember, a retrial was ordered so Bain doesn’t qualify for compensation unless he can prove exceptional circumstances.

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

    Of course, Mr. Binnie may actually have decided that David Bain was in fact probably guilty, and Judith Collins would certainly need some time to think about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Elaycee (4,081 comments) says:

    …according to Bob Jones who has talked to Bain’s counsel who has read a leaked copy…

    So that makes it somehow, ‘gospel’? 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    The reason that Bain’s council hasn’t recieved a copy is quite simple – does anyone seriously suggest that they woudn’t leak it to the media?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (3,126 comments) says:

    Beneath contempt Judith Collins is working hard to block Bain for a mere $2 mill.

    IMO it’s not about the money, it’s about the fact the the NZ judicial system is broken. I know of a case where Collins refused to negotiate settlement for wrongful imprisonment arising from judicial fraud, saying that she couldn’t comment on matters that had been before the court. The fraud was actually admitted by the judge, and he refused to provide a transcript of the hearing. The fraud was in relation to wrongful assumption of jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth

    That’s a conspiracy bud. Can’t be true. Even if it was printed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    @Reid

    There you go: “But the Binnie report result was leaked to this newspaper”

    The fact that Binnie has recommended compo has been leaked, not the report itself, which it appears nobody but JC has read. So I think that everyone, Jones included, has made an incorrect assumption about the grounds for that recommendation.

    Seriously, which is more likely? Activist judge finds anti-police “exception circumstances” to grant compensation or elderly man has life and death struggle with a teenager without sustaining a scratch, changes out of bloodstained clothes (which he washes) and back into his oldest trackies, contorts himself into a weird position with a rifle to commit suicide and all with a full bladder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    The reason that Bain’s council hasn’t recieved a copy is quite simple – does anyone seriously suggest that they woudn’t leak it to the media?

    So what? If there’s nothing to hide then there shouldn’t be a problem even if they did leak it.

    And you can deal with that anyway via an agreement if you really want to. The point is, once again the Crown, who has all the resources in criminal prosecutions, plays it in its own way, regardless of whether or not that way is fair or just or open.

    Haven’t you noticed this country has a real problem admitting its made a mistake in the criminal law? It goes way beyond what would be a justified position were it merely trying to quell vexatious bids by people who really are guilty and it borders on the vicious, given the consequences of its position to the innocent person. And this happens time after time after time after time no matter what govt is in power. Demonstrating it’s an institutional problem not one generated by a few individuals. This needs to change and it can easily be changed, without going overboard the other way, if one had a will to do it.

    James yes fair point about the result, I didn’t pick that up on first reading, but I don’t agree with what you conclude from that. It’s quite possible the result was as Jones lays out, even if the reasoning is not yet available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (3,126 comments) says:

    That’s a conspiracy bud. Can’t be true. Even if it was printed.

    I hear what you are saying about conspiracy denial. In this case it’s hard to pin conspiracy on anyone because the judge was acting as agent – he said “it’s the rules”. To prove conspiracy you would have to prove that parliament, being responsible for the “rules”, had acted with malicious intent. But even though it may not technically be conspiracy, it does have the same effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    Mike Hosking may be many things. But this is a interesting summation:

    By: Mike Hosking | Tuesday, 4 December 2012 9:32 a.m.

    When we had Michael Reed QC on the programme last week and he asked what had happened to the Bain report that the Government had in their hands for some months, I think we managed to get him the answer yesterday morning from the Prime Minister. Clearly what’s happened is that Judith Collins doesn’t like what the Canadian judge has had to say as regards to compensation and has gone out and got herself some more legal advice from a QC.

    The report allegedly has Bain as innocent on the balance of probabilities. We can say this with some confidence because when it was first reported, despite the fact Collins was saying nothing, it was reported with such preciseness that you were left with the very distinct impression you would never have made such a bold statement without some concrete evidence – the evidence most likely being a leak. My theory was the leak was deliberate so as to soften the public up for the news that he’d been found innocent and we should be expecting a very large cheque.

    Collins also gave a deadline of Christmas which was a very long time simply to come up with a number. Now what we can safely assume has happened is that she didn’t like the compensation number so went out to find someone who could give her a reason for a lesser figure so that when they release the report and we all see the Canadian figure, the Government can then put forward the counter figure from the QC they hired and offer a third figure, probably somewhere in the middle.

    She can argue they were being fair and reasonable with public funds and also balancing out the various views from us that he either should have got more given he spent 13 years in jail for nothing or he shouldn’t get a cent because he’s guilty as sin and simply got let out. She’s struck trouble clearly with the QC who’s come back with something that she wasn’t expecting, hence we’re not likely to see this sorted before Christmas.

    But my view of this has not changed. Justice has to be seen to be done and let’s see that with the facts. Bain was let free, his sentence was quashed. An independent judge was called in and looked at the facts. He came to a conclusion. Why hire someone if you’re not going to follow what they say?

    What remains indisputable is that Bain spent years in prison he shoudn’t have. The justice system let him down. He was robbed of a large number of very productive years. The best we can do in a modern Western society to put things like that right is with money. He’s owed a lot. Whether it’s $2 million or $4 million or 3.2 or 6.8 is merely a negotiating point, but not one that needs to last forever reaching.

    Collins has the report. All she needs to do is write the cheque and Bain is owed the basic courtesy of that happening a lot quicker than it has.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Mike Hosking is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    The point is that taking all the evidence into account it was David Bain that killed his family and it was not Robin Bain who killed four members of his family and then committed suicide. That is the point.
    Who had his brother’s blood on his clothes?
    Who had scratches on his chest?
    Who had a premonition that something terrible was going to happen?
    Whose gloves were found in Stephen’s room?
    Who told Laniet that if she didn’t go to a family meeting he had called for that Sunday night he would drag her to it “kicking and screaming” if he had to? She told acqaintances she didn’t want to go to that meeting because David was acting “freaky”.
    David Bain told his aunt he left to do his paper round earlier than usual that morning. Why did he do that?
    David Bain said he didn’t bring the paper in,although he said he normally did when he ran his paper round,which is what he said he did that morning.. So why didn’t he bring the paper in that morning?
    David Bain said he heard his sister Laniet gurgling. Professor Ferris,Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia,a mann who has carried out up to 10000 post mortem examinations of which 700 to 800 related to gunshot wounds testified that he was quite confident that the cheek wound to Laniet’s head was the first wound. He said she would have been able to survive that wound for a considerable time. He said she would have been able to make noises that could be interpreted as gurgling noises indicating she was still alive. He said a groaning type sound would indicate she was still alive and that a muffling sound like water might be gurgling as air is drawn through blood in the airways. Exactly what David Bain said he heard.
    When first asked David Bain said the green jersey that the killer wore belonged to Arawa ,and he confirmed that later.
    But when he took the stand he changed his story and said it was his father’s jersey. Why did he change his story?
    A pristine set of David Bain’s fingerprints were found on the rifle. The police fingerprint expert who saw those prints shortly after the murders said they were positive prints,meaning that David Bain had blood on his fingers when he placed them on the rifle. That could never be proved or disproved,but that fingerprint expert was the man who saw that rifle shortly after the murders.
    David Bain said it took between 45 minutes and an hour for the washing machine to go through it’s cycle yet the machine wasn’t going when the police were in the vicinity of the laundry at around 7.35am. If David Bain arrived home at 6.45 he wouldn’t have started the machine until around 6.50. By rights it should have been still going at 7.35.
    I will continue later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    Muggins…
    Please do NOT bother. You are wasting your time and clogging the ether.

    All the ameteur sleuths in the world may pick at this, but they will make not a jot of difference.
    The issue is done.
    Dead.
    Let it go.
    Let’s now hear what Binnie says, and act accordingly.

    Oh Muggins, why not look at the Dunedin baby murderer (what was her name?). Perhaps you could determine whether she really was guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    But the issue is not dead,flipper,otherwise you wouldn’t be still posting about it. If Justice Binnie has found David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities,and I believe we all have to accept that he has,then there will be errors and/or incorrect assumptions in his report. I would very much like to read his report so that I can point out those errors and incorrect assumptions. But I am sure that the Hon Robert Fisher will be quite capable of finding them. Judith Collins has done the right thing in asking him to review it.
    What you are saying,flipper, is forget about the evidence,pay David Bain regardless of whether he committed the crime or not.
    Sorry,flipper,I’m not buying that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    A point which has been overlooked….

    Is Fisher the same Fisher who has been nick-named the “porno judge”. (Caught viewing porn on a compoute, and more ???? )

    Is he the same Fisher who quit the bench because he was subsequetly declined a permanent appointment to the Court of Appeal?

    There is more to that episode, involving one of NZ’s “foremost families”. But suffiuce to say that there are views on Fisher among those in the legal fraternity that would make a Madam blush. Surely Collins knows all this.

    I make no judgment. I just ask questiions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    It is unusual for the Government to get a second opinion. It makes you wonder why.

    Because Binnie is senile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I see. So a David Bain supporter,rather than look at the evidence, would prefer to try and discredit the Judge who is going to review Binnie’s report. Why am I not surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    Muggins ….
    I am not endeavouring to re-litigate the issue.
    I want to see due process – whatever the outcome.
    So, muggins, be a good little amateur and go back to sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    So Muggins, it is alright for you do discredit Judge Binnie as you have done but not for flipper to question someone else, because she is a David Bain supporter – not a lot of sensible reasoning in that argument, is there?

    As flipper says, your attempts to analyse the Bain evidence are amateuristic at best.
    Regardless of how much you have followed the case, you can not have ever been privy to the amount of information that Judge Binnie had.

    If there was information in that report that was incorrect or indicated compensation should not have been paid, we would not be having this conversation. I suggest it is because of old men in armchairs with Sherlock Holmes fantasies, that is behind why Collins wants to make sure everything passes scrutiny before she writes David’s cheque. She obviously knows how obsessed armchair detectives can be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Dear oh dear, I seem to have upset flipper,so much so that now he is telling me what I should do.
    I have to tell you ,flipper,that approach is not going to work.
    And flipper, I don’t give two hoots what you are trying to do or not do.
    All I am doing is posting the evidence that points to David Bain as being the perpetrator. Now if you don’t want to read it,that’s ok with me,I can’t force you to. But it does appear to me that,if you believe that David Bain is innocent,then you are uninformed and all I am trying to do is to see that you are better informed. No more and no less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Do the dead just remain ‘unaccounted for’ or does a coroner take over?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    The problem is muggins that what you pass off as information is nothing more than an opinion. It is not based on an authentic professional analysis of the evidence given first hand. You may have spoken to a few people, read a few second hand reports, and even gone over the trial transcripts, and probably even hounded a few witnesses, but this does not provide you with the ability or skills required to make the calls you do. For that reason, flipper and others like them, are more than justified in excusing your arguments.

    If flipper or anyone else, did see the need to inform themselves, one would hope it would be from authentic and qualified individuals with the necessary skills and rationality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    MUGGINS…

    One last try to persuade you that balance, by those that have had access to all the data, should be preferrfed to amateurs.

    You say:

    ” All I am doing is posting the evidence that points to David Bain as being the perpetrator. ”

    That is the point muggins, and even now you do not realise what you have said.

    I repeat: Neither your primeval, red neck, second guess bellows , will, in the end, make a difference to the outcome. Neither will my attempts at balance.

    As for your amateurish attempt to determine my feelings, Pathetic.
    Your blood pressure seems toi have risen, muggins. Can I suggest Metroprolol, say 40mg daily? No, on seco d thoughts, Valium, 15mg.

    So, let it go Muggins. Stop pishing and go back to sleep….PLEASE. Take a non addictive sleeping tablet to ease your condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. OneTrack (1,977 comments) says:

    Bain was declared not guilty in a court of law.

    In NZ, this means he IS innocent.

    Which means he was falsely imprisioned. Which means he is due compensation.

    How hard can that be.

    You can argue facts until you are blue in the face, the answer was still not guilty. If you know something the trial didn’t hear, then take it to the police and they can charge him again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > I can only conclude that they have serious issues with the quality of the report.

    Well, I did suggest a while ago that it might be useful to subject Binnie’s report to peer-review. We will see if it stands up to scrutiny.

    I was surprised that Binnie requested copies of Karam’s books, notwithstanding that they contained errors and false assumptions and featured overblown rhetoric. However, when a juror from Bain’s re-trial wished to communicate with Binnie, he didn’t want to give her the time of day. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there aremistkaes in Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > In NZ, this means he IS innocent. Which means he was falsely imprisioned. Which means he is due compensation.

    I suggest you listen to the juror from Bain’s re-trial who spoke out recently. She doesn’t seem to think he is innocent. Moreover, Cabinet guidelines do not guarantee him compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SGA (545 comments) says:

    @muggins – “All I am doing is posting the evidence that points to David Bain as being the perpetrator.”

    From Wikipedia

    Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

    We all do it, and, to be fair, our beliefs aren’t always wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Robert Fisher won’t be finding anything material wrong with Binnie’s conclusion on the facts. There may be an issue on amounts of compensation but most likely he will have been looked to asked at procedural fault with the police and Crown which must have been spelt out in the report. Like Binnie before him, the Jury, The Privy Council, Robert Fisher won’t be influenced by crowing red necks:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bain-compensation-a-humanity-question-says-former-jud
    ge/tabid/423/articleID/268848/Default.aspx
    ” .to show extraordinary circumstances: in those cases one would normally
    expect to see proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very
    difficult thing to show; or perhaps abuse of authority by the police or
    prosecuting agency or something very special of that kind.”
    “I don’t doubt that [Binnie] was very thorough in investigating every avenue
    before he came to his conclusion.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dave_c_ (205 comments) says:

    Hear hear ! One Track
    So many of the commentators in this thread appear to forget that ‘common sense’ is what most people respond kindly to, rather than the politicised, convoluted discussions – deliberately made to confuse everyone !

    I also have a huge beef with the curernt Justice system which appears now to require someone to ‘prove their innocence’ ! Bloody ridiculous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Some questions that Binnie should have asked Bain:

    What did David do in the 15-20 minutes from when he returned home from his paper run until he phoned for an ambulance?
    How long after he heard Laniet gurgling did he call for an ambulance?
    What were his thoughts when he heard Laniet gurgling and did he try to help her?
    Did he turn on and turn off the light in her room that morning?
    How did he get bruises on his face and grazes on his knee and left shoulder?
    How did he get the blood of his brother Stephen on his shorts and t-shirt?
    Why did he tell the 111 operator that his family were all dead and then subsequently say he had only seen his parents’ bodies?
    When did he learn that his brother and sisters had died?
    Did he say that the green jersey worn by the killer belonged to Arawa and then later said it belonged to his father? If so, why did he change his story?
    Did he call a family meeting for the evening before the murders? If so, what was the purpose of the meeting and did the meeting go ahead?
    If it didn’t go ahead, why was that?
    Was Laniet scared of him? If so, why?
    Did he demand Laniet attend a family meeting the evening before the murders?
    Why did he enter the gate on the property of Mrs Mitchell on the morning of the murders?
    Did he discuss, with two high school friends, the possibility of abducting and raping a female jogger and using his paper run as an alibi?
    Did he, as Arawa allegedly told a friend, walk around inside the house holding a gun intimidating the family?
    What motivated him to say, after his first trial, that the judge “was very kind to me during the trial”?
    Did he think the first trial judge was kind when the judge said that he had acted “with a significant degree of cunning and premeditation”?
    Does he know how did blood came to be found inside the duvet cover on his bed?
    Did he own a pair of white opera gloves and where did he keep them?
    Where were the gloves the night before the murders?
    Whilst in prison, David allegedly said: “I find this state of limbo depressing and often hard to live with [being in prison], but it is
    eminently easier than being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”? What dreams were shattered, what plans were destroyed, what promises were broken, and what betrayals did he suffer?
    Did David take a motorbike for a test run some weeks before the murders and crash it? If so, did he have – at the time of the murders – an outstanding debt regarding the motorbike? If so, how much was the outstanding debt and did David promise to pay it?
    Did David pay that debt?
    What was David’s yearly income (if any) and what was his financial position?
    Did David have in his bedroom a piece of cardboard with five hand drawn circular targets which had various bullet holes in and around them? Who drew the five circular targets and did they represent anything in particular? Why five targets?
    Can he explain his premonition – just days prior to the murders – that his family would be murdered?
    Does he recall talking with a relative after the killings about “black hands taking them away”? If so, what was he talking about when referring to the black hands taking them away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    So, a retired Judge interviewed david bain and concluded he was innocent – do fuck off retired Judge

    Judges prior to being judges are barristers, its very rare they ask the hard questions because they can’t defend their client if he admits quilt, this stops them running fanciful what if defences.

    Very few are really experienced at interviews, a one day interview for 5 murders, bit skimpy I think

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Viking2 (10,734 comments) says:

    Lets face it the fuck up belongs with Plod right at the beginning. Piss poor scene evaluation, rushed behavoir and a made up mindset. Burn down the house in a hurry to remove the evidence and possible relook to appease the most probable killer and hand out the cash to other people.
    Hmmm.

    If Plod had done the job properly right from go them we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
    So take it out of the Police vote.
    They fucked up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Collins is probably pushing this as a test case to stop further compensations and open up more injustices in the courts and from police

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I recall Lord Denning making the infamous statement, during an appeal by the Birmingham Six:

    “Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial … If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. … That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, “It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.”

    Several years later the Birmingham Six had their convictions overturned.

    It’s a pity that Denning was so sure of himself, in much the same way that there are some who think Binnie couldn’t possibly have made a mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Judith Collins recently said that police couldn’t act like the criminals they put in prison. One of the 2 ex police officers interviewed by Binnie gave evidence under oath in the retrial that he had misled the first Jury. Being ‘fair’ as John Key referred to yesterday is most likely that some given a roasting in Binnie’s report may be kicking up hell. Just consider the officer who didn’t tell the first Jury that the time he gave as evidence regarding the computer turn on time was two minutes out but that he would have given that evidence ‘if somebody asked him.’ Or the detective who recovered a memory after 15 years and claimed that David Bain asked for ‘his’ glasses on the morning of the murders, but the detective had never raised it before because he didn’t want to be ‘criticised.’ Both Fisher and Binnie understand how Miscarriages of Justice work, I wouldn’t be surprised that Binnie noted that it continued well into the second trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. flipper (3,273 comments) says:

    Paul EB….
    I generally enjoy your comments. I take it that you are not “the real Paul East”. If you are, we know one another quute well.

    ‘Nuff said. But I wonder whether the eastern BoP has affected you on Bain.

    You say:

    ” Very few are really experienced at interviews, a one day interview for 5 murders, bit skimpy I think. ”

    What you seem to have overlooked is that Binnie is not a half-baked ex barrister.
    Nor is he a half-baked Sherlock (et al), and very few NZ “sherlocks” have much to be proud about (A A Thomas, remember).

    Binnie had access to every bit of data.
    He had every transcript.
    He was able (one presumes) to read, assimilate, and take notes on various points, before beiginning his quest. He has been “around the block”, so to speak and thus able to recognise spin or bullshit, whatever the source.
    And, Binnie interviewed, personally, police and all other parties (except, sadly, the late Bains), …no offence intended).

    Prosecutiors are not kniown for dismissing Police “evidence”. Defence lawyers, similarly. But if someone stnds in between, they usually get a good sense of right or wrong – especially when they do niot have to meet their “bretheren” at the Northern or Wellington Clubs each week.

    Anyway, we shall have to wait and see, wont we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    “Because Binnie is senile.”

    heh. I was thinking the same thing. Binnie is getting on a bit, it has to be said. Perhaps he is viewing this as a sort of last hurrah, to be the final exclamation point in the case of an innocent man finally set free. It will look good in Binnie’s wikipedia biography. And there’s always the possibility of a movie to consider. One thing that is a little confusing is how this “balance of probabilities” is supposed to work. I’d have thought it would mean that something is more likely than not. So, given it appears to be generally accepted that either David or Robin committed these murders, if David is not guilty on the balance of probabilities, then Robin is. Yet there is very little, if any, physical evidence connecting Robin to the murders. If you believe David is not guilty, then you have to believe, as DPF suggests, that Robin attempted to frame David for the crimes. Otherwise, so very little of the evidence makes sense if it is accepted that David is not guilty. If Binnie’s report is a load of nonsense, then Collins is quite correct to seek other opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I see that one poster is saying that a detective recovered his memory after 15 years and claimed that David Bain asked for “his’ glasses. That poster still does not accept that David Bain told the aunt he was staying with after the murders that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were in being repaired-they weren’t perfect,he said,but they got him by. That same poster still does not accept that David Bain told his lawyer prior to the first trial that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior.
    I mean it was his mother’s glasses that were found in his room. He said he had been wearing them. It’s simple enough. Those glasses were in his room because he had been wearing them. And the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room.
    Enough to convict ,in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Judith, I know why you won’t discuss the evidence against David Bain with me. It is not because it is only my opinion. It is because you have no answer to it. You just can’t explain it away. Not logically,anyway.
    I mean you know David Bain was wearing those glasses that were found in his room. Do you really think that lens from those glasses that was found in Stephen’s room was “planted”? Do you really believe that?
    How do you think David Bain got those bruises on his head? Do you really think that he got them from falling backwards from a sitting position. Do you really believe that?
    How do you think that David Bain came to have Stephen’s blood on his clothes? Do you really think that the blood on his t-shirt was “old” blood because he hadn’t washed that t-shirt properly? Do you really believe that? How do you think that blood got on his shorts?
    How do you think David Bain got those scratches on his chest? I will give you a clue. Stephen Bain had fibres from that green jersey that the killer wore under his fingernails which means he clawed at the person who was wearing that jersey.
    Robin Bain didn’t have any scratches on his chest,but David Bain did.
    And there are many more questions that I could ask you,but why would I bother.
    By the way,when I do phone a witness I always say straight away that I am wanting to ask them questions re the Bain murders and that they can hang up if they want to. As it happens all the people I have spoken to have been quite happy to talk to me. I tell them I don’t want to know their opinion as to whether David Bain is guilty or not guilty. The only ones that have volunteered an opinion have said they believe he is guilty. When we have had our chat we both say our goodbyes. I mention that because two of them mentioned that another person who had phoned about the Bain case had hung up without bothering to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    The dipsters are having fun today, claiming that Robin had to have ‘set David up,’ that Binnie is senile. How desperate. Robin Bain wiped blood on his hands to make himself look guilty? Sure. Binnie senile on the evidence of…well, nothing. Sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I certainly don’t think Justice Binnie is senile,why would I seeing as he is younger than me and I am certainly not senile.
    But ,like everyone else,he makes mistakes as he surely has done in his report.
    What’s all this about Robin Bain supposedly wiping blood on his hands as mentioned by a previous poster? It is pretty obvious to me how he got that blood on his left hand. He raised his left hand to his head in an attempt to ward off the rifle and his left hand got some blood spatter on it which may have smeared when his hand hit his clothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Message to flipper. You seem to know what pills to take for blood pressure,maybe that’s because your’s is a bit high.
    But you don’t need to worry about mine, because when I had it checked about two weeks ago it was 120 over 70. The Doc said it was excellent and that I must be doing something right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Little known fact.
    When David Bain was on remand he asked his aunt to take his jerseys home to be hand washed because he didn’t want them spoiled by the prison laundry. His aunt said that it was family practice for all hand-knitted jerseys to be hand-washed.
    Of course we don’t know if David Bain always did the washing. Maybe that Monday morning was the first time and he didn’t know the rules. He said he separated the whites from the coloureds, but he doesn’t appear to have done that. There was white clothing on the line and coloured clothing in the wash basket.
    I wonder what colour that sock that had all that blood on the sole of it was? There was one white sock in the washing machine. Maybe it was that one. You would have thought David would have noticed a blood soaked sock when he put it in the machine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RF (1,132 comments) says:

    In another life I had the most unpleasant task of attending a number of suicides by gunshot. Never came across one where the individual put himself in a position that could only been seen in the kama Sutra when holding the firearm. Its drawing a real long bow to accept that someone ending his life would want to be a contortionist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    My my, for years it was claimed there was no blood or wounds to Robin’s hands. Now the same people explain how it got there.
    Cops always look at the hands of suspects of violence. The blood on Robin’s hands was right there at the beginning along with the blood from a nose bleed. Was the nose bleed, hand wounds contemporaneous to the fight with Stephen, and the blood soaked in Robin’s blood – you bet ya. The pathologist was kept outside for hours – the most important investigator, were the police looking for an electronic diary that somehow went missing after being handled by the officer who admitted under oath to misleading the first jury?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Strange how people refer to the postion used by Robin to shoot himself as being similar to kama sutra. In doing so they show their ignorance of Kama Sutra, and of the facts presented in court. The position was not at all difficult, what made it hard to get right, and assistance needed, was the exact lining up of the barrel with the prosecutions complicated equipment, which the person using was not familiar with. That was what all the fuss was about, but the actual position was very easy to achieve, and has been noted in other suicides worldwide.

    Unless RF has attended ALL suicides, I fail to see how his comment is anything more than desperate hype. Just because it wasn’t the most common, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. Even the Crown’s own expert witnesses had to agree suicide was possible in that position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > The dipsters are having fun today, claiming that Robin had to have ‘set David up’

    Nah all Robin had to do was write a note saying that “David deserved to stay” (though I’m sure Robin would have said “deserves to live” – he wouldn’t have been so uneducated as to write “deserved to stay”. Stay where?). Or Robin could have phoned police just before he killed himself to admit to the killings. Or he could have removed the silencer rather than contorting himself or standing on a bloody chair. There are many things that Robin could have done which would have left not the scintilla of doubt…but alas he didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Why don’t the David Bain supporters tell us about the Australian gun expert who was commissioned by Joe Karam? What did that expert say about who the likely killer was?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Muggins for someone that thinks of themself so highly as an expert, you sure do get many things wrong. We do know that this wasn’t the first time David Bain did the washing, and in fact, there were witnesses, even crown witnesses who had stayed in the house with the family who gave evidence that David did do the washing many mornings on return from his paper round. Like most teenagers, he no doubt picked everything up and threw it in, not inspecting for anything else but colour.

    Perhaps you have just forgotten that, conveniently or otherwise, or perhaps you haven’t been able to access those witnesses phone numbers. Either way, it proves how selective you are with what you decide to pass off in your diatribes, most of which are not worth commenting on, because as you and most others well know, the time for rationality and objectiveness in your research, has long past. I suspect people tell you what you want to know on the phone, merely to get rid of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    24.06.94

    My full name is David Cullen BAIN. I am 22 years of age being born on 27
    march 1972. I lived at 65 Every Street, Dunedin and I am a student at Otago
    University.

    I am speaking to Detective Sergeant CROUDIS and Detective LOWDEN
    regarding events at my address on Monday 20.6.94. I have been told that I’m not
    obliged to say anything and that anything I do say may be given in evidence. I
    have also been told that I’m entitled to consult and instruct a lawyer without
    delay.

    1 Croudis Doc. 10244 & Lowden Doc.10245. [Name refers to name of person sourced. Doc. is original file
    reference]
    2 Boyd Doc.1 0256
    3 Exhibit 586, David Bain Stmt Doc.10237. [Exhibit number is court exhibit reference]
    Q Do you understand.
    A Yes.
    Q Your fingerprints have been found in blood on your firearm, why are they there.
    A I don’t know.
    Q When you say I don’t know do you mean that you didn’t touch the firearm, you didn’t have blood on your hands or the forensic evidence is false.
    A I didn’t touch the firearm to my knowledge. I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.
    Q Do you accept the forensic evidence I’ve outlined.
    A Yes.
    Q When we discussed that question earlier you stated you could not account for between 15-20 minutes. Is that an explanation for what happened to your family that morning.
    A No.
    Q What is it.
    A It’s a question of what happened to me. After I saw my father I remember seeing um my family being pulled away from me by black hands.
    Q There is a blood stained fingerprint on the washing machine. How did that get there.
    A I don’t know.
    Q Are you saying you didn’t make it.
    A I can’t say that because if it is my fingerprint then it is my hand that has put it there.
    Q There are indications of blood from clothing that appears to have been pushed into the washing machine. Can you tell me why blood stained clothing had been washed.
    A No.
    Q Do you accept that you washed clothes on Monday morning.
    A Yes.
    Q And in those clothes was at least one pair of socks belonging to you.
    A Yes.
    Q A sweatshirt belonging to you.
    A Yes.
    Q A dark jersey belonging to Arawa.
    A Yes.
    Q When the police located you at the house, you were wearing a white T-shirt with a Queens Baton Relay emblem.
    A Yes.
    Q On the back of that shirt we have observed blood, how did that get there.
    A I don’t know.
    Q If your previous statements to Detective Sergeant DUNNE are truthful, then there should be no reason for that blood to be on your shirt.
    A No.
    Q When you were located by the police you were wearing white socks. We have located blood on the sole of the sock. How did that get there.
    A I don’t know.
    Q Again, if your statement to D/S DUNNE is truthful there is no reason for you to have blood stained clothing.
    A Unless I stood in some blood.
    Q Where might you have stood in blood.
    A I don’t know.
    Q We have located a spot of blood on your black rugby shorts you were wearing. Explain to me how that got there.
    A I can’t.
    Q There is blood on the porcelain handbasin in the bathroom, how did that get there.
    A I don’t know.
    Q Did you put it there.
    A No.
    Q There’s blood on a large towel hanging in the bathroom, a considerable amount of blood. How did that get there David.
    A I don’t know.
    Q We found blood on the door surround in Stephen’s room. It was a small amount compared with the amount of blood found inside Stephen’s room. There had been a violent struggle in Stephen’s room. Stephen had fought for his life. Can you tell me how that blood got there.
    A No.
    Q David do you own any gloves.
    A Purple woollen gloves, fingerless green gloves and I’ve recently
    bought new white dress gloves for a ball at Larnach Castle.
    Q Is that all.
    A Yes.
    Q Where are those gloves.
    A The purple ones should be in the top drawer of the wardrobe in my
    room, the green gloves are on the chair in my room. The white gloves
    are with my dress scarf in the same drawer as the purple drawers.
    Q Do you keep your dress clothes separate.
    A Not all of it.
    Q The white gloves, do they have a button or gap.
    A No they’re plain.
    Q What are they made of.
    A Elasticated some sort, I don’t know.
    Q Where would those be.
    A In the caravan, I don’t know where.
    Q You’re certain he keeps his formal gear in the caravan.
    A Yes.
    Q In Steven’s room a pair of white formal type gloves were located. These were heavily blood stained. Do you know anything about these.
    A No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    You tell us ross, see if you can get it right. I wouldn’t rely on that you know where site for proof though.

    Exactly Judith, having experience at arriving at suicide scenes doesn’t make one an expert. But this scene was very straight forward, particularly when examining the splatter and noting that it went in two directions on the raised left leg.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > You tell us ross, see if you can get it right…

    You seem particularly defensive. Karam sent info to an Australian gun expert. What did that expert say? Surely you wouldn’t be so dishonest as to ignore what the expert has to say just because his report wasn’t to Karam’s liking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RF (1,132 comments) says:

    Judith. 4.18pm

    I would have responded sooner but there were so many flying pigs overhead that I had to stop typing. Obviously you are familiar with the many positions of the Kama Sutra and have a close association with Bain. As I clearly have a led a sheltered life and have a lot to learn I will watch your future posts with interest as i am sure that you have opinion about everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    ross you appearing a little circumspect. What a surprise after all your ‘aged’ cut and pastes. Give us your interpretation, it surely is important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Ross69 @4.30pm,
    Your ‘statement’ appears to have quite some of it removed. It goes from asking about the composition of David’s gloves, then appears to be asking about Robin’s clothes without introducing the subject. Now, one must ask why it has been abridged, did David say something that didn’t fit with the ‘stance’ of the investigation? Or was it you who decided what information fitted with your prejudice and edit it yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Pity you don’t read some of the stuff you paste ross – the following is an example of how David Bain was set up.

    ‘Q There’s blood on a large towel hanging in the bathroom, a considerable amount of blood. How did that get there David.
    A I don’t know.’

    And it was a considerable amount of blood wasn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Judith,ok, I was trying to give David Bain an excuse by saying he might not have been in the habit of doing the washing,but you have said that was not the case so could you explain to me why David Bain placed that green hand knitted jersey in the washing machine when he knew full well that hand knitted garments were washed by hand?
    Also,as I said earlier,he said he sorted the whites from the coloureds. He obviously did not do that. So why did he say he did?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I note that David Bain said those green gloves were on a chair in his room. But they were found in the pocket of his red anorak which was in his father’s van. I wonder how they got from that chair to inside the pocket of that anorak.
    That suggests to me he was wearing those gloves that morning,which would not be surprising,seeing as it was bitterly cold.
    But he said he was wearing a red sweatshirt and not an anorak despite one witness saying he was wearing a sweatshirt with a hood and that the hood was up. I wonder if he was wearing that anorak and put the gloves in the pocket of it after he finished his paper round,then put it in the van for some reason or other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    I suggest that the report may contain recomendations surrounding the prosecution of various police officers, and perhaps even removing some sitting judges from the bench. I think that is more likely why the report is being reviewed, rather than Collins just doesn’t want to pay Bain a cent.
    Because none of the other reasons given for getting a second opininion are worth wasting political and public good will over.
    It has to be something that goes to the heart of our justice system.
    Or it involves negative comments about past justice ministers and their decisions, but I doubt it would be that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Q What are they made of .
    A Elasticated some sort, I don’t know.
    Q Did anyone else in the house have dress gloves?
    A My father.
    Q Where would those be.
    A In the caravan, I don’t know where.
    Q You’re certain he keeps his formal gear in the caravan.
    A Yes.
    Q In Steven’s room a pair of white formal type gloves were located. These were heavily blood stained. Do you know anything about these.
    A No.

    It was 1120 hours when David asked for a solicitor and following arrangements through his uncle, Mr Guest was contacted and came to the office at 1145 hours. Mr Guest spoke privately to David, read the statement as written to that point, and then, at 1235 hours, advised the officers that no more questions should be put to David. Detective Sergeant Croudis said that there were some points still to be covered and Mr Guest asked to see them in writing. A list of five questions was given and Mr Guest spoke privately with David about them and, at 1247 hours, advised that David would not answer them. It was agreed, however, that David would sign the written statement completed to the point at which Mr Guest arrived, and at 1306 hours he did so.

    The questions on the list the officers wanted to put to David, were:

    a) Inviting an explanation for a lens from glasses “you have been wearing” being found in Stephen’s room.
    b) Asking him to confirm he had told Val Boyd, “It could have been me. I don’t knowif it Was me or Dad.”
    c) Asking him if he could explain how a piece [of skin] missing from his knee was found in Stephen’s room.
    d) Asking if he had typed the message on the computer.
    e) Asking if he had shot and killed the members of his immediate family.

    Detective Sergeant Croudis put the questions to David and asked if he was prepared to answer any of them and David replied, “No.” The officer then asked David to read the questions and indicate if they accurately recorded what he had been asked and he read the document and replied. “Yes”, He was asked to sign the page to that effect but Mr Guest intervened and David declined to sign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    flipper @ 1.31pm

    No, I didn’t arrange “silk’ on a flight to Europe to appear before the Privy Council and have never resided in Rotorua as it is far too cold in winter.

    But, my point was, Bain was found Not Guilty at his last trial, didn’t agree with the verdict but my opinion counts for nothing, I can see how Binnie could find that there was not enough evidence to convict Bain, I struggle but I understand.

    What I will be horrified about is that if the report catagorically finds him innocent, a huge difference from Not Guilty ( reasonable doubt etc etc) because in my view if the report were to be one of innocence Binne has brought into half arsed half baked theories that were popped into the defence case and ignore huge circumstantial evidence and his interviews gave a jury the right to draw an honest conclusion.

    And my comment about interviewing stands, I do not believe Bain will have been interviewed by Binnie in a manner to extract the truth ( I am presuming he would have been questioned regards alot of the half arsed , half baked stuff and not just questioned on a basis of a first interview before the trials.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > the following is an example of how David Bain was set up.

    Oh so it was the police’s fault that Robin didn’t leave a handwritten note? The police were to blame for Robin apparently deciding to contort himself in order to shoot himself? It was the police’s fault that David put blood-stained clothes in the washing machine?

    Is David responsible for anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Only 2 things I’ve questioned you about ross, surely you must be able to answer at least one, after all you raised them.
    The one from the interview is straight forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    PEB

    So you consider that having completely familiarised himself with the case, including reading many hundreds of hours of evidence, files which included evidence never called by either side, that Binnie, having also the opportunity to get whatever advice, or research he required in reaching a decision – was ‘half arsed’ in any questions he put to David Bain. Really? If so what questions would he have put to Doyle and Weir, half arsed as well?

    There’s a very good chance Binnie may have uncovered new information pertaining to this case, which will make reading of the report very interesting. Perhaps he readily connected that blood on the towel to Robin’s guilt, or the blood flow shown in photos as having every appearance of having come from Robin’s nose – as the detective said it was a ‘considerable’ amount of blood on the towel which he asked David to ‘explain,’ odd that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    What I am saying is that IF the report finds Bain innocent i.e proven that he did not do it, as opposed to not guilty because the evidence was not up to scratch. It means something has been found that will show a total systemic failure- in the investigation by the police, in the indictment put forward by the Crown, by the original Judge in his direction to the Jury, I mean a total fuck up at all those levels and for it to fail that badly would lead to me to believe that criminal charges will be laid against some of the parties involved in the prosecution, because for him to be proven innocent at least two of the levels of prosecution have colluded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Exactly Paul. Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    And it will not be sufficient for Binnie to say” after reviewing the whole lot, give him some money”, he will have to show proof as well.

    I do not believe in this day and age that there will have been a total systemic failure, you always win some loose some, but juries are fickle and can be stupid, and although this wasn’t a rogue jury situation some of the jurors left alot to be desired in their behaviour.

    But I will be really really interested if there is proof that the cardigan kid didn’t smoke over the kin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    I wonder if Binnie asked Karam to autograph his copy of Karam’s book?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > I wonder if Binnie asked Karam to autograph his copy of Karam’s book?

    I wouldn’t be surprised. I wonder if Binnie noticed any mistakes in Karam’s books, or did he assume that the books were kosha?

    If Binnie has made a fool himself, could the government ask him for a refund re the Consumers Guarantee Act?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    I hear Joe Karam is mixing a huge drum of Kool-Aid. Bizarrely Justice Binnie is reported to be standing in line just behind Nostalgia, Judith and the starry eyed party-going jurors…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    And it will not be sufficient for Binnie to say” after reviewing the whole lot, give him some money”, he will have to show proof as well.

    That’s possibly why he wrote a big fat report Paul. Which possibly has more sentences in it than just the conclusion which has been leaked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Big fat reports are often just justification for the invoice Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RF (1,132 comments) says:

    Judith.. I have been reviewing your post .. 4.18pm

    Are you able to provide supporting evidence for your quote that ” the actual position was very easy to achieve and has been noted in other suicides world wide.”

    You appear to be new to this site and may not appreciate that you can be hung out to dry for making sweeping statements that may not be factual. Of course I am not saying that this is your position… But just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Viking2 (10,734 comments) says:

    Dean Papa (181) Says:
    December 4th, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    “Because Binnie is senile.”

    I’d have thought it would mean that something is more likely than not. So, given it appears to be generally accepted that either David or Robin committed these murders, if David is not guilty on the balance of probabilities, then Robin is. Yet there is very little, if any, physical evidence connecting Robin to the murders. If you believe David is not guilty, then you have to believe, as DPF suggests, that Robin attempted to frame David for the crimes. Otherwise, so very little of the evidence makes sense if it is accepted that David is not guilty. If Binnie’s report is a load of nonsense, then Collins is quite correct to seek other opinions.
    ——————————–
    HMM, well except that their was a third family member who despised what had become of the bain family. Its didn’t sit well with her image and the fami9ly reputation. That same person hurried the destruction of the house.

    No one seems to have followed that line of enquiry to this day. Its still legitimate IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    “At the trial I counted at least 20 items of important evidence which, in my view, pointed to Bain’s guilt. According to [Karam’s] book, they all have innocent and logical explanations, but key points such as the damaged glasses found in Bain’s room, sister Laniet’s gurgling, the fingerprints on the rifle, the blood on Bain’s clothes and the bruises on his face are formidable although admittedly not unimpeachable pieces of evidence.

    Interestingly, Karam does not mention the bizarre if not ludicrous scenario that would have played out if Robin had been the killer. This involves Robin putting his bloodied clothes in the washing basket and then changing his clothes and socks before killing himself in a highly unusual way.

    The trial-by-ambush scenario as trumpeted by the title of the book is not sustained. I had to wonder if this was because the defence was not immune to springing things on the prosecution and had to be counselled by the judge on several occasions.

    Karam also leaves himself open by castigating the police and prosecution for not disclosing certain material to the defence. One could also ask why, if Bain has nothing to hide, does Karam not mention the opinion he commissioned from Senior Constable Henry Glaser, an armourer at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said Robin Bain’s death was most likely not suicide.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    “Neither is there mention of Karam and Bain’s defence team opposing, in 2008, further testing of exhibits, such as the pieces of skin found in Stephen Bain’s room.”

    Hmm why would Karam oppose such testing? Surely David being innocent, it couldn’t possibly be his skin that was found in Stephen’s room? Obviously Karam didn’t want to take the risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I wonder how many right handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple? Probably none in New Zealand.
    I wonder how many right handed men have shot themselves in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached? Very few,I would suggest.
    I wonder how many right handed men have shot themselves in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached and standing with one foot on a chair. My guess would be that has never been done by anyone anywhere in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Butcher Bain is as guilty as sin.

    However, if the system finds that he did not do it, then he must be paid compensation.

    It would set a worrying precedent if a person was denied compensation after being found to have not committed the crime. This would be a greater tragedy than Bain being rewarded for killing his dysfunctional family and getting away with it.

    I just hope he does not live out his rape fantasy next. At least with all that money he can afford hookers to cater to his tastes.

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

    I am sick of all these people who believe that David Bain killed his family, but somehow want him paid money because some activist Canadian judge said so. They seem to believe that due process is more important than justice. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but if someone murdered their family, the government should not pay them any money, and I don’t care what any judge on earth has to say about it.

    The matter at hand is not what Binnie found, it is whether he is right. If the report has flaws and Binnie is found to be full of shit, then let nobody defend him just because he has a nice title. Any fool can become a judge – Elena Kagan anyone? Let’s judge people by their deeds, and that means looking at the substance of the report, not the man who wrote it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Instead of asking stupid questions do some research. Statistically Robin Bain was 97% more likely to be the killer, everything demonstrated negatively here has been answered but the same people keep rolling out the tired old nonsense – always dealing with peripheral nonsense. Robin Bain died with blood smears on his hands, the projection of dna and blood from his wound was uninhibited from having any other person in the room, that is across the floor and on the curtain. He had blood on his hands, his dna was deep inside the rifle – the only pathologist to examine him in person agreed that it was suicide.

    Even the shit in the interview above posted by ross shows that Robin Bain was guilty because it was his blood on the towel. It also shows in a number of ways Bain was framed, it was there the absolute lie of David’s fingerprints being in blood on the rifle began. Also van beynan didn’t tell the nz public once in 15 years of reporting that David was stripped searched and had no injuries to his chest, in fact he reported the opposite. For 15 years van beynan was also silent on Robin’s blood being found deep inside the rifle. Practically all homicides are downward shots and sucides the reverse, it doesn’t matter how much pity there might be for Robin Bain by some people, he took his own life after killing his family. He had bruised hands with blood smeared on the palms, he’d had a nose bleed from getting punched during the fight with Stephen the same time he got his hands damaged.

    At the moment some in authority are in a panic because the truth of what happened to David Bain hasn’t been whitewashed by Binnie and won’t be whitewashed by Robert Fisher – get use to the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    They seem to believe that due process is more important than justice.

    Yes.

    Justice is purely subjective. If you administer Justice on that basis, then we do not need law.

    This is about law, not Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nookin (2,890 comments) says:

    “Justice is purely subjective. If you administer Justice on that basis, then we do not need law.

    This is about law, not Justice.”

    Not really. Compenstion is discretionary and is given in accordance with cabinet guidelines – not according to any enforceable legal right. The guidelines do not apply in this case so he is out on a limb and has to rely on exceptional circumstances. The decision is likely to be motivated more by a sense of justice than a rule of law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Hysterical already. Law is not about framing people, hiding evidence and lying under oath. It’s also not about repeating mantras and beating drums.

    Has Milton Weir ever given an explanation as to why he misled the first jury? Perhaps he may release a statement as to what questions Binnie asked him and what answers he gave. Or perhaps he is fighting with others to suppress details of the report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    My 7.22 referred to Kea’s post.

    ‘The decision is likely to be motivated more by a sense of justice than a rule of law.’ As Nookin says.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > Robin Bain was guilty because it was his blood on the towel.

    Hmmm you’ll have to explain that great leap in logic, but you’re beginning to sound like Joe Karam. That’s not a compliment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > Statistically Robin Bain was 97% more likely to be the killer…

    Really? Which orifice did you pluck that from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    ‘Q There’s blood on a large towel hanging in the bathroom, a considerable amount of blood. How did that get there David.
    A I don’t know.’

    You quoted it ross, don’t retire from your own comments. A considerable amount of blood, why was Robin bleeding that morning before he shot himself?

    I see as is typical you begin to revert to insults. That figure is from peer reviewed international research. Surely even you who has run away from a simple 2 questions can see the irony in that you post screeds of pasted material and then run from any challenge to it. No maybe you wouldn’t.

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

    Also van beynan didn’t tell the nz public once in 15 years of reporting that David was stripped searched and had no injuries to his chest, in fact he reported the opposite. For 15 years van beynan was also silent on Robin’s blood being found deep inside the rifle. Practically all homicides are downward shots and sucides the reverse, it doesn’t matter how much pity there might be for Robin Bain by some people, he took his own life after killing his family. He had bruised hands with blood smeared on the palms, he’d had a nose bleed from getting punched during the fight with Stephen the same time he got his hands damaged.

    I don’t know where you get any of this crap from, but most of that is just bald-faced lies. You’re making things up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Elaycee (4,081 comments) says:

    I see as is typical you begin to revert to insults.

    Bwahahaha…… hypocrisy is alive and well. The same person who typed the above quote, has also written in this thread:

    ‘The dipsters are having fun today…”
    “ross you appearing a little circumspect. What a surprise after all your ‘aged’ cut and pastes…”
    “You tell us ross, see if you can get it right….”
    “Only 2 things I’ve questioned you about ross, surely you must be able to answer at least one…”
    “Instead of asking stupid questions do some research….”
    “Even the shit in the interview above posted by ross…”
    “Hysterical already….”

    Pot. Kettle. Black. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I see one poster has made a number of incorrect assumptions.
    He seems to think that because Robin Bain had blood smears on his hands that means that blood came from someone else rather than him. We have heard all that before. Who was it said that if the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes had been tested it would have been proved to be the blood from one of his children? We all know who. And after he wrote that the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes was tested and proved to be his own blood. I am sure that the blood on Robin Bain’s hands,if tested,would have proved to be his own blood,the same blood as the blood on his clothes.
    Robin Bain’s blood was on a towel in the bathroom,how did it get there? No-one knows for sure,but obviously Robin Bain could not have put it there after he died. One wonders if David Bain used that towel in the lounge after his father was shot.
    Robin Bain was 97% more likely to be the killer. Going by the evidence David Bain was 97% more likely to be the killer.
    Robin Bain’s DNA was deep in the rifle. No-one’s DNA was found in the rifle.
    Robin Bain took his life after killing his family. So why is David Bain still alive and kicking?
    Robin Bain had a nose bleed. Says who?
    Robin Bain had bruised hands. According to Dr Dempster,the only pathologist to see Robin Bain’s hands in the flesh,as it were,said the abrasions on his hands were insignificant. At the first trial he said he thought those abrasions were over 18 hours old,but at the retrial he said they could have been between 1 and 24 hours old.
    David Bain was strip-searched. Well,yes ,he was ,by a prison guard after he was arrested. He said he saw scratch marks and bruising on David Bain’s upper body. He said they appeared consistent with clawing or grappling through clothing. He asked David Bain how he got those injuries,but received no explanation.
    And we are still waiting for an explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    It always amazes me that many of David Bain’s supporters will not accept that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room. I mean it is so bleeding obvious.
    First of all those glasses were in his room,together with the glasses case.
    Secondly,he said they were a pair of his mother’s glasses that he had worn before when his were not available[as was the case that weekend].
    Thirdly,he told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend-they weren’t perfect ,he said,but they got him by.
    Fourthly,he told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday and the days prior.
    Fifthly,he said he used those glasses to watch TV. He said he watched a video on TV on the Sunday night.
    I mean what more proof does anyone need?
    There was one David Bain supporter who accepted that he was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses,but she said they were a different pair to the pair found in his room. Work that one out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    You’re a bit out of touch Muggins.
    Woollen jerseys wash fine in a washing machine. I’ve been washing mine that way for decades, as does everyone else I know. What ruins wool in the laundry process is heat. I would imagine the reason David requested his aunty to wash his jerseys was because the prison laundry does not separate the washing, but simply places it all together in a hot wash followed by a time in huge heat driven spin dryers, which would ruin any woollen garment.

    JF, I find it a bit of a giggle that it is alright for you to quote the Kama Sutra without reference, and yet you attempt to ridicule me for not providing one regarding the suicide position. Rather hypocritical of you isn’t it? I researched the positions when I saw some idiot on trademe make the same statement about the position that you have. Fact is, despite visiting many sites on the internet, and checking other reliable sources, there is not one position mentioned that even comes close to the position suggested by the defence and suggested by you as being like ‘Kama Sutra’. Perhaps you could provide your reference ? As far as the comment I made, if you read Mr Karam’s last two books, he provides plenty of reference to support the theory. :-) I await your reference for the Kama Sutra position !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    I see you keep raving on about the suicide position too Muggins.
    Why don’t you get a similar weapon and attempt to repeat the same position. It is actually a lot easier to shoot yourself in the opposite temple, than it is in the same side temple and the position is easy to achieve, providing very steady support for the weapon. Give it a go!

    Oh yes, Please do remember to make sure the weapon isn’t loaded when you try. I’d hate to see internet rates take a dive, without your copious, persistent, and unbalanced summaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Steve Parkes (24 comments) says:

    That figure is from peer reviewed international research.

    I look forward to the link you will no doubt provide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > I see as is typical you begin to revert to insults. That figure is from peer reviewed international research

    What insults? Oh yes, well I did compare you to Joe Karam. :)

    What peer reviewed research are you talking about? I imagine that there wouldn’t be a lot of research into 58 year old men killing their entire family – leaving only one survivor who just happened to hate the alleged killer – who then apparently killed himself while placing one foot on a chair, after he had written an obscure note on a computer and thrown bloodied clothes into the laundry and possibly had a shower to remove blood, all the while being so considerate as to bring the morning paper in for the only one who deserved to stay (stay where?).

    Yeah I imagine the peer reviewed literature on such cases would be pretty thin. I suggest you look at the case of Jeremy Bamber, whose case bears a remarkable similarity to that of the Bain case. Bamber murdered 5 members of his family, and then tried to blame a family member for the killings. He was only 24 at the time of the murders. Bamber wanted the family fortune, a likely motive for David slaughtering his family. Certainly David has been very vocal in wanting the proceeds of the family estate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    The Bain estate could be worth well over $600,000. But according to supporters of David Bain, he had no motive for the killing. :)

    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
  117. RF (1,132 comments) says:

    Judith

    You obviously failed to notice that my Karma Sutra comments were dripping with sarcasm as I was questioning why someone taking their life would put themselves in such an unusual position. I note your comments that I have not attended all suicides so I guess that you reading about them on the internet makes you more of an authority.

    In relation to Joe Karam’s books, having some knowledge of Joe I will not be reading them.

    This is turning into a bitch session and I was not impressed about your comments to Muggins. You obviously have serious problems to address.

    Time to concentrate on more important issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The fact that the court kept the fathers incest which the family knew about and why he was kept sleeping outside tha house, away from teh case has kept me on Davids side

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Dr Dempster said that 90% of such wounds (contact to Robin’s head were suicide.) But for the armchair gigglers check out The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology published in 2008 reporting on 509 cases of death by rifle shot to the head, the authors are Vincent J. Di Maio and Dr Kimberly Molina. Right-handedness (the dominant hand) also is analysed in terms of left hand temple shots, upward trajectory and so on. Of course nothing is published in that journal that is not peer reviewed.

    It’s also not uncommon for suicidee’s to change their clothes. In one American (early 1900s) a father about who allegations were raised in respect of a daughter, actually brought his entire family new clothes the day before killing them. The same happened in a case in nz a couple of years ago where the killer changed clothes before despatching himself. Of course the nay sayers avoid such evidence.

    It’s odd that you promote a motive ross, when the Crown did not. The defence certainly did though as hinamanu describes.

    Blairm, sure. You have to say something I suppose. But you’re welcome to show anything you claim I’ve made up, if you can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > It’s odd that you promote a motive ross, when the Crown did not

    Nothing odd about that at all. The Crown is not required to put forward a motive. I’m at a loss to explain why supporters of David Bain say there was no possible motive. But the same supporters have no problem putting forward a highly speculative motive for Robin. Again, supporters ignore that David probably wouldn’t have been too rapt with the idea that his father and sister might (and that’s a big might) have been sleeping with one another. Imagine the teasing that David would have received if the wider community had learnt of this. That’s another motive for David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Have you ever been to a crime scene, seriously, or seen a suicide, or is it all CSI and getting fingerprints of water?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    I don’t watch much TV Paul so it must be fingerprints off water.
    You’re welcome to read Di Maio and Molina, they scrutinised 509 examples. From memory it may have zero examples of upward directory shot in suicides, let alone somebody passively leaning their head against their killer’s rifle or miraculously not interrupting the spatter pattern with their own body mass – an invisible gunman perhaps, or just plain suicide.

    Yes ross, Crown Law didn’t present a motive in the 1st trial although they searched deeply, nor did they have to be one of course. Despite all those hopefully presented such as yours, they also went into the 2nd trial still unable to present a motive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Judith,I don’t care how you do your washing. The point is that is was a rule in the Bain house that hand knitted woollen jerseys were to be hand washed. Margaret insisted on it. So why did David Bain break that rule?
    Also,why did he say he sorted the whites from the coloureds when he obviously did not?
    And that reminds me. At that conference he went to he said that he saw his mother’s light on when he was about to go downstairs and do the washing so he thought he would make her a cup of tea. But he didn’t make it. I am sure you will be able to explain why.
    In Trial by Ambush Karam says that David Bain saw his mother’s light on AFTER he came back upstairs,but David said he saw that light on BEFORE he went downstairs. Seems to me there is some confusion as to when David saw his mother’s light on. Care to explain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Judith, I am right handed and I find it is much easier to point a rifle at my right temple than my left temple.
    But I would be interested to hear if any right handed New Zealander has committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple.
    And I think I would be on safe ground in saying that no right handed New Zealander has ever committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached.
    And I think I would be on even safer ground by saying that nowhere in the world has a right handed man committed suicide by shooting himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.
    But I tell you what,Judith. If a right handed man approached me with a rifle he would find it much easier to shoot me in the left temple than the right temple,if he was going to shoot me in the temple so as to make it look like suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > From memory it may have zero examples of upward directory shot in suicides, let alone somebody passively leaning…

    You keep referring to suicide when the available evidence suggests it was murder. What does the research literature tell us about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Sorry ross. Upward trajectory = suicide. Read it yourself. You had a copy of David Bain’s statement, then you must have a copy of Dempster’s evidence. It was he that made the skull cap, you know the one with upward trajectory.

    I’ll leave you play with the other children on this matter now and take up the debate again when the ‘secret’ report that has apparently embarrassed somebody is made public in the normal fashion. Or the report into the report, or the report into the report into the report – or whatever else is dreamed up to avoid the public knowing. My money remains on objections from various parties connected to the prosecution but time will tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Dr Dempster said that he formed the view that the wound to Robin Bain’s head was a very unusual wound for a self inflicted wound. He said he had never seen a self inflicted wound that was close to that trajectory.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.