The David Bain reports

December 13th, 2012 at 3:15 pm by David Farrar

The reports are out. Not online yet. Now on Scoop. The summary from includes:

  •  Justice Binnie went beyond his mandate. He did not have authority to express any conclusion on the question of whether there were extraordinary circumstances such that compensation would be in interests of Justice. Nor was he invited to make any recommendation as to whether compensation should be paid.
  • In assessing innocence, Binnie J made fundamental errors of principle.
  • In assessing misconduct by authorities, Binnie J has also made fundamental errors of principle
  • Correct principles should now be applied to the evidence afresh. That is not saying a fresh assessment would produce a different outcome. It is possible that it would vindicate Binnie Js conclusions
  • Binnie J criticised named individuals without giving them adequate opportunity to respond.
  • Instead of assessing each piece of evidence to see whether it increased or reduced the likelihood of innocence, and if so by how much, Binnie J discarded any item that was not individually proved on the balance of probabilities.
  • Instead of considering the cumulative effect of all relevant items of evidence, he arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints) followed by a serial testing of that conclusion against others in turn.
  • Instead of requiring to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities throughout the enquiry, he imposed an onus on the Crown wherever the Crown suggested a factual possibility inconsistent with innocence
  • He appeared to regard the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to the question whether David Bain had proved his innocence
  • He appeared to accept David’s version of events without question except where it directly conflicted with other witnesses
  • His decision to disregard any item of evidence that did not prove a subsidiary fact on the balance of probability was contrary to the law of NZ and to a proper understanding of the probability theory.
  • Discarded were evidence of blood stains on David’s clothing, broken glasses, David’s fingerprints on the rifle, arguable shielding of part of the rifle, Robin’s motive, Robin’s mental stability, David’s post-event admissions, factors consistent with suicide, David’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling, David’s gloves, and knowledge of the trigger key.
  • The way in which Binnie J approached the cumulative significance of the evidence in its totality seriously skewed the exercise towards an innocence outcome which is contrary to the law of evidence in NZ when dealing with circumstantial evidence.
  • Logic and experience suggest that if a suspect has lied in denying his responsibility for the crime itself, he will scarcely shrink from lying about the details. For the purpose of drawing inferences from surrounding facts, most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect.

This poses a real challenge to the Government. Do they make a decision on the basis of the Binnie report, or do they now commission a new report? I am firmly of the view that  if the Binnie report had not had the issues detailed above, then the Government would follows its recommendations (even if some Ministers have different private views). Not following a recommendation is politically damaging. But unless Dr Fisher is incorrect in his peer review, it is hard to have confidence in the conclusions.

Also a must read is this article by Martin van Beynen of The Press, who actually sat through the entire second trial. His summary:

1. How did the cadaverous Robin fight off son Stephen in a fierce fight and sustain no injuries?

2. Why did he put on David Bain’s gloves to execute his family when he was going to spare David, not implicate him, and commit suicide?

3. Why did he change into fresh clothes between killing his family and taking his own life? He took the soiled clothes and put them neatly in the washing basket.

4. Why were none of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, especially since he must have clasped it tightly to kill himself in the very odd way he chose?

5. Why did he wait until David Bain was just about bouncing through the door before writing his suicide note and killing himself?

6. If he was supposed to put on fresh clothes and cleaned himself up after the killings, how come he still had spots of blood on his hands?

7. Why would he kill with a full bladder and after an undisturbed night?

8. Why did he follow his normal routine – set his alarm, get the paper from the gate – if he was so disturbed he had decided to kill the family?

9. How come it was David who was scaring the family before the killings by threatening behaviour with his rifle?

On the basis of these points, compensation for David Bain would be a travesty.

Binnie has responded to the Fisher report, which is at the link above. Somewhat amusingly it also seems he sent an e-mail to  the Minister this morning in ALL CAPS.

What I will be interested to hear, are opinions from lawyers who have some expertise in this area, who are not connected to the case. Do they think Fisher’s concerns are correct?

 

Tags: , , ,

244 Responses to “The David Bain reports”

  1. lastmanstanding (1,279 comments) says:

    To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies “Fisher would say that wouldnt he”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Chuck Bird (4,831 comments) says:

    You can find the report here.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie/03Justice-Binnies-further-amended-report.pdf/view

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (793 comments) says:

    “Instead of assessing each piece of evidence to see whether it increased or reduced the likelihood of innocence, and if so by how much, Binnie J discarded any item that was not individually proved on the balance of probabilities.
    Instead of considering the cumulative effect of all relevant items of evidence, he arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints) followed by a serial testing of that conclusion against others in turn. ”
    ……da fuck?

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

    Bain should claim Maori ancestry and get the dough on his bank account witrhin a week. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    David…

    Much too early to reach conclusions without the benefit of the full Binnie report.
    But agree with you: It poses problems for National. There already rumblings over Collins.
    Saying “no” or getting a new report will be very, very difficult.

    Three questions:
    1. Who was the leading NZ lawyer identified by Binnie who gave him advice on the finer points of NZ law?

    2. Are the dog whistles mentioned by Fisher, Collins et al the same or similar to those dismissed by the Privy Council which found the Collins. D was wrong in his interpretation of the law?

    3. Is this a case of Crown Law leaning on Fisher tio adopot a view already rejected by the Privy Council, or is that a stretch?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    » Discarded were evidence of blood stains on David’s clothing, broken glasses, David’s fingerprints on the rifle, arguable shielding of part of the rifle, Robin’s motive, Robin’s mental stability, David’s post-event admissions, factors consistent with suicide, David’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling, David’s gloves, and knowledge of the trigger key.

    Minor detail that merely clouded the big picture.

    Logic and experience suggest that if a suspect has lied in denying his responsibility for the crime itself, he will scarcely shrink from lying about the details. For the purpose of drawing inferences from surrounding facts, most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect.

    Really? Perhaps Canadian murder suspects are more honest than here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    When will Bain come out and say “hey that’s enough, I don’t care enough about money to be at the center of all this ongoing crap any longer, I’m just going to get on with the rest of my life”.

    I’d have crossed my breaking point long ago, murderer or innocent.

    Even if he hits the jackpot it’s going to continue to haunt him like his family for the rest of his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. anonymouse (709 comments) says:

    Justice’s website needs a major kick in the head, I mean who clicks down levels only to find more levels, until you eventually get to a PDF at the bottom..

    But on the actual reports I can see why Collins hit the roof, she asked him to determine Bain’s innocence and whether there should be any extra-ordinary items that cabinet should consider..

    His first recommendation was

    “I recommend that compensation be paid to David Bain”

    I mean WTF……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    “most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect”

    Indeed. I’m staggered by the number of times I have seen defenders offer logic such as “the accused strongly denied that he did it”… as if that counts for anything…

    We look at a case like Ewan MacDonald who strongly denied his various crimes, before subsequently admitting responsibility for them after being confronted with undeniable evidence. There is a shocking amount of naivety about this stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Peter (1,688 comments) says:

    Justice site is hosed.

    Can’t someone just torrent the ‘fecker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    “Fisher would say that wouldnt he”

    Classic. Even if he doesn’t look like MandyRice Davies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    Here’s a thought; how about Justice Binnie gives David Bain half his fee ($200,000), having provided a half-baked report. Mr Bain could then split the $200,000 50/50 with Joe Karam. That way everyone gets paid, it doesn’t cost the Crown any more, and we can all get some sleep :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,773 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that the very first line of the Binnie Report is:

    Re: Compensation claim by David Cullen Bain

    It certainly looks like the work of someone pretty clear about what he’s to report on.

    So I’m still skeptical about the Bulldog’s media spin on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. labrator (1,897 comments) says:

    Binnie’s second reply is much more thoughtful than his first

    Who’s going to review the reviewer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. david (2,571 comments) says:

    Binnie must be suspect. After all who in their right mind would send an email in ALL CAPS FFS. Thats all you need to know about this thief of precious oxygen and taxpayer funds isn’t it? I mean …………..
    What a disgrace to all intelligent and right-thinking Canadians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lastmanstanding (1,279 comments) says:

    Sooooooooo what exactly was Binnie J asked to report on because if you read DPFs summary of Fisher QC there didnt seem to be any point in asking Binnie J to do a report as there was nothing to report on………….

    OH except just maybe…….no couldnt have been ………. nothing to see here move no compo due to Bain

    Or maybe it could?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Winston (44 comments) says:

    Well, this is just grand. Judith Collins, not liking Justice Binnie’s decision, decides to appoint a new lawyer with instructions (not explicit no doubt – nudge nudge – wink wink) to carefully consider his conclusion of guilty. Why didn’t she just appoint Kirsty MacDonald, or would that have just been too obvious? Obviously the fact that Binnie uses ALL CAPS is sufficient to discredit him in Mr Farrar’s eyes. And how we all laughed about that one. Silly old duffer, like those old fools on the Privy Council. If only these people were tech-savvy, they might have come to the correct conclusion. I’d like to hear the opinion of FE Smith on this one. Or has he grown weary of dealing with retards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    The question strongly remains, if the mistakes in the report were due to Judge Binnie not addressing process and certain issue sufficiently, should David Bain be denied compensation because of someone elses omissions?

    The only answer to that is NO. If this report is not satisfactory for the Cabinets requirements, then another full report needs to be sought regardless of cost to the country. We are a civilised country, we do not falsely imprison people, and if by some failure in the system we make a mistake and imprison an innocent person, we make amends.

    As I said yesterday, regardless of what happens, Collins handling of this matter has made any action, positive or negative, unsafe. There is no acceptable course of action other than to go back to the beginning IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (793 comments) says:

    can someone translate Winston’s drunk rambling please?

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

    Spin on spin on spin to the nth degree.
    It’s not looking good for any of the people involved politically and legally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    The real problem for Collins is that her stalking horse has been thoroughly gutted by Binnie.

    Havingn now read both Fisher and Binnie it is clear that Fisher is the academic incompetent, not Binnie.
    What may escape Collins and those who want to diss Binnie, is he builds his report on the finding of five, independent UK judges of repute. Fisher has attempted to tell them (the POC) that they were wrong and Colliuns right. Silly man..

    Collins got what she/MoJ /CL wanted from Fisher.
    But Fisher has been torn to shreds by Binnie in his detailed analysis of Fisher;s “report”.

    We await now Michael Reed’s demolition of Fisher and Collins.
    It should be great sport.

    John Key would do well to take all reports with him on holkiday…..AND read them carefully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,437) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    ——–

    How about Judith Collins, who failed to request Justice Binnie to address the issues she felt were missing from the report, pay for another full report out of her own money. Afterall, it was up to her to make sure that report addressed all that was required. If it didn’t, it was up to her to ensure the person she was paying completed the job. Make Collins pay, then sack her for gross incompetence and allowing her own bias to influence her position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. James Stephenson (2,138 comments) says:

    Well reading through the Fisher’s report it’s quite easy to summarise:

    1) Went further than he should have in making his recommendation, but Cabinet can choose to ignore that bit.

    2) Good collation of all the evidence, but he’s clearly got no idea about how to go about assessing circumstantial evidence (that bit about a business law background and zero criminal experience suddenly quite relevant eh?).

    So someone with a criminal law background needs to re-assess the evidence collated by Binnie in the proper way. Can we get a seance going and contact Greg King?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    flipper (1,196) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    I just happen to be holidaying in the same spot as Mr Key this year. I shall take extra copies and deliver them personally. Any hints on how to get past the pack of goons he requires to feel ‘safe’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lindsay Addie (1,381 comments) says:

    I’m rather torn on this one between two choices:

    1. Don’t pay Bain a single cent he doesn’t deserve it – The downside of this is we’ll all have to listen to Joe Karam and his self-righteous babblings for many years in the future.

    2. Pay the Bain the money just to shut Karam up once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lindsay Addie (1,381 comments) says:

    Oops typo – should say: “Pay Bain the money”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    Sorry Judith. Casn’t help you. Why dont you just turn up and ask to see him.
    Take your passport with you since there willl be USSS and NZDPP present.
    To be fair, J.Key does not have a choice. It will be imposed by USSS..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sean (300 comments) says:

    “Instead of assessing each piece of evidence to see whether it increased or reduced the likelihood of innocence, and if so by how much, Binnie J discarded any item that was not individually proved on the balance of probabilities.
    Instead of considering the cumulative effect of all relevant items of evidence, he arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints) followed by a serial testing of that conclusion against others in turn. ”
    ……da fuck?

    Meaning that in a criminal trial, the Crown must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; not prove each and every piece of evidence. Evidence is what we use to discharge the burden of proof. Or in general terms, evidence is just evidence and we weigh each piece of it to make up our mind.

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

    Binnie’s email has 10 words in all caps. It is a 5 page email. That’s hardly notable. It is available on Stuff. There appear to be many who are letting their preconcieved notions of Bain’s guilt cloud their judgement in this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrei (2,545 comments) says:

    What a mess! – you have to feel sorry for Judith Collins, she inherited this, none of it is of her making

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Judith 4.16 pm. I am convinced that you are better served moaning to The Standard. You would be at home there.

    I guess the pressure of a failure to compensate Bain is getting to you

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

    Ever since I read that Binnie had found David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities I knew his report must have some errors and/or incorrect assumptions in it, but I never thought it would be as bad as it has turned out to be.
    He reckons the reason why those glasses were found in David Bain is unexplained. Unexplained!
    I would have thought that the fact that David Bain had told people he had been wearing those glasses that weekend would have been explanation enough as to why they were found in his room.
    Fisher has taken that report apart. The media are going to have a field day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Reading the criticism, I was thinking to myself that not even Bain’s supporters would be criticing Colins for dismissing such a shoddy report.

    If Bain is to have compensation, it should be on the basis of a robust review of the evidence. That would seem to be self-evident… oh wait, I forgot we were talking about David Bain. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (231) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Again you fail to do yourself justice. David Bain never said to ‘people’ he had been wearing ‘those’ glasses. He said he had been wearing some of his mother’s glasses. As you well know, but fail to include in your arguments, Mrs Bain had more than one pair of glasses. There were no witnesses found that saw him wearing those glasses that weekend, despite his being at events that included his being in the company of many people and in situations where his distance viewing would have been greatly improved by the use of vision correctors.

    You also fail to account for why there was no evidence such as blood splatter on the glasses, or fingerprints, and why when they were examined they were deemed by an expert to have been too dirty to have been used for vision for some time, due to the dust and dirt found on the lenses. If they had been worn during the assault on Stephen, and had been knocked from the face of the perpetrator, as you have stated before, then there would certainly be some evidence given the copious quantity of blood involved.

    You again fail to mention that the policeman who picked up the glasses lied in Court regarding his actions, and therefore can not be relied upon to be truthful, as well as many other points surrounding the glasses you omit for obvious reasons. As Binnie said, the glasses are unexplained as there is no evidence that links them to the murders/suicide.

    In short, there is no evidence that places those glasses on David Bain that day, or days prior to it, and despite his first counsel saying David would agree that he had been wearing the said glasses, there is no evidence that David actually said that, OR I might add, that David and his counsel were aware of which pair of Mrs Bain’s glasses were being referred to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    The government asked for a report and theyve got it.

    Time to act on it.

    Yes – we all have opinions on what actually went on, but thats irrelevant.

    what happened now is that the government – or the minister – is making it a politiocal decision and not a lergal ssystem one. thats bad news.

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

    Having now read both Fisher and Binnie it is clear that Fisher is the academic incompetent, not Binnie.

    Yes, especially Binnie’s second reply, which pretty much destroys the criticism. The NZ establishment will go to pathetic lengths to avoid facing up to its own incompetence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    what happened now is that the government – or the minister – is making it a politiocal decision and not a lergal ssystem one. thats bad news.

    So you’re saying that Bain’s request is bad news. That makes no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    “it is my opinion that the egregious
    errors of the Dunedin Police that led directly to the wrongful conviction make it “in the interest
    of justice that compensation be paid”. Justice Binnie

    mmmh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Winston (44 comments) says:

    Also, in reply to Judith, who say “We are a civilised country, we do not falsely imprison people”, I’m wondering in which country you live. I live in New Zealand, where we do falsely imprison people, and I’d like to move to your country. I’m assuming that the police do not routinely lie or plant evidence in your country? And that the judges are fair and unbiased, and not, on the whole, self-important bigoted fools scratching each others back? Local councils don’t accept kickbacks in exchange for passing shoddy work, or circumventing planning regulations? And Winston Peters is not an MP? Sounds like a paradise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Oh dear. The strip search that never happened.

    549. Dr Pryde’s strip search on Monday, 20 June 1994 was nothing if not thorough, and included “samples from the groin and penis”299 (it has never been suggested that sexual activity
    297 Doyle interview p. 34 ll. 2-7.
    298 Weir evidence 2009 retrial, p. 1156 ll. 15-18.
    – 165 –
    played any role in these murders). David Bain was stripped naked at a time when, according to the Police, he was not even a suspect. The Crown Law Office argues:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Winston (26) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    I totally agree with you Winston, I was speaking somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’. In the ideal New Zealand those things do not happen, unfortunately in this NZ they do happen, and far too often.

    Freedom is our greatest asset, to have that removed due the incompetence and corruption of those charged with protecting us is unforgiveable. Those at the top, like it or not, are elected and paid to prevent it, resolve it, and if necessary compensate for it. That they have continued to allow police corruption and incompetence continue, despite having the example of AAT, is beyond me. You are of course, totally right. I bow in humbleness!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,729) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Nostalgia, I demand you remove this comment. Muggins et al have been arguing that this strip search did not occur. Weir & Doyle were clearly mistaken when they gave evidence that it did or did not consult with Muggins et al, before they gave their evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    Once upon a time judges were,generally,establishment. And quite rightly too.

    Today they tend to be activist.

    Oh for the old days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jack5 (5,007 comments) says:

    Radio NZ 5pm news on Bain report:

    Collins 5, Foamin Mary 1

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

    Judith,
    The trouble is that while David Bain only mentioned his mother’s glasses when he was talking to his aunt, he did refer to “the glasses in evidence” when he was talking to his lawyer.
    However,if he had beem wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses.which you seem to be suggesting,why weren’t they in his room? He still would have needed them until the following Thursday.
    There would not necessarily have been any blood on those glasses or that lens. You have suggested that Robin Bain killed Stephen and was wearing those bloody gloves,yet there was no blood on his watch.
    Constable Van Turnhout admitted at the retrial that he hadn’t told anyone that he had touched those glasses. But that does not alter the fact that they were on that chair in David Bain’s room.
    As far as no-one seeing David Bain wearing those glasses,well he did say he only wore them for watching TV and going to lectures. No-one saw him at lectures to my knowledge. Four members of his family were watching that video on TV but we can’t ask them if he was wearing those particular glasses because they are all convieniently dead.
    If Justice Binnie believes that David Bain was wearing a different pair of his mother’s glasses than those that were found in his room then he never should have been asked to do a report on that compensation claim in the first place.
    That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
    Robert Fisher has pointed a number of incorrect assumptions that have been made by Justice Binnie and I expect to be able to add to that list.

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

    Re strip-search.
    I don’t know how many times I have to say this.
    Only four people know if David Bain was strip-searched.
    [1] Dr Pryde who never said he strip-searched David Bain and who is now deceased.
    [2] Greg Dunne who was in the room when Pryde examined Bain but for some unknown reason was not asked by the defence if he saw David Bain remove all his clothes.
    [3] Constable Van Turnhout who was also in the room but was also never asked that question by the defence.
    [4] David Bain. He said at that conference in Perth that he had been medically strip-searched. He also said every orifice was examined. There is no eevidence that he was given a rectal examination.

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

    Tom.
    I daresay Fisher will be replying to Binnie,and then Binnie will reply to Fisher and then Fisher will………

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

    As Michael Guest was later struck off for financial mis-deeds, Justice Binnie does not find him a reliable source.
    However, he believes David Bain who might be a 5x murderer. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    Geez Binnies email in reply really sounds like he’s losing it and has invested far too much emotionally in this. And again he harks on about the Privy council and alludes that they are on the same ‘team’. I’d imagine from reading it that even David’s team would have preferred a bit more balance and reasoned conclusions in Binnies original report, something so inherently flawed will never bring the matter to a final conclusion, just create more controversy and angst towards David.

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

    Its really simple, if he has not done the job he was contracted to do 1) he doesn’t get paid 2) you need someone to doe the job again

    I really don’t care that the cardigan kid walked free, happens everyday, but I’ll be really fucked off if he’s paid on a report that was not as commissioned. In the real world of contracting you do not get paid if you don’t follow the instrcutions You do not pay the plumber who buggers up your bathroom job, you get someone to do it properly.

    Figjam Power is to blame for this cluster, Collins is trying to be seen to be fair 1) to Bain 2) the taxpayer.

    I don’t care if this costs another million dollars and Bain does get some later but if the report is as flawed as it appears the Government cannot act on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (234) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    So, Weir and Doyle lied when they told Justice Binnie that they knew he had been strip searched then? Is that what you are trying to say Muggins?

    Regarding the glasses, there were at least one other pair of Mrs Bain’s glasses in that house, that David could have been wearing. As there is no evidence as to which pair or anything that connects them to the murders, they should be disregarded, as they prove nothing. You have tried and failed many times to construct a link. There is none that can be proven. Binnie was right to ignore them.

    I see in the report Justice Binnie read JFRB and Counterspin. I guess he has a good eye for spotting BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. Naughty boy. Do as Judith demands and remove that terrible comment re strip search. FFS someone is on a power trip.

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

    @Judith

    Nostalgia, I demand you remove this comment

    I’m sorry, but who the fuck are you Judith to be demanding- children demand and that normally results in a slap on the arse unil they grow up ans know better

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (234) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Robert Fisher has pointed a number of incorrect assumptions that have been made by Justice Binnie and I expect to be able to add to that list.
    —————-

    The problem you have muggins, is most of what you say is hearsay, from phone calls you imply you have made to witnesses and jurors. Including Mr Weir, and yet the report clearly states that Mr Weir has mentioned the strip search. I’m afraid you can add whatever you like to a list, but you have no credibility – and that has been proven again by the very people you insist you get your information from. Rather than an expert, you are indeed like the rest of us, no authority whatsoever, but full of opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    Well this seems to rest on a simple point (for the most part.)
    regarding the luminol footprints

    1) could they have been david bain (and if so are they reasonably likely to have been his in reagard to their size etc)
    2) could they not be davids and yet david still be the murderer

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

    wheres the edit function gone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (2,998) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    I happen to know that Nostalgia has a great sense of humour, unlike yourself, I am sure he understood the message!!

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

    While I will read the material, I would actually appreciate some commentary from the likes of: AG, Graeme Edgeley, Nookin, F E Smith, smttc and alex Masterley around the reports.

    This is (generally speaking) their field after all…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    Maybe you two could correspond by email Judith, you seem to be under the illusion that people are interested in the deluded ranting and raving of Bain fanatics on either side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    PaulEastBay,

    You do not pay the plumber who buggers up your bathroom job, you get someone to do it properly.

    He was asked to give *his opinion*. The fact that Judith doesn’t like it does not imply he has failed to do his job. Her political concerns are hardly his problem.

    Given Fisher has not properly read the evidence, given that the need for a second report was decided PRIOR to his analysis of Binnie’s report it is very apparent that Judith is shopping around for an opinion she agrees with.

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

    @judith again

    The problem you have muggins, is most of what you say is hearsay,

    It would appear that most of Binnies report is based on hearsay, hewould appear he has drawn his conclusions from “information” that has not be tested or verified, which is a dangerous way to compile a report given the wealth of information that is out there.

    Having interviewed one or two people in my time if you do not challenge anything they say, you don’t have an interview you recieve a lecture and as you know many lectures are a fact free zone.

    What would interest me the most is the questions (if in fact any were put to Bain) that he did not answer and if Binnie has made any attempt to earn his pay there must have been a couple that he would not or could not answer .

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

    Weihana

    His opinion in this case has to have some basis in reality though, everyone of us here has opinions so if that was all that was required why go off shore to Binnie, who appears to have a massive ego even for J.

    All Judges decisions are opinion but you will find that every line is generally proveable either in law law or from evidence but it appears that a goodly portion of this report has errors in fact which makes it void and so you get another one.

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

    Judith,
    Milton Weir does not know if David Bain was strip-searched or not,but I happen to know he does not believe he was.

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

    Judith,
    Have you read the retrial transcript? Just asking.

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

    Judith,
    It would appear that Justice Binnie has never seen a shitting bull.

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

    I think what has shocked many people is that Binnie J found David Bain to be an honest and credible witness.

    Consequently, a positive credibility finding then permitted Binnie to accept David’s version of events, prefer his explanation to other explanations, etc.

    Fisher thinks Binnie was “too generous” to David.

    Judith Collins clearly doesn’t like this either.

    Sorry – you asked for an independent, objective report from an outside party, and you got one.

    There was always the risk that such a report could involve findings you don’t like or don’t expect eg an unusually favourable credibility finding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    OK I did some reading..
    1) Seems binnie accepts he made an error in regard to the terms of reference – but that that is not an issue for us to debate as he has already conceeded it.
    2-4) Fisher seems to make an argument that binnie refers to as “style over substance”. Fisher seems to argue the paper should take us on a journey of discovery, while binne thinks that it shouldn’t – intead it is just a paper that is a summary of his argument. Im not sure who is right technically.. I suspect it isnt definite and as such binnie is right. that being said maybe binnie is lying about his investigative mode but i cant see how fisher can be sure of that.

    5) raises a question should people be able to respond to critiques that they already know about? or that are not specifically directed at them? I suspect Binnie is right, but regardless its not a fatal issue with the conclusion.

    and beyond that point…
    a) binnie seems to have read some of what the privy council said as if it is “dogma”. there is an argument for doing that (ie that they were the highest court and that would normally be the safe bet) but at the same time i’d probably prefer fishers argument not everything everyone says on the privy council has that status.

    b) fishers point that binnie has not convincingly dealt with some of the arguments of the procecution seems to hold…

    Still my impression is that the procecution seems to have made a lot of odd claims and admissions that dont seem to be disputed…. if they had to make this many odd admissions… I can see why Binnie seened to consider this evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    by 5 I mean that binnie’s counter to the point about allowing for responses seems valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    From what I hear from my spies it appears that there will be no decisions made by Crusher until at least mid 2013. This will give both sides breathing space. I still believe he is guilty and should not receive one cent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    I’ve largely read the report now. I’m actually impressed by it. I can’t see reasons for Collin’s objections to this point. She has gone off half-cocked I think. Binnie rejects such things as the lens being ‘planted.’ Supports the view that ‘Crown Law’ operate in a harsh environment by which I think he means that it’s not all lollipops and lattes when prosecuting a case, a fair enough comment. I don’t to this point feel that he’s been influenced one way or another or that he showed a bias toward David Bain throughout. Reading the report and listening to what The Minister has said are as different as chalk and cheese. I also appreciate the narrative of the events and the evidence, I think it is well measured and reasoned. One ‘critical’ issue Collins has pointed out is not really an issue at all, and something I’m surprised she is struggling with – that credit can’t go to the police for what they didn’t examine or investigate, but that nor should it go to David Bain.

    It appropriately puts such things as the cartridge being ‘stood on end’ as not indicative against either ‘suspect.’ Treats the ‘blood’ on David Bain as of type – smear as compared to spatter. I think it’s a bloody excellent effort, and may have taken a reconciliation a step forward if Ms Collins had not brought politics to bear. It wasn’t intended be a political situation but I guess it has become one now when it needed not to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Winston (44 comments) says:

    Well at least we can be sure that in New Zealand, nobody could ever satirise the Fisher report in the way that Peter Cook did with regard to Mr Justice Cantley in the Jeremy Thorpe trial, and get published. At least not until Jeremy Wells is back on TV, or until Satan goes to work in a snow plough, whichever occurs sooner.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

    Although, looking at the comment currently above mine, I find that RF has spies in Crusher’s camp. Thank God for the open society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, why do you think Collins objects to the report due to political reasons?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Winston… My spies frequent what Helen Clark called the Beltway in good old Wellington. When the drink flows the tongues loosen. The only negative is sorting out the Truth from the BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Winston (44 comments) says:

    Also, while I’m here, could I ask how many of the commentators here have read through the Privy Council judgement on the Bain case in full? Although I’m not a proven lawyer, I have done so several times, and it seems to me a masterly piece of work. It shows just how much this country has lost by doing away with access to independent legal advice from people who are, let’s face it, far better than anything the tight-knit incestuous back-scrubbing legal community in New Zealand can produce. Which is no doubt why Crusher wants to bring the case home so that we can get the correct verdict delivered by people who bent over in the showers at Kings.

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

    RF I thought you wre a retired one of me and now I find out you’re Winston Peters FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Winston (28) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
    ————————

    Yes I have read the Privy Council Judgement in full, as well as many other relevant documents and reports. I totally agree with your opinion of it.

    It is obvious why ‘Crusher’ wants the report back in NZ and under her control. As someone has questioned above, regarding the political motive. As always it comes down to votes. Clearly Ms Collins believes she will lose votes should she pay compensation, she also knows that in order to do her job, she needs the support of NZ’s legal fraternity. I suspect Ms Collins has her eye on the top seat, and would find their support to her advantage to achieve that goal. Key should watch his back, there are more simlarities between Ms Collins and Ms Shipley than their crooked smiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Zapper

    A number of reasons but first would be her over reaction. I think the opportunity for ‘political expedience’ and pragmatism is thick throughout the report. She has a keen eye on her political future, hence her non objection to being called ‘crusher,’ suing for a stalemate and so on. She might well have judged how her ‘appeal’ to the electorate might be favoured by coming out ‘tough’ and backing her own department which of course would benefit her own political future, but only if one considers confrontation rises above solution. Binnie provided a chance to move on. Today JK was at Pike River meeting the families and looking to progress while Judith looked to close the year angrily and on attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay. I am from the same firm and still have a blue suit tucked away to remind me there is another life. As for the short guy in the pin stripe suit .. Not me and I have not seen him in the Green Parrot for ages. My spies aka informants result from working in Bull Shit Castle on attachment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Zapper

    Also why would she claim that she couldn’t put the report before Cabinet? Because she think they’r a bunch of morons unable to form their own opinions, how stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    Lordy,
    the Flat Earth Society is out in force tonight… marching to the cliff edge like a bunch of lemmings. :)
    Without Nostalgia and a few others, the idiots would dominate – by default, but not by qualiuty of argument.

    Essentially it all comes down to this (does it not?) :
    • Power, as MoJ, presumably with Cabinet approval, contracted Binnie to do a job.
    • We do not know the precise terms of reference/appointment
    • Binnie is no academic pussy to be manipulated by either a rural conveyancer, a smart alec bureaucrat, a medical malpractice/accident lawyer or an Auckland tax lawyer.
    • Notwithstanding the disparaging comments on his (Binnie’s) ability, it does not take much effort to establish via independent t sources, that he is a jurist of international repute and standing
    • He sits down in January 2012 with the parties. Crown Law (aka Collins. D , Pike et al) present as the Crown representatives.
    • The crown reps make it clear that they also represent the MoJ, ESR and Police.
    • Binnie is given access to every relevant official document and also reads Karam’s books
    • Karam represents Bain as legal aid has been denied.
    • Binnie interviews all parties and, finally, interviews Bain
    • Binnie pins his analysis, report, and recommendations to the conclusions of the (then) highest N Z legal authority, the judicial committee of the Privy Council
    • In 20076 the PC, comprising five (5) eminent law lords delivers its decision.
    • The PC rejects all Crown assertions relating to law and other matters.
    • The PC quashes Bain’s convictions and invites NZ to consider whether to go to retrial.
    • The hint could not have been more obvious.
    • Collins. D and the Police opt to spend millions more of NZ taxpayers dollars, plus the cost of Bain’s legal aid, and go to a retrial.
    • Collins and the taxpayers lose.
    • Bain seeks legal aid to apply for compensation.
    • Legal aid is declined.
    • To return to the PC and Binnie, the Canadian jurist pins his report to the PC’s findings and quotes some of the comments of those judges in support of his conclusions
    • Binnie produces his report to Collins as MoJ .
    • Collins is horrified. Why? Because Binnie has not been snowed by the Crown’s bullshit which was, in effect, a belated attempt to say that the PC was wrong.
    • Collins. J is persuaded by MoJ bureaucrats to involve Heron. M, the new SG
    • Crown Law recommends that Collins.J engages Fisher, a tame QC and former Judge whose career had stalled for a variety of reasons.
    • Collins calls it a peer review, but ignores the fundamental principles under-pinning proper peer reviews, namely that they be by more than one person and are anonymous.
    • Collins declines to make a copy of Binnie Report available to Bain.
    • Collins leaks the Binnie report (possibly through surrogates) to the NZ Herald (nice scoop!)
    • Collins opens her mouth on the Fisher “review”
    • Collins seeks to diss Binnie and his report but at the same time claim client-lawyer privilege.
    • Stupid
    • Binnie responds to numerous media request by cutting Collins to ribbons. She is “sliced and diced” with the final jibe being a reminder that she is a “former Auckland tax lawyer”:.
    • Ouch!
    • Collins finally releases Binnie, Fisher, Binnie (amended) and Binnie on Fisher.
    • Bain, Karam and Reed get copies a few minutes ahead of the media (Crown Law , Bain’s opposition has had the report for three months)
    • Most of the MSM report Binnie on Bain and Fisher on Binnie.
    • MSM analysis is abysmal, but typical of present standards
    • Binnie, off base in Geneva, issues a five page, detailed rebuttal of each and every one of Fisher’s comments.
    • Fisher is gutted – sliced and diced. Moreover he is exposed as a silly academic, totally out of his depth.
    • The World now awaits Michael Reed QC on Fisher and Binnie.
    • That will be great sport. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    Judith said

    Nostalgia, I demand you remove this comment. Muggins et al have been arguing that this strip search did not occur. Weir & Doyle were clearly mistaken when they gave evidence that it did or did not consult with Muggins et al, before they gave their evidence.

    You may not have noticed Judith, being so busy defending that dear, innocent Mr Bain and all that, but this is DPF’s blog, and he does the demanding, not you. A little bit of blog etiquette goes a long way :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Philonz notes:

    Binnie’s email has 10 words in all caps. It is a 5 page email.

    Thanks. I was just about to post asking someone for a link direct to the “all caps” email because I’d clicked all over the Scoop site and not found it.

    If you’re composing an email in plain text (or you think the recipient’s server will strip the HTML out of it) the only emphasis you have available to you is either caps or perhaps leading and trailing asterisks, *so*. Such hyperbole, DPF!

    @RF

    The official title given to Winston’s office by those who worked there was Paranoia Palace. Given recent events surrounding Mr Horan, attempted seizing of laptops, poking into personal phone records etc., please stay with the official nomenclature and not this “Bull Shit Castle” stuff. Thanking you in advance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (3,003) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    You go offshore because it appears that’s one of the few places you’ll find people who haven’t a preconceived opinion about the case. Collins on the other hand prefers any view that accords with what she has decided all along. Which is fine if she’d just admit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Martin van Beynen’s points are extremely valid.

    There are some things we can argue about with David’s behaviour, but if you belive that Robin did it then you have to admit that Robin did a number of things that were completely inconsistent with leaving David as the sole, innocent survivor – let along the big giveaways that Robin had no injuries in spite of there being a fight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Keepingstock

    Judith was humouring me but not with a sledgehammer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Thanks. I was just about to post asking someone for a link direct to the “all caps” email because I’d clicked all over the Scoop site and not found it.

    If you’re composing an email in plain text (or you think the recipient’s server will strip the HTML out of it) the only emphasis you have available to you is either caps or perhaps leading and trailing asterisks, *so*. Such hyperbole, DPF!

    I was wondering myself where that email was, but then I read DPF’s post carefully.

    Binnie has responded to the Fisher report, which is at the link above. Somewhat amusingly it also seems he sent an e-mail to the Minister this morning in ALL CAPS.

    Suprised that people are so ready to slag off the host, without actually reading what he said properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    There’s much in the original post I’ll leave to people better versed in the facts of the case than I to argue about. But I can’t let this criticism of Binne by Collins go unremarked:

    Mr Binnie criticised named individuals without giving them the right to respond.

    That’s hardly unusual. A judge here in Western Australia recently issued a finding saying there was “unacceptable conduct by some investigators ranging from inappropriate to reprehensible”, that “officers misused their position of authority and threatened to abuse their power of arrest”, but also said the target of their investigation had engaged in “discreditable conduct”.

    Despite the accused being a position where he was still to face lesser charges over the “discreditable conduct” (bugging his wife’s phone calls), neither police nor the accused were given a right to respond.

    And no one was daft enough to suggest they ought to have been.

    Both parties have a chance to put their evidence and points of view during earlier phases of the process; if they’re then allowed to respond to the findings, are there to be more findings taking into account their responses? And then more responses to those findings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,438) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    ——
    And you may not have noticed Keepingstock, that Nostalgia is an acquaintance, one with a sense of humour, who would have understood the comment, directed at him as a ‘tongue in cheek’ comment. As the kids would say, get a life!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    That’s hardly unusual.

    I would agree to some extent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Ross Nixon (614 comments) says:

    With ongoing advances in ‘reading’ brainwaves, it appears that it will soon be a reasonably reliable way to determine if someone is telling the truth.

    That day can’t come soon enough.
    Would be interesting (but not legal?) to test some people retrospectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    Okay Nostalgia, thanks for your reply. You think she did it for political reasons because you disagree with her.

    In the non-paranoid world, she received a poor report that would reflect poorly on her if she presented it to cabinet. So she got it reviewed. Like a normal, competent person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom.. Thank you kind sir …. I stand corrected however my Bull Shit Castle is a place that Winnie would want to avoid at all costs as its the Police HQ.

    I hear that there is a table at the Green Parrot that is reserved for Lord Winston .. Perhaps we could gate crash once you get back from the outback.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Zapper (499) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    —————

    There was nothing about the peer review process that Ms Collins instigated that was normal. A peer review does not, as pointed out above involve only one person.

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

    I believe the interview went like this:

    Binnie: Now David I do need to ask you this. Did you kill your family?
    David: No
    Binnie: Oh, okay, are you sure about that. I don’t want to rush you.
    Joe: He said no, can we move on?
    Binnie: Well, that settles it then. But this is awkward. I haven’t even filled half the first page of my time sheets. How about you go away and I will interview some other people, fill the time sheets, and then we will finish the interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    He was asked to give *his opinion*. The fact that Judith doesn’t like it does not imply he has failed to do his job.

    Which is why Collins went out and got someone else to look over the work and point out the flaws in the workmanship and showed that his process was wrong. I don’t believe Collins has said he got the wrong conclusion – that may be her belief, but Binnie’s poor process has left his conclusions open to challenge. Had he done a better job, he would probably not now be having to fight a rearguard action on his integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock.. I gain the impression that one of our posters is a smart arse female dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Certainly many are aware of my feelings on the Bain case.

    The Minister talks about a bias in favour of David. However, after reading the report I could argue of bias in the other direction. But I don’t, to this point. I’m far from offended that Binnie has found that there was no conspiracy either by police or Crown Law, or for example that he concludes that David did wear his mother’s glasses on the weekend before the murders and other contentious issues. Binnie’s arguments on the evidence are sensible and compelling, but not only that, he also reserves the outcome of those arguments when completing his findings from the often conflicting presentations of the Crown and Bain – the absolute thing he needed to do.

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

    RF
    Don’t you mean a dumb arse?
    I mean who could really believe that David Bain was not wearing that pair of his mother’s glasses that were found in his room but another pair that were found in his mother’s drawer.
    I mean how dumb is that?

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

    Well, some of you are so well versed with (your view of) the facts, you can’t possibly be wrong. Can you most learned sages help this wee, poor ignorant soul with this point from Binnie’s report:

    108. On entering the house he noticed that his mother’s light was on but turned left into his
    own room, which was dark and cold on a typical Dunedin winter morning. He did not switch on
    the light in his own room even though sunrise would not occur for a least another hour.

    This from someone who required glasses- either his own or Margaret’s?

    Was he known as an enthusiastic player of “pin the tail on the donkey”, or is there another fun Bain family game, as yet unreported, that encouraged players to stumble about in low light conditions in order to win fame, fortune, or prizes?

    [Or in other terms, why did someone with poor vision not turn on a light when they entered a poorly lit room?.. What further questions can be uncovered?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    @scrubone:

    Ah I see. I withdraw and apologise for the suggestion of hyperbole. But if things are going to get that obtuse, would you’d hang round and parse the rest of the blog please? :-D

    @RF

    I hope to be back in Wellington early next year, and am always amenable to an evening at the Green Parrot. I hope they still serve fresh white bread and stacks of butter, gratis. There’s not specifically a table reserved there for Winston but he generally likes to hold court to several hangers-on at once and usually there’s only one spot large enough to accommodate the entourage, so lesser mortals get asked to move. I’ve only ever arrived there once when Winston was present (since our parting of the ways, that is) and despite offering a warm greeting to the table and being acknowledged by most of the others (Mike Moore, a smattering of older Nat MPs) I was snubbed by the Great Man himself! Snubbed, I say! Imagine that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    “Zapper (499) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    Okay Nostalgia, thanks for your reply. You think she did it for political reasons because you disagree with her.

    In the non-paranoid world, she received a poor report that would reflect poorly on her if she presented it to cabinet. So she got it reviewed. Like a normal, competent person.’

    How could a report that she didn’t commission reflect on her? Bloody nonsense. What isn’t nonsense though is that she lacked faith in her cabinet to not reach the same ‘enlightened’ decision as her. She decided to assume leadership on that and ‘fix’ things which are now backfiring on her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    I have a life thanks very much Judith, but thanks for the clarification nonetheless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    She may not have commissioned the report Nostalgia, but it landed on her plate and if Judith Collins was aware (after taking advice from the Attorney-general and Solicitor-General) that the report had flaws, it would be absolutely negligent for her to try and get Cabinet support for its recommendations. On that basis alone, she has done absolutely the right thing IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    Being snubbed by Winston is surely a good thing Rex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    As the minister currently responsible for reviewing and presenting the report to cabinet, you don’t see how presenting a report clearly not up to scratch reflects on her? She’s doing her job, and doing it well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Here’s a quote that seems typical:

    Still other prosecution issues (especially the fingerprint blood on the rifle, and the blood smears on David’s clothing) while raising suspicions, are capable of innocent explanation and do not, in my view, undermine David Bain’s
    claim to factual innocence established on the other evidence. Still other issues such as Margaret’s glasses, the opera gloves and the green V-necked jersey, simply do not connect David Bain to the crime scene in any reliable way.

    Translation: I’ve decided he’s innocent, and there are BS explanations that can be used to explain away the individual items of evidence that I disagree with. Therefore he’s innocent.

    And it’s that arguing away of individual evidences that is a problem. Yes, each one in theory might be arguable but all together you have quite a stack of things that you have to argue away. DPF did a good post at the time on this very point. This, in a report from a senior judge, is just wrong.

    Were I a Bain supporter, I’d be very unhappy with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    @Zapper:

    If ever anybody needed my services (at a premium rate, natch) it’s Winston. I was hoping for a rapprochement followed by a payday like no other ;-)

    But I’d best shush lest I get told off for being off-topic… apologies to those distracted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Bhudson

    ‘108. On entering the house he noticed that his mother’s light was on but turned left into his
    own room, which was dark and cold on a typical Dunedin winter morning. He did not switch on
    the light in his own room even though sunrise would not occur for a least another hour.’

    I guess you have trouble going to the toilet at night without a high powered light and a search squad.
    If things are that bad, try the wardrobe.

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

    lest I get told off for being off-topic

    a welcome relief actually Rex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    It’s quite clear to any non-partisan in this matter that the Binnie report is fundamentally flawed, and a severe departure in quality from the Privy Council and Thorpe reports into the matter that it alludes too. Going any further down the track with it would be farcical and if anything might allow the report and compensation to be rejected outright. But by the same measure utilizing Fisher any further would lead to obvious allegations of bias and unfairness, as it was the Crowns mistake, not Bain’s it seems only reasonable that they have a say in if and how another report is commissioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Zapper (499) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    —————

    There was nothing about the peer review process that Ms Collins instigated that was normal. A peer review does not, as pointed out above involve only one person.
    —————–

    A peer review is a review by one’s equals.
    Fisher is not in that category cf Binnie.

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

    NN-Z,

    I guess you have trouble going to the toilet at night without a high powered light and a search squad.
    If things are that bad, try the wardrobe.

    No, I just turn the light on…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock

    ‘She may not have commissioned the report Nostalgia, but it landed on her plate and if Judith Collins was aware (after taking advice from the Attorney-general and Solicitor-General) that the report had flaws,’

    That’s actually the problem, those advising her were participants in the issues.
    Of course we also now realise that a peer review does not consist of a ‘single’ peer, just as a jury trial does not consist of a single juror but rather 12. Twelve, who in this case, spoke in Christchurch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    Collins must wish she was in charge when Binnie was chosen. She could have chosen someone suitable and avoided all this. Instead she gets accused of making this political when she’s just doing her job.

    Since she’s accused of making this political, does this mean everyone on the left thinks Bain is innocent?

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

    does this mean everyone on the left thinks Bain is innocent?

    Nope. ross69 is as left as anyone needs to be (albeit, perhaps, a bit right of Minto and Bradford.) He is so anti-Collins it is hard to articulate [try a Google search]

    But… his certainty of Bain’s guilt overrides his disdain/hate of Judith Collins [Google search again]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    Yep, I was really asking a question that shows how ridiculous it is to accuse her of doing what she’s doing for politicial reasons. Rather constipated thinking, one might say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Zapper.. I could be wrong but I have noticed a bias to the left from those are more than a tad critical of Crusher. There are a couple of bloggers here who are very pro Bain and the softest part of their body is their teeth.

    I believe that Crusher was handed a poison challis and doing the best she can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Zapper (1,015 comments) says:

    I agree RF. Those critical are generally making it political – Collins is not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Marty McFly (6 comments) says:

    Have any of the pro-Bain people answered the 9 points of Martin van Beynen yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    bhudson (2,938) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    [Or in other terms, why did someone with poor vision not turn on a light when they entered a poorly lit room?.. What further questions can be uncovered?]

    _______________

    If you read his statement regarding his return to the house, you’ll find that David went to his room to kick his shoes off and not actually perform any tasks requiring light, before going down to the laundry and kitchen areas. If you examine the floor plan of the house, it is possible that the light shining from Mrs Bain’s room would have provided some light into the hallway, not to mention the fact that having been outside doing his paper round, David’s eyes would have been adjusted to a degree of darkness and the said light provided sufficient illumination. Being a resident of the house, he would be familiar with the layout. I know I can make it from my room to the WC in the dark quite sucessfully, although I do concede I do not have the enormous collection of ‘items’ in my house that the Bains seem to have had.

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

    bhudson
    The reason why David Bain didn’t turn his light on was because he wanted to do the washing. Had he turned his light on then he would have seen the trigger lock on the floor and that his rifle was missing and then he would have rushed in to his mother’s room ,found her dead,and the washing wouldn’t have been done,the printers ink would have still been on his hands,he would have still been wearing that red sweatshirt[if he was wearing it,],etc.,etc.
    Talking about seeing his mother’s light on. At the Injustice conference David Bain said he saw his mother’s light on as he was about to go downstairs and thought he would make her a cup of tea. This was the first time he had mentioned that cup of tea. What I would like to know is why he didn’t make that cup of tea,I mean the kitchen was downstairs. Also I do wonder how he knew his mother hadn’t already made a cup of tea for herself.
    Interestingly enough Karam mentions that cup of tea in his book Trial by Ambush,only he has David Bain seeing his mother’s light on when he came up the stairs after doing the washing.
    But we all know that Bain saw his mother’s light on earlier than that because at the first trial he said he saw it on when he entered the house.

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

    The only correct thing for Collins to do was, in spite of her misgivings about the report, grit her teeth, and submit it to Cabinet.

    If “perception is everything,” this has been an unmitigated disaster.

    Nothing good can come from any development in this saga in the foreseeable future.

    Fisher complains of a bias towards innocence in Binnie’s report – yet he displays his own bias by failing to undertake a fair appraisal of Binnie’s work, but rather has set out to find as much fault with it as possible, no matter how slender and nit-picking the concerns.

    That is a pre-determined position of bias.

    Honestly, very few of the judgments handed down by our higher courts would withstand the type of critique used by Fisher here.

    I can think of many decisions of our courts

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

    where important evidence and legal submissions have been ignored in the final written judgment.

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

    and not actually perform any tasks requiring light

    And just what were those tasks that did not require light?

    The other shining lights and angles are exactly relevant how to what I asked?

    Remember I am quoting Binnie, no one else, as to going into his dark room…

    By the way, whose glasses was he wearing at that point.??… [or do you think he was feeling his way, blind???]

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

    Binnie’s report is so flawed that there will have to be another report done.
    A list of the errors and incorrect assumptions is mounting up on counterspin.co.nz at this moment,and this is apart from those that Fisher has already pointed out.

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

    Judith,
    Where was that cupboard in David Bain’s room that he said he took his shoes off in front of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    If you want to have a conversation with her so much why don’t you email her instead of spamming on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    # muggins (241) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    …I mean who could really believe that David Bain was not wearing that pair of his mother’s glasses that were found in his room but another pair that were found in his mother’s drawer.
    I mean how dumb is that?

    Me:
    From a circumstantial point of view, given David would’ve been poorly sighted after confrontation with stephen having damaged old pair of specs, to my mind would be quite reasonable to assume he might have made motions to wear his mothers actual glasses to complete the murder plan and then put them back(in forensically cleaned condition – was it tested?)

    I proffer the fact his face had a quite discernable mark on his nose that morning, where glasses typically make such marks and is this case from what I can tell, the mark best suits his mothers glasses and not the old pair:

    exhibit a:

    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/Sbts9Pt-_4I/AAAAAAAAAS8/1_9_v0IZ9Yw/s0/bain%20glasses3.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. BlairM (2,317 comments) says:

    OMG, what a total “cluster-fornication”!

    I notice that the sheer stupidity of the report has not deterred those who previously appealed to the judge’s authority as a judge, and they continue to assert that if a Canadian Supreme Court Judge craps out a turd, then it must still smell like lavender and roses.

    As I have said before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this one tastes terrible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Mark (1,471 comments) says:

    I think Judith Collins should keep shopping around until she can find someone to write a report that tells her what she wants to hear or better still perhaps she should ghost write the report. Fuck me it would be quicker, cheaper and have the added benefit of getting this tedious saga finished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    What shocks me is that a man with hundreds, nay thousands of hours of researching the case is such a dumbarse he didn’t know about the strip search or the ambo recording that Bain had no injuries to his face before the fall in the bedroom. Just shows you shouldn’t blow your own trumpet because when the truth emerges you look like a complete mug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Looks like the compensation issue will not be settled for at least another year. Collins has essentially rejected Binnie’s report outright and now a new report has to be commissioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    The interesting thing about all this is that we will eventually have to repeat the same process for Watson who uinfortunately hasn’t got a “Joe Karam” in the iwngs.
    Should also have been the case for Ellis.

    The intransience of the police today is mind blowing. They fucked up and unless they are told by their political masters to back off and fess up they maintain that they were lilly white in conduct and absolutely right.
    Neither is the case.
    Frankly its mindlessly stupid for current encumbents to dig themselves a hole doing this. Its wasn’t their work and they have better things to do. Time to let it go.

    As a matter of interest IMHO they didn’t even look to the person who did this. Person No. 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    I imagine Binnie knew that this report would be one that would be attacked and thus decided to write it as a sort of rolling defence of his conclusion. the alternative would be to have written it as a more balanced mode in which we wouuld instead of asking about his principles used to investigate we would be confused as to how he got his conclusion of balance of probabilities from the data (for example if on a series of facts he found that robin was more likely and on another series he found david to be more liklely).

    Such a report might even have many of us wondering if Robin killed the first set of family members (due to the timeline making that easier for him) then tried to cover it up then realised it was futile and half heartedly tried to sell to david a weak story about how he was spared by some murderer who thought he was the only one worth leaving alive then realised it was futile and was ready to be shot, and was (considering the difficulty in doing so himself).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    First of all we need to wait for the reaction from the applicant Kent, even Binnie’s perhaps. What Collins has claimed isn’t borne out when reading the report. Someone above suggests she should write her own, if she did, she’d never make the measure of Binnie’s effort because she doesn’t have the experience. But I’d like to see her try. She worked for 3 months behind Binnie’s back to undermine him, but still the quality and insights of his report shine in the dark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    ‘Frankly its mindlessly stupid for current encumbents to dig themselves a hole doing this. Its wasn’t their work and they have better things to do. Time to let it go.’

    Exactly V2. Round pegs and square holes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    The cheer squad is deafeningly quiet about the points raised in the Martin van Beynen Opinion Piece that appeared in The Press – apart from a letter of complaint [addressed to the previous Editor] suggesting that MvB was somehow ‘biased’….

    And yet the same cheer squad would have us believe that other opinion pieces (written by Karam) should somehow be valid?

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. SGA (983 comments) says:

    @Elaycee 7:31 –

    Try the “The Press on Bain” post yesterday. It’s quite long so I won’t reproduce it -but you’ll find it at:
    Nostalgia-NZ (1,737) Says:
    December 13th, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SGA (983 comments) says:

    Opps – my mistake – I see know you’ve read that (No Edit/delete working?)

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

    Yep, pay the guy. Let’s move on. Let’s look at this through the unspoken rule of services provided, spend an almost equal amount to fob him and karam off or give him the money and shut it down completely. This has devolved to become a distraction, Are they going to give themselves a raise this year?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    Elaycee,
    in fairness the Binnie report does address these (or at least most of it)
    4. for example he argues that it is not uncommon to not leave finger prints in this scenario. this is a matter of testable fact so i presume he isn’t outright wrong about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Chuck Bird (4,831 comments) says:

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

    Does anyone know if there was anyone aside from Buckley who alleges David told him about the female jogger?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    Good morning Elaycee :)
    While we obviously agree on many things other than Bain/Crusher/Binnie/Fisher/Binnie, it is good that we have the freedom to AGREE OR DISAGREE.
    I have never been comfortable with a world that unreservedly accepts pronouncements from idioms like Collins. I prefer to look at all the available information and then, I hope/believe a totally dispassionate way reach my own conclusions.
    I was not asked, but will state my view on Bain. Guilty or not guilty? Answer : I do NOT KNOW.
    Did the process treat him fairly? I don’t know because I do not have enough detailed knowledge. BUT… the Privy Council said he did get screwed by Crown Law et al.
    Now Binnie has said he (Bain) was screwed by Crown law et al. Six (6) foreign , experienced, independent, High/Supreme/Privy Council judges favouring Bain. All rejecting Collins.D and his successor.
    Now… along comes Fisher , Collins’ hired gun (mercenary?). He allows matters already rejected by the Privy Council to be re-litigated before him. And lo, Fisher decides the independent Privy Council got it all wrong and his former NZ judicial brethren were correct.
    What a load of cobblers.

    Now Elaycee, please go read , twice, Binnie ion Fisher. Fisher is awarded C-minus for his effort.

    And now to Collins…..
    Notwithstanding all the Collins spin, today was NOT a good day for her, for National, for the Government and the legal establishment. Collins was snowed by the system.
    So far as I am concerned, if Binnie had said “NO” to the Bain plea, that would have been fine.
    But what has transpired is not in accord with natural justice.
    As I said yesterday, once the MSM gets up to speed, and ALL the reports have been read, Collins and then establishment will stand exposed thanks to her overt pre-disposition and incompetence. . She took poor advice.

    I suspect that by the time Michael Reed QC has finished with her, she will have wished she had remained an “Auckland tax lawyer”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    Come oin DPF..
    Get the edit function working :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    flipper

    It isn’t the edit function you need, but rather the delete function in order to remove the complete and utter crap that you’ve been spouting on this for the last umpteen hours. Your take on this is nothing short of chld-like and you complete lack of understanding, no doubt exacerbated by your lack of the most fundamental comprehension skills, is drawn into sharp focus by your gratuitous insulting of Fisher as a hired gun and, by inference, someone completely lacking in professional and personal integrity.

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

    Good grief, davinci. Did you sleep well? You just incinerated flipper with your kind and considerate comment.

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

    WHAT A FIASCO!

    (yes Judith, I’m shouting)

    if there is to be a new report, I want to see it done by an independent, international jurist of the same or better standing than Mr Binnie

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

    Kent
    Heard you on radio this morning. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nookin (3,264 comments) says:

    Flipper

    This morning I listened to Prof Mark Henaghan of Otago University. He gave an objective analysis and said that Fisher’s reasoning was sound and that Collins was doing the right thing. Now tell me — is he just another hired gun lacking in integrity?

    Or do we put you in the same class as Chauvel and Turei who are, disgracefully in my view, making cheap political capital out of this by dishonestly misrepresenting the facts and attributing bad faith motives to the minister without a single shred of evidence to justify it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Chuck Bird (4,831 comments) says:

    David Bain trial: Alibi-plan evidence kept secret from jury

    By Jared Savage jaredsavageNZH
    12:48 PM Thursday Jun 11, 2009

    If is was not for some stupid rules about evidence and the testimony of Mr Buckley, Mr Taylor and his wife were allowed Bain would have been not only found guilty but probably it would not have been overturned by the PC.

    Be that as it may Bennie should have looked properly at this evidence. Taylor told his wife what Buckley told him all before the murder. What reason would Buckley have to make something like that up before the murder?

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    One thing to emerge from this that is incontrovertible is that “Judith” can’t be Bain’s mother.

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

    I see one David Bain supporter is still rabitting on about those bruises on David Bain’s head and those scratches /bruises on his chest.
    As I have already pointed out to him those bruises on his head were not all that prominent amongst the acne,so those ambulance officers would not necessarily have noticed them.
    Re those scratches/bruises on David Bain’s torso. Regardless of whether David Bain was strip-searched or not,and there is no proof that he was, I am still waiting for David Bain ,or any of his supporters,to tell me how he came to have those scratches/bruises on his torso. I have been waiting over three years to get an answer to that question.
    I have read where David Bain said,at that injustice conference,that he was medically strip-searched,but he also said that every orifice was examined. I don’t believe his rectum was examined,and I don’t believe he was medically strip-searched.
    I can’t ask Dr Pryde because he is dead. Maybe I am going to have to get hold of either Dunne or Van Turnhout,because they are the only other people who would know for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,047) Says:

    December 14th, 2012 at 8:24 am
    flipper

    It isn’t the edit function you need, but rather the delete function in order to remove the complete and utter crap that you’ve been spouting on this for the last umpteen hours. Your take on this is nothing short of chld-like and you complete lack of understanding, no doubt exacerbated by your lack of the most fundamental comprehension skills, is drawn into sharp focus by your gratuitous insulting of Fisher as a hired gun and, by inference, someone completely lacking in professional and personal integrity.”

    Nothing gratuitous about the Fisher comments, smart arse. :)
    If you are unaware of his background, it shows just how uninformed, myopic, and really silly that you are – and how much your head is up your fundamental …. :)

    I suspect Sir (or whatever), that you need lessons in objectivity, not to mention remedial reading.

    But take heart: your ad hominem skills are well honed! :)

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

    flipper, take it easy,you will do yourself a mischief.
    Binnie’s report is about to be tossed in the rubbish binnie. What about that email he sent Judith Collins last night? Full of spelling errors and using capitals to try and get his point across. Judith won’t be too happy about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    Yes Nookin, I heard the Dunedin academic.
    He has obviously NOT read Binnie in Fisher.
    Chauvel and the red melon? Far from it.
    It is just that I think Collins.J, Fisher, and the “system” have sought re-litigate matters
    previouskly decided by the PC.
    Question nookie ( and ther other silly davinni twerp) : Have you read Binnie on Fisher?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    davincimode:

    One thing to emerge from this that is incontrovertible is that “Judith” can’t be Bain’s mother.

    Based on the (totally unscientific) observation that ‘Judith’ uses the very same terminology previously posted on KB by ‘Jinny’ and ‘Ginny’ I suspect they’re one and the same.

    And that reminds me… given that Binnie saw fit to read the opinion pieces penned by Karam, did he also sit and interview Bryan Bruce – the man who compiled the compelling TV programme that discredited the suggestion that Robin Bain was somehow the killer? Or did he meet with Martin van Beynen who has regularly (and articulately) pulled apart the case for the defence ?

    Nah??? Thought not.

    The Binnie Report is a total WOFTAM and Fisher was totally correct in pointing out the numerous (and fatal) flaws.

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

    ” For a more journalistic approach to the case against compensation for David Bain I familiarized myself with
    some of the writings of the Justice for Robin Bain and similar groups posted on sites such as
    davidbain.counterspin.co.nz and http://www.scoop.co.nz. ” Binnie

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    The Justice Minister would have been damned if she accepted the Biner report warts and all, and is being damned because she didn’t. And the daming would be by the same people doing the damning now.
    Some times you can’t win.

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

    1: How did the glasses get damaged, don’t worry about the missing lens for now, but how did the glasses get damaged ?

    2: Who made sure that the WHOLE family was at home that weekend ?

    3: If Laniet was/ or did tell all, how came there was no big scene and everyone just went to bed after the movie ?

    4: Why would Robin wear davids opera gloves ?

    5: On discovering your dead mother shot in the head, wouldn’t most normal people leave the premises quickly ?

    On the balance of probabilities, Robin didn’t kill Stephen

    and on the balance of probabilities, Robin would NEVER kill Arawa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nookin (3,264 comments) says:

    Alex
    And, as is evidenced by comments from the likes of Flipper, there is no point in debating it with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Nookin, Thats why I am not going to. Anyway I have far to much to do in real life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    flipper

    I think Collins.J, Fisher, and the “system” have sought re-litigate matters
    previouskly decided by the PC

    That is simply nonsense. You keep referring to the Privy Council decision. Have you actually read it and if you have, were you sober? Have you read anything other than Binnie’s tearful emails?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    There is something of an irony in all of this in that the Privy Council criticisms of the third Court of Appeal decision appear to be not entirely dissimilar to elements of Fisher’s criticism of Binnie.

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

    Elaycee,
    I also suspect that Judith and Jinny are one and the same. Both Judith and Jinny have said that the glasses that David Bain was wearing that weekend were not the pair that were found in his room.
    I very much doubt that there would be two people in this country who would come up with that suggeston. I am very much surprised that even one has.
    Obviously Judith has not thought it through. If David Bain had been wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses then surely they would still be in his room. His weren’t going to be ready until the next Thursday,so he would have needed them until then.
    But then why would Judith change her pseudonym? But if she is not Jinny then what has happened to Jinny? She was posting day and night on the Bain threads a few months ago.

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

    thedavincimode
    I reckon flipper has flipped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    For the benefit of those who can read:
    (With apologies for length)

    Sent: Thursday, December 13, 20126:12 AM
    To: Margaret Malcolm
    Subject: FISHER DRAFr REPORT
    I received the Fisher document and have read it — I certainly have comments — obviously I don’t
    have a copy of my own Report here in Geneva but it is probably not necessary to have it
    considering the generality ofMr Fisher’s observations —
    1 . much of the document consists of generalities about evidence and a history of the “extraordinary
    circumstances” discretion which require no response from me except where he purports to apply
    some of the principles to my Report. As the Minister knows, the language of “recommendation” etc
    was removed from my Report as a result of her comment at our meeting of September 13. All of
    that discussion, it seems to me, has no pertinence.
    2 . It is of interest that according to the document (a) Mr Fisher was retained on 26 September — the
    “Dear Robert” letter –(b) he met the Minister the same day (c) and without having performed the
    “first stage” analysis he reports that ” as we discussed , a second and final report will be required for
    the purpose of reviewing the evidence afresh and arriving at its own conclusions on the merits”.
    This seems a very results oriented retainer. Normally one would expect him to make his analysis of
    Page 2 of5
    my Report , and to have his analysis considered by the Minister, BEFORE a decision to have Mr
    Fisher do an entirely new Report “on the merits”. It seems clear the Minister had already made up
    her mind on Septermber 26 regarding the outcome. The only function ofMr Fisher’s “first stage”
    report was, according to his own recitation, to provide a rationale for a Ministerial decision already
    taken.
    3 . The document makes it clear that Mr Fisher has not read any of the evidence since his meeting
    with the Minister last September — this task (which I would have thought essential to an assessment
    of my Report) he reserves for “the second and final report” — an exercise apparently predetermined
    at the September 26 meeting — to be delivered who knows when — much of what he says about my
    analysis seems to arise from his lack of familiarity with the material I was asked to review, as will
    be discussed. The other leg to his analysis is that he might have weighed up the evidence differently
    than I did (although, presumably with an eye to what he expects to be the second stage of his
    inquiry) he says he might reach the same ultimate conclusion — or he might not.
    4 .M r Fisher passes over the fact the structure of the argument of the parties to my inquiry was
    largely derived from the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2007 . That
    decision laid out in great detail the important FACTUAL issues which the Crown Law Office and
    the Bain team continued to consider critical to the outcome. They invited me to make findings of
    fact on each of these issues and I did so. As to the luminol footprints, for example, the Privy
    Council asked the Solicotor General in the course of the hearing whether the Crown’s case could
    survive a finding that Robin made them. This was because on the Crown’s theory Robin would
    never have been in those parts of the house on the morning of June 20. The Solicitor General
    agreed in Court that whoever made the footprints was the killer (the actual quote from the Solicitor
    General in the Privy Council hearing is included in my Report — it was taken from a
    contemporaneous handwritten note and Mr Pike, for the Crown , who was present at the hearing,
    did not dispute its accuracy). Yet Mr Fisher thinks this issue should just be bundled up with
    everything else as if the Crown’s admission had never been made.
    5. Mr Fisher dismisses the luminol foot evidence as just a “single strand” of evidence followed by
    me by “a serial testing of that conclusion against some, but not all, of the other items of evidence”
    (para 95) This just shows Mr Fisher’s lack of familiarity with the evidentiary record. When an
    admission is made in proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter before New
    Zealand’s then highest appellate Court it’s importance is not to be diminished, in my opinion, on the
    basis of academic articles talking generally about the onus of proof.
    6 Mr Fisher’s main point is that “in a circumstantial case” bits of evidence are to be examined
    individually but the ultimate decision should only be reached looking at all the relevant evidence
    cumulatively. At the “second stage” , he says, “it is necessary to assess the cumulative effect of
    combining the probative force of all the items” (p 23). His analysis is based on criminal cases ( see
    eg para 44 where he quotes a bunch of criminal precedents and, amongst other things, a paper he
    delivered to a Criminal Law Conference in Auckland in 2003). This is not a criminal case. It is not
    even a law suit.It is an informal inquiry to be conducted (as he notes elsewhere) with a great deal of
    flexibility and discretion. Nevertheless, Mr Fisher then quotes me at para 71 as doing exactly what
    he said I should have done i.e. I say:
    … the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both
    individually and collectively
    , and considered in light of my interview with David Bain … persuade me that David Bain is
    factually innocent”
    Mr Fisher says at para 72 that my “formulations are clearly beyond reproach”, His allegation is that
    I didn’t do what I said I did. This is just wrong. I did what I said I did. Otherwise I wouldn’t have
    claimed to have done it. Moreover he concedes that in this “weighing up” exercise some factors will
    be given more weight than others. That is precisely the path I followed. I found the physical
    evidence compelling. The psychological and propensity evidence of no help. Mr Fisher suggests at
    para 94 that I should have included in the weighing up the psychological and propensity evidence
    even though I considered it of no value. This shows the impracticality of his academic model .
    6. Mr Fisher states that the “luminol footprint” evidence was “the foundation for my conclusion of
    factual innocence” .That comment was based, as stated, on my analysis of the evidence in light of
    the perfectly logical admission of the Solicitor General before the Privy Council , but nowhere did I
    suggest that the luminol footprint evidence stood alone. As explained in my Summary at the outset
    of the Report, the most persuasive evidence was the physical evidence including not only the
    luminol prints, but the absence of any blood on the inside of David Bain’s running shoes, and the
    lack of a “window of opportunity” to accomodate the Crown’s case. At para 91 Mr Fisher refers to
    other factors to which I assigned little weight. This too is part of the weighing up. At the end of the
    day Mr Fisher’s complaint is that I did not neatly divide my analysis into two neat little”stages”. He
    is advocating a complete triumph of form over substance. I disagree. What is important here is the
    substance.
    7 . It is true that I commented on the individual pieces of evidence as I went along , In the
    circumstances of a compensation inquiry (as opposed to a criminal trial which Mr Fisher takes as
    his model) it would have failed the parties to have done otherwise. They were entitled to know, for
    example, how I viewed the “gun fingerprint evidence” and I told them.
    8. Then there is a lengthy explanation by Mr Fisher of the onus of proof starting with the statement
    that “Mr Binnie has misunderstood the law in New Zealand on multiple onuses of proof’. This is
    demonstrably incorrect. I made a distinction between the legal or persuasive onus — which rested
    throughout on Mr Bain — and the evidentiary onus. The evidentiary onus is simply what Mr Fisher
    calls the need for “evidence” or “further evidence”. Mr Fisher just uses a different vocabulary. On
    the Crown’s speculation that the evidence of the witness who saw David Bain at his garden gate at
    6:45am on June 20 should be given little weight because perhaps David Bain had just “popped in
    and out”, I said the Crown was making the assertion and had the evidentiary burden to back up its
    assertion .. Mr Fisher, on the same example, says that “the Crown carried the risk that unless it
    adduced further evidence to support any alternative explanation (such as that he had returned earlier
    and popped back out again) Binnie J would be justified etc etc … but Mr Fisher adds) “that has
    nothing to do with the onus of proof’ . (para 100 ). I beg to differ. The words “the Crown carried the
    risk” is the classic language of onus — in the absence of “further evidence” — or in my terms
    meeting an evidentiary onus — the Crown risks losing the point. Once again Mr Fisher’s analysis
    raises distinctions without a difference to discredit a report based on evidence he hasn’t read.
    9 At para 111 and following MR Fisher complains that I “relied heavily upon information sourced
    from David” . This is true, So did the police and the Crown Law Office. He was the only source of
    much of the information relied upon by both sides, eg paras 112 to 114 — I therefore had to decide
    whether, on the whole, I believed him or not. That was part of my mandate. In my opening
    summary of the Report I pointed out that I had completed my examination of the record and the
    analysis of the other evidence BEFORE I interviewed David Bain. Mr Fisher explains at para 117
    that the “modern approach” is to “place greater weight on other considerations such as the inherent
    likelihood of the witness’s story, consistency with his or her contemporaneous and subsequent
    behaviour, and independent sourcesof evidence.” This is exactly the approach I took. David Bain’s
    version of what he did on the morning of June 20 was inherently likely because it conformed to a
    long standing paper route routine to which there were independent witnesses. The Crown’s
    alternative theory that he left the house unattended for over an hour with Robin due to walk in
    anytime was not. The fact he didn’t change his bloody clothes was inherently unlikely “subsequent
    behaviour” if he was guilty. As to “independent sources of evidence”, I found that in large part his
    credibility rested on its consistency with the physical evidence , not the other way around
    10 . At para 120 and following Mr Fisher complains about my use of what he calls “innocent
    openness” evidence, i,e, “that if clients had been guilty they would not have been so silly as to make
    the admissions or oversights in the first place”. What Mr Fisher fails to note (although it is
    explained in my Report) is that the use of “innocent openness” evidence in this case did not
    originate with me but with the Judicial Committee — as mentioned earlier, I do not have a copy of
    my Report with me in Geneva but Lord Bingham is quoted as puzzling over why David Bain, if he
    was guilty, would have made some of the statements he did. Accordingly, if I am guilty of sinning
    I do so in the good company of the five judges of the Privy Council. Once again, Mr Fisher’s
    complaints are academic and theoretical and indicate little familiarity with reality of the case.
    11 . Mr Fisher finds it suprising that I quoted David Bain’s claims of innocence at “the beginning
    and the end of the Executive Summary”. I would have found it extraordinary NOT to quote his
    claims of innocence, Mr Fisher fails to point out that the statement was inserted at the end of the
    summary because, as I explain in the text, the decision rested in the hands of others and I felt (and
    still feel) that he should be given a chance to explain himself in his own words.
    12 At para 12 8 and following Mr Fisher finds suprising my references to the 2009 jury
    acquittal.AQt para 131 he calls these references “an inappropriate distraction”. Given that the
    acquittal is the starting point of the claim for compensation, and that it is a fundamental part of the
    narrrative, this complaint is off the mark as well. I made it perfectly clear at several points that the
    jury was dealing with a different set of issues that I was and that its conclusion was not probative
    for compensation purposes. If Mr Fisher felt “inappropriately distracted” it was not for want of
    explanation on my part.
    13 At pages 4 2 to 50 Mr Fisher offers an exposition of his view of the scope of the “extraordinary
    circumstances” discretion . for the most part there is nothing much that divides us here. I laid out a
    series of alternate approaches Cabinet may wish to consider. I expressly stated that if deliberate
    misconduct is envisaged that there was none, in my opinion. I put the issue on the basis of
    ineptitude that departed to a marked degree from the CIB’s own Manual which according to the
    police witnesses they were required to follow unless for good reason. Mr Fisher does not accept the
    Cabinet reference to “failure to investigate the possibility of innocence” . He wants to add the words
    (which appear nowhere in any official document that I know of) “and elected not to investigate in
    case innocence emerged”. That is not the directive I was given and if it is to be amended in this
    fashion it should be amended by Cabinet not Mr Fisher.
    14 As to Mr Fisher’s insistence on “causal connection with imprisonment” it is surely the case that
    an incompetent and one sided investigation by the police will lead forseeably and consequentially
    to a heightened risk of conviction and conviction on charges of 5 murders will carry a prison term.
    In my view this is what happened here. This was not a matter of “consequences viewed in
    hindsight” as ssuggested atpara 202 .
    15. I should also say that for someone who insists that Cabinet should not be burdened with
    conclusions and recommendations Mr Fisher’s draft report contains plenty — e.g, at para 195 he
    writes “I previously concluded that if the case were to fall within that example, three elements
    would have to be satisfied ” …. including the new element that “the official knew of lines of inquiry
    that would be likely to demonstrate innocence and elected no to to investigate further in case
    innocence emerged”. This “conclusion” has nothing to do with the Cabinet text.
    16. At peara 197 Mr Fisher thinks I should have said more about the lack of an “official admission
    or judicial finding of serious misconduct” . Having fopund there were no such admissions or
    findings there was nothing more to say. David BAIN CLEARLY HAD NO CLAIM ON THAT
    BASIS.
    17. Mr Fisher says the discretionary payment is not for the purpose of condemning official
    misconduct (para 21 8). In my view Cabinet could take the view, as in some other common law
    jurisdictions, that to pay compensation simply announces that the state is willing to shoulder its
    proper share of responsibility of a miscarriage of justice that resulted in someone spending 13 years
    in prison. Cabinet need not do so.
    1 8 What is particularly galling in Mr Fisher’s commentary is referenceto “ther well publiciyed
    recommendation that compensation be paid.” At the time this “publicity” appeared in the New
    Zealand press the only people who had my report were the Ministry and myself. If the leak
    occurred it had nothing to do with me.
    19 . at para 221 and following Mr Fisher goes into what he sees at criticisms of certain individuals.
    All of the criticisms he mentions were made public at the 2009 trial and the people involved had
    every chance to explain themselves and they did so. The only exception is Mr Fisher’s comment
    with respect to the contaminated DNA sample , He says AT PARA 227 “Although Dr Harbison is
    not specifically named it is obvious from the earlier discussion in the RepOli that she was the ESR
    scientist involved.” I have never heard such a thing suggested before. If Mr Fisher were to read the
    evidence he would find that there were a number of other people in Dr Harbison’s lab working on
    the case and I had always assumed, and I think others did as well, that it was one of the technicians
    who mixed up the samples
    20 . As to para 235, the Crown Law Office was not there solely “to protect the interest of the state”.
    Before I went to Dunedin to interview the police officers there was a considerable discussion
    whether the police shouldbe separately represented and it was determined between the Crown and
    the police witnesses that there was no need to do so. There was no division of interest between the
    Crown and the police and the Crown could (and did) represent evrybody in the state employment.
    21 I regard the idea that parts of my Report shouzld not be published because some people are
    criticized to be contrived. Of course in an inquiry such as this people are going to be criticized. I
    specifically denied there was any wiful misconduct on anyone/\s part. The idea that special notices
    ahould go to everyone criticised has no foundation in law or common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Minister Collins is a disaster. Christmas coming up, Parliament risen . . . release the Report today, a Friday, say she’ll give the Bain Counsel the weekend to look through it, come back to the media next week just to plant a few seeds of doubt in the public mind over the sense of the Bain side’s arguments, in the new year take to Cabinet, announce with regret, no compensation for David Bain.

    Her actions come at a time of decreasing popularity for the Prime Minister, and tough political times.

    The Minister must do better. We the public want to see our Justice Minister displaying at least a patina of justice, regardless of their own views about the competence of the Binnie Report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Two beauts from Binnie:

    ‘ Accordingly, if I am guilty of sinning
    I do so in the good company of the five judges of the Privy Council. Once again, Mr Fisher’s
    complaints are academic and theoretical and indicate little familiarity with reality of the case.’

    and, speaking about Fisher ‘ based on evidence he hasn’t read.’

    Poor old Fisher thought he was applying the criminal code to a civil inquiry. Somebody should have told him, even reading the evidence might have given him just a little credibility. So the Binnie report remains intact apart from outbursts from Collins which are not linked to material contained in the Binnie report, and Fisher in his confusion between civil and criminal law and the ‘small’ matter of not knowing the evidence.

    Be interesting to see where things go from here. Although the Binnie report was far and away from a sympathetic view to David Bain it’s conclusions have not been dented, not by evidence, and now reading Binnie’s reply – not by procedure either. In fact Fisher comes out without a pass mark. I wonder if he also believes there was no strip search – poor chap. The ‘extraordinary circumstances’ line of Collins was always a frail point, so to her decision not to quietly ask Binnie and Fisher to reconcile as best they could the approach Binnie took – but I suppose that was always going to be hard one on the basis of the wide experience of one man compared to the other. However, at least it would have kept a lot of this crap out of the public arena until it was sorted. Fisher trying to re-visit something already conceded by the Crown at the PC is bonkers.

    The conclusions of Binnie are intact David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities. I have a plumber coming on Monday I might ask him if he could have a quick read of the report into the report to see he can shore the holes. Maybe this might return to the PC yet and then we’ll get to see Mr Fisher’s butt on a platter, what a dressing down that would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. James Stephenson (2,138 comments) says:

    Poor old Fisher thought he was applying the criminal code to a civil inquiry.

    What the fuck? Binnie was asked to look at the evidence and make a determination of whether Bain was innocent on the balance of probability and if he was further innocent beyond reasonable doubt. The only way that can be done properly, is to look at the evidence in the way one would in a criminal case, and Binnie didn’t do it.

    I don’t know what shower this Binnie idiot thinks we came down in, but I’m bloody glad that Collins didn’t come down it in either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nookin (3,264 comments) says:

    “The idea that special notices
    ahould go to everyone criticised has no foundation in law or common sense.”

    Tell that to Peter Mahon!

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

    More dribble from a failing old man …

    Binnie failed to see pass Karams fantasies.

    If he was so intellingent, then how could he overlook the bloody evidence that clearly points to db.

    On the balance of probabilities Robin didn’t kill Stephen.

    and on the balance of probabilities Robin would NEVER kill Arawa.

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

    and yes, PAST // INTELLIGENT …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    James Stephenson (1,221) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    So the High Court Judge who doesn’t know the evidence, or hasn’t read it, critiques the Supreme Court Judge that has. Jolly good I’ll ask the plumber about that one as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    James S…
    Are you still wet behind the ears? :)
    Go read Binnie again.
    Please do not cherry pick, like many others. :)

    Nookin…
    Peter Mahon’s problem was not “special notices”. It was pressure from political and business sources (RDM & Davis et al).
    And on matters relating to “pressure”, it was the same (well, similar) upright bunch now pushing against Binnie, that tried to de-rail the Williams Royal Commission. I have previously posted personal knowledge detail on this, sourced from the RC itself. In the case of A A Thomas, RDM told them to “bugger off”. J.Key has many attributes (or faults) but, not the steel-like-Muldoon-like mind.
    Collins…well, I suggest the “lady-in-waiting” may now be waiting quite a bit longer (from what I hear!). :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    flipper

    Please don’t cut and paste Karam’s books. They don’t add anything to this issue either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. James Stephenson (2,138 comments) says:

    So the High Court Judge who doesn’t know the evidence, or hasn’t read it, critiques the Supreme Court Judge that has. Jolly good I’ll ask the plumber about that one as well.

    The high court judge doesn’t need to look at the fucking evidence he’s not evaluating it, he’s looking at the method the former business lawyer from Canada’s “soggy” Supreme Court used to fail to assess it properly.

    Go read Binnie again.

    I did. I’m phoning the Waaahbulance as I type…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nookin (3,264 comments) says:

    Flipper
    Mahon’s problem is that he made a finding that there was an orchestrated litany of lies without putting the proposition to those whom he was criticising. Read the case. Look for cases where the proposition has been followed. Read some employment cases — any employment cases involving unjustified dismissal will probably do. It’s a basic precept of natural justice that if you are going top slag someone you give them the opportunity of responding. You don’t need special notices. You need to follow the rules of fair play.

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

    “So the High Court Judge who doesn’t know the evidence, or hasn’t read it, critiques the Supreme Court Judge that has. :: Nostalgia-NZ ”

    And you and Binnie are certain that Fisher knows nothing about the evidence ? lol

    Its time to lance this boil and squash the parasites that are bleeding off it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Nookin: 12.48

    If you read Binnie’s report and response to Fisher, you’ll see that he points out this criticism emerged at the trial and that he made a deliberate finding of no wilful misconduct. He also points out the obvious that there is going to be criticism into an inquiry, particularly one that canvasses a finding by a superior Court of a ‘actual Miscarriage of Justice’ – my words added there. The Mahon inquiry didn’t follow a trial and several appeals from my memory, this one has and takes the form only of a report into the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that might warrant compensation being paid. The Mahon inquiry did find ‘wilful misconduct’ Binnie has avoided that.

    I think it’s pretty obvious the ‘Bain team’ won’t be happy about aspects of the report, including the wilful misconduct question, but depending on what happens from now they may accept being tied to that conclusion. On the other hand a lot of those involved in the original inquiry could well be heartened by that conclusion – one, which I think was a sensible manoeuvre overall – and far short of how far I might have hoped or expected he’d go. There are good reasons to accept the Binnie report, and none not to accept it. The strongest is his analysis of the evidence built from a broad base including the internal police inquiry, Court of Appeal, PC and the more recent trial. Fisher going back to oversee points The Crown has already conceded is bonkers. It seems to be trying to re-argue the appeals yet doesn’t know the evidence – Binnie does for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    It appears this entire matter is no longer about justice, but has become political, with the minister depending on public opinion.

    In 1998 the Law Commision, in the Report no. 49, advocated the establishment of a tribunal that would be capable of determining whether, and if so, how much compensation should be paid in the case of a wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Such an independent tribunal would have the advantage of being separate from both the executive branch of the government that is the minister and the Courts and therefore, prevent all this argy bargy regarding evidence from people who will never change their minds. Public opinion, should not have anything to do with this decision.

    Subsequent governments have had plenty of time to establish such a tribunal, but have failed to do so, however, that does not mean the same process cannot be adherred to in this matter. Under Royal Prerogative, this matter could still be dealt with under the same guidelines given in that report, without the need for legislation, which would remove responsibility from the minister, and cabinet, and place it where it should be, with people suitably qualified, and one would expect impartial enough to deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Pushbutton_auto (5) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    “on the balance of probabilities Robin would never kill Arawa”?

    —————-

    Goodness knows where you get that rubbish from, but parents, particularly fathers, have and do kill the children they love in familicide throughout the world. Killing a child, even a favourite child is not always an act of hatred.
    Often when familicide occurs children are killed because they are loved so much, the parent is unable to ‘leave them behind’ in a world they feel has let them down and is no longer a worthy place to be. Given Robin Bain’s religious beliefs, there is plenty of reason to suspect this may have been the case here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Elaycee (4,352 comments) says:

    There are good reasons to accept the Binnie report, and none not to accept it….

    Oh, dear…… looks like someone has forgotten that Binnie’s Report has been peer reviewed and shown to be fatally flawed in many areas. Any one of these ‘fatally flawed’ areas is justification to have it disregarded.

    We can only be grateful that Collins has seen Binnie’s Report for what it is – a complete WOFTAM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Given Robin Bain’s religious beliefs, there is plenty of reason to suspect this may have been the case here.

    Not minding that there is absolutely no evidence.

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

    Plenty of children have killed their parents.
    Why on earth would Robin Bain have let David live?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    It’s obvious muggins. He was framing his son for the murder of the family. That’s what murderers do.

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

    http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gonzales-sef.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,146) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    There are good reasons to accept the Binnie report, and none not to accept it….

    Oh, dear…… looks like someone has forgotten that Binnie’s Report has been peer reviewed and shown to be fatally flawed in many areas. Any one of these ‘fatally flawed’ areas is justification to have it disregarded.

    ———————

    The peer review process does not involve a single participant. Sorry, but despite the name given to it, Ms Collins is very wrong calling it that. besides peers are people of equal status and experience, one could never consider Fisher to be even close to Binnie in those terms. It is the process that is flawed, and the adminstration of the application that is wrong. Because of the risk of political interference it should never have been managed by the Minister of Justice in the first place. Nor should it be decided by the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    muggins

    Given your exhaustive endeavours, was there ever any reconciliation of the relative temperatures of the bodies? ie that Robyn’s body was significantly warmer than the others suggesting a reasonable gap between the time of his death and the deaths of everyone else? I haven’t got that far in Binnie’s yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,061) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Given Robin Bain’s religious beliefs, there is plenty of reason to suspect this may have been the case here.

    Not minding that there is absolutely no evidence.
    —————-

    Actually there is evidence, and some that indicates why David was allowed to live.
    Robin did not frame David for the murders, that nonsense is based on information regarding the glasses and the gloves, both of which there are perfectly acceptable answers for.

    What may provide an idication of Robin’s feelings towards David is the note. Perhaps David was the one that deserved to live in a world that Robin found too horrible to leave his other children, and himself in? There is no clarification of whether ‘deserve’ is in the positive or negative sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    There was a reconciliation on that davinci, it’s mentioned in the report. Robin last to die.
    There is also information about the ‘missing’ time before the phone call I think it’s called a ‘police invention’ or similar, dealt with in a manner I don’t recall being concluded before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Have you read any of it Elaycee, or are you just being over excited for the sake of being so?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Perhaps David was the one that deserved to live in a world that Robin found too horrible to leave his other children, and himself in? There is no clarification of whether ‘deserve’ is in the positive or negative sense.

    1,000 kilos of perhaps does not a gram of evidence make.

    Perhaps Robyn thought: “I think I’ll do something different today”. Perhaps he thought: “Why the fuck has David jammned his .22 against my temple? Perhaps he wants me to commit suicide.”

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

    I would like to correct a post I made a day or so ago.
    That retrial transcript was donated to the Victoria University Law School.
    I am neither confirming or denying that I have seen a copy of the retrial transcript, but obviously if I have seen one it isn’t the one that was donated to the Victoria University Law School.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    “1,000 kilos of perhaps does not a gram of evidence make.”

    But blood in the barrel does.

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

    How can anyone look at the hard evidence and not see who the killer is?

    This case wasn’t hard by any means.

    The other appalling issue is the parasites feeding off this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I gathered that, but my question was directed at whether the there was consideration of the fact that the disparity in temperature supported a significant delay (such as an hour plus or so) before Robyn’s death. Furthermore, I would expect that a body in a bed will cool more slowly than one not in a bed (Robyn).

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

    The only acceptable answer to those glasses is that David Bain had been wearing them,as I have pointed out in a letter I have just emailed to the Dompost. How on earth Binnie couldn’t figure out why those glasses were in David Bain’s room I will never know. I mean it is so bleedin’ obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Kea (11,923 comments) says:

    I believe Bain killed his family. I consider him a cold and manipulative man. I hope he does not bring harm to anyone again and I consider him a danger to society.

    But:

    He has spent time in prison for a crime that was not proven to the satisfaction of our legal system. On that basis I believe he should be compensated. It may not fit with our idea of justice, but it is consistent with law.

    This is the price we pay when people are influenced by media bias and mischievious books.

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

    thedavincimode.
    It is impossible to determine the time of death accurately by body heat. Within one to two hours is the best you can get.
    But both the Crown and the defence agree that Robin Bain was the last person who died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,063) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    I totally agree with you, ‘perhaps’ does not make evidence, however, it seems to have been applied to many things by people who think David is guilty. For example, the gloves, and the glasses. There is no evidence to link either of those to David, however, perhaps is used to make that association. PERHAPS, you might like to remind people that continue with those arguments that it is not a ‘gram of evidence’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Yes to both of those davinci, an approximate appraisal by emergency staff comparative to ‘touch.’

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

    Kea, I am 99% sure that David Bain killed his family ,based on the evidence. I don’t consider him to be a danger to society,it was a family killing. However,Karam has been reported as saying that he is emotionally disturbed about the compensation claim, so who would know what might happen.
    He was found not guilty at the retrial which does not entitle him to any compensation. He has to be innocent on the balance of probabilities to possibly receive compensation,or there has to be extraordinary circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. flipper (3,947 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,062) Says:

    December 14th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    flipper

    Please don’t cut and paste Karam’s books. They don’t add anything to this issue either.”

    The above post is indicative of the kevel of ad hominem comment, porkies, lies,and damned lIes and porkies that the flat earth society is applying to this debate.

    For the record, I have NEVER read any book by Karam (ergo I deny ever cutting and pasting). I did/do, however, admire his skills as a Wellington rugby union full back – and All Black.

    So Leonardo da, muggins et al…Why do you not challenge Michael Reed QC to a public debate? I would pay tio watch you all eviscerated.

    Judith…Peer review…. Agree.
    Collins has followed the AGW/CC/Warmista cult., Fisher is not worth the paper …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    and extraordinary circs (or innocent beyond reasonable doubt)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (251) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
    ———-
    You too are guilty of ‘perhaps’. It is not obvious, however there are many possible explanations for how those glasses got there, and for the difference between the glasses David wore, and the broken pair.

    There was no physical evidence that tied those glasses to the murder of Stephen in any way. But there is physical evidence that states they were both dirty and dusty and unable to be used for vision, therefore there was no benefit in wearing them. I have seen you state that the dirt and dust could have got on the lens whilst it lay undetected in Stephen’s room for a couple of days before found after the murders, however, that does not account for the dirt/dust on the lens that was not in Stephen’s room.

    Using your measure of ‘perhaps’ as some sort of evidence, there is as much reasoning to suggest that as Mrs Bain spent most of her days in bed reading, she would not need her glasses as she was ‘short sighted’. David could have used those glasses during that weekend at home (no one saw him out and about with them on). However, as evidence indicates, Margaret Bain went to the money machine late that night, after David was in bed, she would have needed her glasses for that task. Sharing the same pair of glasses that weekend is perfectly feasible, it is also just as feasible to suggest she or another family member found the old broken pair and placed them in David’s room for him to see if he could use them whilst his was being repaired. Cetainly not evidence, but every bit as ‘possible’ as your explanation, and more probable given the dirty lenses which indicates they were not worn for vision in the weekend preceding the deaths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    flipper

    You should stop putting your fingers into the light socket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Kea (11,923 comments) says:

    muggins, I am not comfortable with our legal system failing to compensate someone after being imprisoned on unproven charges. As appalling as it is to me, I believe he should be generously compensated.

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

    Those glasses that were found in David Bain’s room definitely link him to at least Stephen’s murder.
    [1] Those glasses were a pair of his mother’s and he said that he worn his mother’s glasses when his were unavailable.
    [2] He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were being repaired. He said they weren’t perfect ,but they got him by.
    [3] Before the trail he told his lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room.
    [4] A lens that was missing from those glasses that were found in his room was found in Stephen’s room,thereby linking David Bain to Stephen’s murder.

    Then we have the Law Lords of the Privy Council saying that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one.

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

    Both are annoying, eh judith …

    Davids bloody opera gloves in Stephens room

    and those damaged glasses in davids room, with the missing lens in Stephens room.

    But, maybe you can tell me how the glasses on the table next to davids bed got damaged ?

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

    Kea
    I would just as uncomfortable if Bain were to receive compensation for killing his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Kea (11,923 comments) says:

    I agree muggins. But the facts are simple here. The charges are not proven and he was sentenced to prison on those charges. In those circumstances, how can we justify not paying out compensation.

    The real issues we need to look at, was how he got away with slaughtering his family and how he managed to manipulate our legal system.

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

    The charges were proven and he was sentenced on those charges.

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

    He didn’t manipulate the system, a dodgy parasite did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (254) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    Those glasses that were found in David Bain’s room definitely link him to at least Stephen’s murder.
    [1] Those glasses were a pair of his mother’s and he said that he worn his mother’s glasses when his were unavailable.
    [2] He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were being repaired. He said they weren’t perfect ,but they got him by.
    [3] Before the trail he told his lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room.
    [4] A lens that was missing from those glasses that were found in his room was found in Stephen’s room,thereby linking David Bain to Stephen’s murder.

    Then we have the Law Lords of the Privy Council saying that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one.

    ——
    1& 2. David said he was wearing a pair of his mothers glasses, he did not say which pair of his mothers glasses he was wearing.
    3. David and His lawyer were not shown which pair of Mrs Bains glasses the police were referring to. As I said, I have no doubt David wore a pair of his mothers glasses that weekend and may very well have thought the pair he was being questioned about were the same pair they shared. Once he was shown the pair, for the first time on the stand, he stated no, he did not wear THAT pair that weekend. David may have thought his mothers glasses were still in his room, however, she would have needed them to go to the money machine late at night so would have removed them. He may not have been aware she had. You cannot, and no one can prove he did.

    4. There were a number of articles belonging to many family members in Stephen’s room, that does not link them to the deaths. There was no blood splatter, fingerprints, or any evidence whatsoever that proves or even suggests that lens was being worn in glasses by the murderer of Stephen. Given the amount of blood in the room and oozing from Stephen, it is unlikely that if they were knocked off the perpetrators face by Stephen, that they would not have some form of such evidence on them (both the glasses and the lenses). Simply being found in the room is not ‘evidence’.

    Another point is the force required to knock the glasses off and be sufficient to remove the fixed lens, would have been substantial. Stephen was bleeding profusely from the head, had only the use of one hand as the other was incapacitated by the first shot, was substantially shorter than David – your theory requires Stephen to have have sufficient strength and height to have been able to apply a powerful blow directly to David’s face. Again, no physical evidence on the glasses of blood etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Kea (11,923 comments) says:

    Pushbutton, the charges were not upheld. He has no conviction for murdering his family. That is not an “opinion” but a simple fact. It would set a troubling precedent if people wrongfully imprisoned were not compensated.

    I have my own views on Bain and clearly others do too. But if we restrict ourselves to the facts, he was imprisoned for charges that are, now, not proven. If that is not grounds for compensation, what is ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Pushbutton_auto (9) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Maybe you can tell me what glasses you are talking about when you refer to the glasses on the table next to David’s bed, is there a third pair you have knowledge of that the police do not?

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

    Sure, then the old man, strangled him with a t shirt and executed him with a bullet thru the top of the head …

    yeah right, TUI

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

    I have just read Binnie’s interview with Milton Weir I now know a certain David Bain supporter posting on here was telling porkies.
    Binnie. And Dr Pryde made his examination during the afternoon of Monday June 20th,right?
    Weir. I wasn’t involved in that .I wasn’t present at it. I understand that he did make an examination of David Bain,yes.

    Exactly what I said Weir wasn’t there,so he doesn’t know. What’s more Binnie has made another mistake. That examination was carried out on the Monday morning. He appears to be relying on what Doyle said at the retrial,he got the time wrong also. He wasn’t there ,either.
    Also,I do know that Milton Weir does not believe that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. But he wasn’t there,so he doesn’t know for sure,one way or the other.

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

    Judith.
    David Bain told his lawyer he would be agreeing to wearing the glasses in evidence. There was only one pair of glasses in evidence.
    Judith.
    His mother had her own glasses. That pair that was found in David Bain’s room was an old pair of hers.
    Judith.
    As I have already explained, that lens was found in Stephen’s room. It is linked to those glasses that were found in David’s room. I don’t know how Stephen managed to knock them off David’s head,but he may have thought if he did so David wouldn’t be able to see all that well.
    Binnie asked Milton Weir quite a few questions about those glasses. Turns out Milton Weir met up with Sanderson after he had left the police force. Weir was ignoring Sanderson so Sanderson went over to him and asked him why. Weir said he was unhappy with a few things Sanderson had said. In the end Sanderson agreed he might have been mixed up as to who had actually spoken to him.

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

    > his certainty of Bain’s guilt overrides his disdain/hate of Judith Collins

    Hmmm strong language indeed. For the record, I am not “certain” of Bain’s guilt, just fairly confident! And I do not hate Judith Collins. But I will say she isn’t on my Xmas card list. :) And, yes, I am well left of the political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (256) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    ————-
    David agreed to wearing the glasses in evidence without sighting those glasses. Yes, there was only one pair in evidence, but there were, as you state two pairs of Mrs Bain’s glasses in the house. How was David to know, which pair was in evidence. It is commonsense to presume if told they were his mother’s glasses, that he think they would be the pair she was currently using. Margaret, like David did not require glasses for up close tasks such as reading, but required them for long distance such as driving. As Margaret spent most of her time in her room, reading and writing, it is fair that she could have shared that same pair with David, when he needed them around the home, as she didn’t need them.

    You have NO evidence that links the damaged glasses to the murder, to David wearing them, or to who placed them on the chair just inside the doorway of the bedroom. David could have left his mothers glasses in his room, and not be aware she had taken them back.

    What we do know is that Mrs Bain would have needed her current glasses when she left the house late that night, and therefore having them in her room that night makes sense, it does not however disclude the fact that David could have worn them. Had David Bain beeing wearing the old glasses that weekend, the lens would not have been covered with dust. I repeat, there is no evidence that proves your theory, therefore it is irrelevant to the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (256) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    I don’t know how Stephen managed to knock them off David’s head,but he may have thought if he did so David wouldn’t be able to see all that well.
    —————–
    Do you really think that with blood pouring out of his head, weakening him by the second, engaged in a fight for his life, he would stop to think this? Apart from that, David Bain needed glasses for distance viewing, his up close vision was fine. Something both David and his mother had in common, making their prescriptions very similar, but not exactly the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostalgia-NZ (5,093 comments) says:

    Glasses again. Can’t we talk about Mrs Laney, the van door or the strip search that never happened – something a little more exciting that has only be done to death about a million times? I feel like writing to the Dom Post and telling them I’ve studied the case for hundreds if not 1000s of hours and that I know there was no strip search and the police that said there was, and the doctor’s evidence is actually a fabrication.
    Binnie has concluded that David on the balance of probabilities did wear the glasses that weekend, however because of their condition he excluded them from being used in the killings. Plenty of people believe the lens was planted, but Binnie does not. Whether I agree with that or not doesn’t matter, because I agree with the obvious they were not worn by the killer.

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

    Judith.
    How do you know when Stephen knocked those glasses off.? How do you know that Stephen had even been shot when he knocked those glasses off?
    Margaret Bain did not have to share her glasses with anyone. You are making all this up. David told his aunt he had been wearing an old pair of his mothers glasses.
    Of course he would know what glasses were in evidence. His lawyer would have made sure he knew that. Why on earth would his mother’s glasses be in evidence?
    This from the trial transcript.
    Q. The pair of glasses which you have produced to the court have a saxon frame.
    A. Yes.
    Q. You say they are not yours but an old pair of your mothers.
    A. That’s right.
    Q. Were those glasses of any assistance to you.
    A. Yes,for watching tv and for going to lectures,but I couldn’t wear them for extended periods.
    Q. Did you have lectures on Friday 17 June.
    A. As far as I can remember,yes I did.
    Q. Did you wear glasses at that lecture.
    A. No,no,no. I had forgotten about those glasses here,the ones exhibited because I only used them rarely and I hadn’t thought of getting them for classes.
    Q. You have referred in your evidence to watching a video on tv over the weekend.
    A. That is correct .
    Q. Did you use those glasses for that purpose.
    A.No ,I hadn’t even thought of using them.
    Q.Were those glasses in your room on the Sunday night.
    A. No.
    Q. Can you account for their presence in your room on the Monday morning.
    A. No.

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

    I see a David Bain supporter is claiming that Binnie has concluded that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room. Would he like to reference the rest of us to the page on Binnie’s report where he read that?

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

    Judith,did you read that post where Binnie said that ,on the balance of probabilities,David Bain was wearing those glasses that were found in his room? Are you happy now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    muggins (260) Says:
    December 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    ———

    I don’t agree with Justice Binnie on the issue of the glasses. I do not believe David wore those particular glasses at all. But even if he did, those glasses are only tied to the murders in that one lens was in Stephen’s room. As there is no forensic evidence on the glasses, they do not have any relevance to the deaths. Given the status of the room, had they been in current use, it would have been virtually impossible for them not to be carrying some form of evidence.

    Anyone who has viewed the photos of that house, would know that possessions belonging to the various occupants were spread throughout the house, Robin kept his clothes in David’s room, etc. Finding an article belonging to someone else in Stephen’s room does not make it ‘evidence’.

    David Bain did not need his glasses for close activities like loading the gun, and being dark in the house, they would be of no benefit to him for distance viewing, therefore, why would he need to wear his glasses? The glasses are only an issue because the police had very little else, and decided to make them one (and lying in the process to do that). Despite all the years of analysis etc, no one has been able to tie them to the murder. Not even you and we all know how hard you’ve tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    muggins, Judith et al

    Gloves, blood, blah blah. . .

    There’s no point arguing about the facts of the case. Bain’s out, and (justifiably or not, depending on your point of view) seeking compensation. Question is, the performance of Minister Collins, who has in my opinion failed to fulfill the requirements of a Kiwi Justice Minister. She has not been seen to act fairly, this demonstrated by her failure to achieve expeditious dispatch of the Report to Bain counsel, her worrying/arguably bias words uttered in recent press conferences and media interviews, and her further muddying of the waters regarding the future – another report? a Cabinet Paper? Goodness knows.

    This is a political issue. When all is said and done, it will be another issue which serves to create an image of arrogance for the National government. Sad thing is, I want National to win the next election.

    Judith, I think it was you who noted the possibility of the law permitting the establishment of an independent tribunal. Remove these sort of decisions from politicians? Everyone would win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Personally, I think it is quite possible David wore BOTH pairs from the point of view that, in the case of the old pair ending up as they did, logically david would most inclined to use his mothers actual glasses to finish the job and maximise possibility of successfully pulling off any murder plan. The mark he had on his nose the morning of the murders – especially noticable in negative (see link below) – where glasses would be expected to rest, seems to align with more so possibility he wore glasses quite recently ie within scope of murder events, than just generically over the weekend.

    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/Sbts9Pt-_4I/AAAAAAAAAS8/1_9_v0IZ9Yw/s0/bain%20glasses3.jpg

    animated comparison with his mother’s glasses:

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/S-1CLrScZvI/AAAAAAAAAqI/2YIm7xhnqOA/s0/bain-glasses5.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Howdarethey, you are of course correct. Discussions about gloves, glasses and bladders, do not achieve anything, and never will. They are moot points.

    My main concern is as you say, the fair and just dealing with not just the Bain case, but a number of people who have been imprisoned, and later found either not guilty, or cleared of their crimes beyond reasonable doubt in the justice system.

    Justice should always remain separate to politics for very obvious reasons, and yet, despite this basic principle, we have Cabinet in a position to make decisions that they should not be involved in. When the Law Commission produced report 49 regarding wrongful convictions recommending the establishment of an independent tribunal, it was to protect the public from the influence of politics, and also to protect the Court’s from having to pass judgement’s upon itself. Neither the Crown, the Courts, nor the government should be involved in the decision regarding wrongful conviction in any manner other than the provision of information and administration of the tribunal.

    Currently we do not have such a tribunal, so referring this matter to one is impossible, however, Royal Prerogative does allow the establishment of similar to deal with the Bain case. It is the only safe way for the government to proceed. If they do not, any decision they make can and will continue to be questioned, not just by the public, but politicians, the legal profession (both nationally and internationally) and other parties. To proceed with a report prepared by Fisher would be the most unsafe of all moves by the government. I suspect Collins will not want to lose control of the matter, however, by maintaining that control, considering her obvious displays of bias, places not just the government, but all of us at risk.

    By that I mean if she should be successful in micro managing this matter, then precedents will be set for future claims of wrongful conviction, which like it or not we are all vulnerable to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    ” As there is no forensic evidence on the glasses, they do not have any relevance to the deaths.”

    Judith, Seriously- Have you ever visited planet earth?

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

    Ahhhh,
    so you (Judith/jinny/Allison) knew all along about which pair of glasses we were referring to, but thought you just sledge some bullshit, because they don’t fit in your plans ….

    Believe it or not, the damaged glasses and the lens are VERY important evidence to who commited these executions.

    and mark my words, these were planned executions not random killings at all. Planned, think about it …

    How can you possibly say, that DAVIDS bloody opera gloves in Stephens room mean nothing in evidence, is just a small part of you and your fellow bainophiles blindness.

    So now, back to the question HOW did the glasses in davids room get damaged ?

    How did davids bloody palm print get on the washing machine, if he didn’t do the washing till he got home ?

    Why did the executioners aim get worse after the fight with Stephen ?
    .

    Not a hard case really, when we cut to the truth. Yes he got out early because of a few idiots, but he is as guilty az.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Pushbutton_auto. 9.10pm. It’s difficult arguing with someone who has several identities as they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

    The smart arse put down comments are very familiar from previous posts under a different name.

    These comments are more suited to the tossers on the Standard.

    Evidence of similar fact.

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

    Oh you poor thing, best you get a cup of tea and go to bed …

    And I’m sure your name is really RF ? ehhh

    and you never posted anywhere under a different name …. yeah right, TUI

    and why wouldn’t I tell the truth ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Pushbutton_auto. Either you are having a brain fade or drinking top shelf. I am on your bloody side and was supporting you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    I think Pushbutton might be drinking hard liquor with Bereal tonight!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Longknives.. I give up. I am thinking about taking holly orders or else selling my body on K Road.

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

    Lol

    Yeah I see where you are at now RJ, sorry simply a misinterpretation ..

    and nah not top shelf at all, just a beer with races going in the background ..

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    I must confess that I myself hit the topshelf after an atrocious night on the punt at Alex Park…but we are drifting slightly off topic….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. RF (1,366 comments) says:

    Pushbutton_auto. Thank god for that. I was just supporting your post as I have felt the barbs from her who must be obeyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Wow, and all you had to do was ask.
    Yes, I did used to use the name jinny, however I am no longer able to access that email account due to a change in position, therefore was unable to retrieve my password, which I couldn’t remember. I simply started another, and if you had bothered to check, would see the jinny identity is not being used, thus no multiple posting.

    As far as who Allison, not me, and never seen them post, and couldn’t find any current posts from them.

    However the tactics you and RF use are very good, and often employed in such discussions, when it is necessary to distract viewers. By attacking the poster rather than the contents, you dilute the impact, viewers get sick of reading those sorts of comments, and go else where! Thus minimizing the chance of anything you don’t want read, from being so. Well done.

    Regarding the glasses, as there is not one piece of evidence that proves they were worn by the killer, or that links them directly to the deaths, they are simply another unexplained article within that confines of the house, at the time of events.
    There are numerous ways those glasses could have been damaged, perhaps left of the floor (not impossible given the state of the house), then the remains minus the other lens placed on the stool just inside David’s room, in case he was looking for them. Who knows, but as they hold no evidence as being used during the killings, they can only be catagorised as unexplained.

    The gloves on the other hand were worm by the killer but there is no evidence that links them to David having worn them, other than ownership. Ownership that is explained by the fact that Robin also kept his clothing in David’s room, and therefore had access to them. Convenient access that meant he did not have to go back out to the caravan to obtain his own pair. There is evidence that supports Robin Bain may have been wearing those gloves.

    There are questions as to whether the palm print was in blood, and even if it was, quite explainable, as anyone who has done laundry can tell you. Picking up items of clothing that are dirty with some substance transfers that substance onto your hands, thus, when you push the necessary buttons, you transfer that substance. It’s a no brainer really, and we all know that items that possibly had blood on them went in that wash. Has was determined by the police at the time, the lighting in the house was so poor, that had to bring in extra lighting just to see what they were doing. The palm print was not visible by naked eye, and therefore it was not a heavy coating of whatever substance it was.

    I can’t believe you would even ask that question regarding the aim. Firstly, Robin’s aim wasn’t that bad in all the murders, however, some factors would have made it harder than others. The light was on in Margaret’s room, making it fairly easy for anyone, regardless of their eyesight to see. Stephen slept in an alcove off Margaret’s room, and therefore residual light would have assisted. The killer had just had an unexpected physical struggle to kill his youngest son, I’m sure by time he got to the girls he would have been suffering some form of physical and emotional fatigue.

    I do ask, when you refer to ‘knew all along which pair of glasses WE were referring to’, does that mean you are a member of, or a former member of either the police or the Crown?

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

    You would love that, but sadly no

    We, as in Muggins and I …
    .

    No evidence David was wearing the gloves, but there is of Robin ? link please.

    So the bloody palm print on the machine came off transfer of the clothes ? desperate much …

    David was facing mental, physical and eyesight problems by the time he got the girls then made sure he got as close as possible to Robin to make sure another scrap did not happen.

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

    Discussion about gloves might not achieve anything except this novel postulation from David Bain: ” Stephen might have worn the gloves because he liked to dress up in my things, like my scuba gear.” Discussion about why fathers kill their children might not achieve anything except to provoke curiosity as to why Robin Bain would kill his children because he loved them so much, and spare David because he loved him so much. Discussion about hand-washing doesn’t achieve much except create a wondering how David Bain’s hands were clean and blood-free after he handled bloodied gaments, a blood-stained laundry powder container, and his profusely bloodied brother Stephen. The truly suspicious-minded might also wonder if David Bain washed his hands twice. Discussion about Robin Bain’s changing his clothes “to meet his maker” might not achieve anything except creating a logic-stretching poser: How come Robin Bain had already changed into the clothes “to meet his maker” when he sat in the computer alcove (waiting for David to come home to “take him out,”) before he changed his mind and decided to spare David, and commit suicide?

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

    Judith
    Can you give me a reason as to why you think that glasses lens came to be in Stephen’s bedroom?
    I mean the only reason the Law Lords of the Privy Council can think of is that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him.
    Can you think of another one?

    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.