The Press on Bain

December 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

editorial:

The report has not been made public but it has been widely reported that retired Canadian judge Justice Ian Binnie found Bain was innocent, on the balance of probabilities, of the murders and that he should receive compensation. Supporters of Bain have suggested that Collins dislikes this result and is shopping around for an opinion she agrees with.

That is unfair. The decision on compensation will be a highly contentious and political one, whichever way it goes. If she has misgivings about the report she has been given, it is entirely proper that Collins should seek further advice before she makes any recommendation to her Cabinet colleagues.

Some people have suggested that the second report is because there is some damning criticism of govt agencies in the first report that the Govt wants to hide. But as far as I know, there is no question that the Binnie report will be released. Just, that the Fisher report will also be released.

The task of assessing this was, surprisingly, outsourced by an earlier Minister of Justice, Simon Power, to Canada’s Justice Binnie. The aim was to get an opinion from someone entirely outside the New Zealand justice system but it was odd, particularly in light of the fact that New Zealand had not long before ended one of the last vestiges of colonial practice by abolishing final appeals to the Privy Council in London. There are few people who would dissent from the view that it was right to establish the Supreme Court and make the entire justice system a domestic one.

To seek a foreign opinion in one of the most celebrated cases of the century looks like a strange and unjustified loss of confidence in the integrity of those who serve in that system. It is difficult to believe that it was impossible to find a retired judge within the country with the intellect and the integrity to be able to deliver a sound decision. That is, in fact, what Collins will be seeking from the man to whom she has now referred the matter, Robert Fisher QC, a former judge of the High Court and widely recognised as one of New Zealand’s pre-eminent legal minds.

The 73 year old Binnie did serve on the Canadian Supreme Court, but it is worth noting he didn’t serve on any lower court before that appointment. That means he would probably never have presided over a criminal trial, and his background is business and corporate law – not criminal law. That doesn’t mean his report is not credible or thorough or sound – but it is worth noting that not all retired judges are equally experienced in all areas.

My default position is that the Govt should go with Binnie’s recommendation. But that is contingent on the quality of his report. By that, I don’t mean his conclusion – but whether all the evidence was considered, that the report complied with the terms of reference, that natural justice was followed etc. I can’t wait to read both the Binnie and Fisher reports.

Tags: , ,

186 Responses to “The Press on Bain”

  1. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I can’t wait to read both reports,either. It would appear that Binnie’s report is deficient,otherwise why would Judith Collins be asking Robert Fisher to give it the once over? My own view is that there must be errors and/or incorrect assumptions in that report. There is no way that David Bain can be innocent on the balance of probabilities,in my opinion. And I have spent hundreds of hours reseaching the case. This is the same as saying Robin Bain is guilty-where is the evidence to say he committed the crime?
    I am pleased to see that Robert Fisher has been appointed to review Binnie’s findings. He has some experience so far as compensation claims are concerned whereas Binnie has none that I am aware of.
    My default position is that if Fisher finds that Bain is not innocent on the balance of probabilities then the Government should not pay Bain any compensation.
    And it won’t be just Fisher that will be reviewing that report. There will be plenty of other “experts” going over it with a fine tooth comb once it is released to the public. Every error and/or incorrect assumption will be noted,you can bet your bottom dollar on that. And I am sure the Minister of Justice knows that.

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

    But it’s not just that he’s innocent on the balance of probabilities, but there must also be exceptional circumstances.

    That is hard to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    So the swallows fly. At one point people were looking forward to Binnie’s report because he wouldn’t be ‘influenced’ by Karam’s books and other such nonsense. Immediately it appeared Binnie had found in David’s favour Binnie was suddenly ‘senile’ out of touch and oddly enough ‘influenced’ by Karam’s books.

    Now the cycle repeats itself the same people are looking forward to Fisher’s report, and soon enough if he doesn’t follow the ‘party plan’ he too will be criticised.

    Small minded NZ. Who think that Judges can be influenced by reading something or not reading something, for lacking practical common sense – all this of course before their findings are even made official or been made public.

    So we see that suddenly a NZ Judge is required and the decision of Power once applauded is now ridiculed, and who by The Press. The same folks ordered by the Ministry to stop approaching Jurors following the retrial.

    There are other editorials on this subject that DPF has decided to ignore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    Simple Simon does it again.
    Look out Westpac!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=4861
    Stephen Franks says no.

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

    Stephen Franks: http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=4861 has come right out and said that he doesn’t think it will be granted. This is based on his reading between the lines of John Key’s statement to the media. Amongst his comments is the opinion that “Canada’s Supreme Court is known more for political correctness than intellectual rigour” which is where Justice Binnie is schooled. Franks argues that politicians should not immediately act upon the recommendations of a retired judge because “we cannot leave such powers for the conscience of judges, or administrative bodies, because we do not want them to act on sentiment or prejudgement, or opnions as to who will be the most upset side.” In other words, if Justice Binnie has made a decision based on political correctness rather than empirical evidence, then his assessment should be discarded.

    Since Franks is both a lawyer and a polly, then his opinion is pretty good.

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

    To Nostalgia-NZ at 5:03, one of the big problems with Binnie’s report is that he WAS influenced by Karam’s books. He should never have read them. They do not constitute evidence and his reading of them seriously discredits the value of his assessment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/brian-rudman-on-auckland/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502866&objectid=10851995

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/8036164/Editorial-An-unseemly-backtrack

    Two other views that DPF overlooked in a week where he wrote about balance in the press.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    What evidence do you have that he was influenced by a book Kent. Give yourself credit Judges consider all manner of material in such reviews as they’re entitled. He would have read allegations made against David and Robin which were prohibited from evidence, nothing was or should have been kept from him. We as yet don’t even know why he wanted to read the book, or what other material he considered.

    As for..“we cannot leave such powers for the conscience of judges, or administrative bodies, because we do not want them to act on sentiment or prejudgement, or opnions as to who will be the most upset side,’ if that is in context why didn’t Franks object earlier. Seems it could be another case of he’s a good judge if he comes to the same opinion as me but there is something wrong if he doesn’t.

    Anyway, little point worrying about it now. I don’t know the reason for the Minister’s decision, it’s all speculation to this point. My speculation is that potentially vested interests, and their rights to ‘fairness’ need to be observed. The poor handling of this is that a definitive statement wasn’t made, but as far as I know the Minister isn’t under an obligation to do so despite the public interest and the applicant being kept in the dark. Some of us will be right and some wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (329 comments) says:

    If innocence and “exceptional circumstances” are a higher hurdle than just establishing reasonable doubt, it seems quite an amazing expectation that a retired Canadian judge, who “probably never have presided over a criminal trial, and his background is business and corporate law – not criminal law”, should be able to determine something that nobody in New Zealand could.

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

    Nostalgia

    You are starting to sound like one of Karems kids protecting a hoped for windfall, please disclose because your comments over the last few days are more than that of a cheer leader.

    If you have proof that Bain is innocent, that’s proof not speculation, please share
    And my comment from last night is staill very valid. Binnie will have no experience in dealing with and interviewing crooks, and the interview with Bain will be crucial to this report of his.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ, at 5:37, Justice Binnie explained in a letter to the editor the reason why he read David and Goliath, and that was because he considered it to be a concise summary of the Defence case. I believe that to have been a poor decision because the book is too full of factual errors. If Binnie wanted to remain free of accusations of being influenced by Karam, who happenchance also was handling the compensation application then he would have been wise to steer clear of the book and use some legal document such as the application to the Privy Council as a summary of the Defence case. Now, Judith Collins has one good reason to disregard his assessment and so Binnie has spoilt it for all the Bain supporters out there.

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

    Stephen Franks is right on this one.

    It was an incredibly stupid decision by Simon Power to choose a retired judge from a foreign jurisdiction in the hope that they would produce a report sympathetic to the governments position on what has become quite a politicised criminal case.

    It was even stupider and naive to choose a judge from the Supreme Court of Canada, an institution well known for producing very liberal, very activist and anti government decisions.

    Ian Binnie was installed as the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice during the Trudeau government in 1982, again not an administration with judicial ideals in line with our current National Government, or IMHO in line with the general population of New Zealand.

    A little bit more thought put into this decision by Simon Power would be now saving Judith Collins a lot of unnecessary handwringing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

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

    The above is a view on what exceptional circumstances might be from Fisher himself. For what’s it worth I totally agree with that. In the general pattern of the past, this statement by Fisher will be used to damn him should he not ‘perform’ to the task set by a minority who aren’t the Privy Council, Jurors, Lawyer or Judges but somehow know more than anyone who makes a decision they don’t like. The merry go round will continue and it will be said that he is old and that he had a predisposition to favour Binnie’s decision because he respected him and so it will go on – yet David Bain will still not be guilty because he has been acquitted by a Jury. I’ve heard of moving the goal posts I hope this isn’t another example of that. Peter Mahon pulled apart the Erebus disaster although he was a criminal lawyer and later Judge, I don’t recall why but he was also damned for some reasons, probably among which was that he wasn’t an aviation expert, a pilot or navigator.

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

    The bottom line is David Bain is not in prison and should think himself fucking lucky that he got out with a pair of strides and his shoes.

    Re:Mahon – apples and oranges there

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

    It is a disgrace that the vile little creep has been set free because of a book and a media campaign. To add insult to injury, that idiot Binnie read the book and it will certainly have influenced his findings (or why else did he read it?)

    Bain is a creepy psycho and social misfit, who butchered his entire family. He is a way bigger threat to society than Wilson, yet where is the hysteria from the usual suspects ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. AG (1,727 comments) says:

    Interesting that you only say that “My default position is that the Govt should go with Binnie’s recommendation”, because your response to the news Binnie had (possibly) found Bain to be not guilty was a little less qualified:

    “However Justice Binnie, a former member of Canada’s Supreme Court, has spent months going through all the evidence in this case. I am not so arrogant that I prefer my opinion on some of the evidence to his considered opinion on all the evidence. If he has concluded that it probably was not David Bain, then I for one will respect that.”
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/09/has_bain_been_found_innocent_on_balance_of_probabilities.html

    I note no concerns about Binnie’s age, lack of trial qualifications or the like expressed here. So what has changed to make you think the Judge might have got it wrong after all (except, of course, that Judith Collins appears to think that he has)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Yes I remember that Kent 6.01, but until I read the report I don’t assume he’s made the book a pivotal point in his decision, anyone that does is misleading themselves. On the face of it he was very clear, according to his statement in no way did he imply that he would agree with what is said to be a comprehensive summary of the defence case.

    Hardly able to arrive at a point that things have been ‘spoilt’ when the report or the decision are not yet public. I remain confident until that time, if the decision is negative people other than me will no doubt progress a review.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    I don’t recall why but he was also damned for some reasons, probably among which was that he wasn’t an aviation expert, a pilot or navigator.

    probably? Oh dear.

    Actually, he was damned because a rather unpleasant goblin didn’t like being confronted with findings of dodgy work at the crossroads by senior people running a state-owned asset. Mahon was a highly regarded Judge who didn’t take kindly to being given the run around and said so.

    Perhaps Binnie probably got some of this wrong. No doubt the Kiwiblog jurists will get to pass informed judgement eventually. Not that that is any barrier to an opinion.

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

    Well, yeah, Nostalgia, all is speculation until the report is out but ultimately it looks like a compo decision is not necessarily going to follow from Binnie’s alleged recommendation. Anyone care for a spot of dice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (15,513 comments) says:

    It was even stupider and naive to choose a judge from the Supreme Court of Canada, an institution well known for producing very liberal, very activist and anti government decisions.

    Yes and Power is neither stupid nor naive is he tempest.

    Has it occurred to you Power may be part of the considerable band who think Bain has had a raw deal?

    Collins is grasping at straws. What the hell. Quite a few million has already been thrown at this case, why not a few mill more while she delays the inevitable and pays up.

    What is wrong with this system of justice that time after time after time, it bull-headedly refuses to accept the writing on the wall in cases like Bain. I mean most of us have seen this coming for years. Whether or not we think it is correct, most of us have known this day would come, for years. It reached the tipping point quite awhile ago, where it actually does more damage to the justice system than benefits. What about this, doesn’t our apparently quite obtuse justice system get?

    I mean we all get the need not to encourage frivolous appeals but why oh why oh why is the silly old system so very obdurate to these cases when it only makes the silly old system look stupid, because it loses and oh by the way, it’s a bully as well because it took so long and was so very hard. I mean is there anything repeat anything more counter-productive if your trying to encourage voluntary compliance and security to have an institution that gets perceived in that light? If so what is it?

    So duh, this is what the system does every now and then, every decade or so another case like this comes along, and everyone goes through the same routine. It’s like a circus, with trained animals this time. If nothing else, it’s very well conducted and everyone plays their part, like a bizarre train wreck from start to finish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Paul 5.58

    I don’t need to make the running on innocence. But as an ex investigator, happening on this scene with 2 suspects, evidence of a fight, would you not be interested injuries to either man, blood on palms and so forth. Then when you looked at the pattern of spatter, and aware that the final shot was contact, would you not expect to see shielding in the spread if a gunman had been standing, literally over the deceased but somehow pointing a rifle against their temple and firing upwards? No financial reward expected for a plausible explanation to that – and of course the list goes on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Reid (15,513 comments) says:

    That we pay for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    “Now, Judith Collins has one good reason to disregard his assessment and so Binnie has spoilt it for all the Bain supporters out there.”

    Of course she has. Why did Binnie read Karam’s diatribes and ignore someone who sat on the jury at Bain’s retrial? Unlike Karam, the juror – who has raised doubts abouts Bain’s innocence – saw and heard all of the admissible evidence. Binnie clearly didn’t want to hear from some people but was keen to hear from others. That is not a good look.

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

    What it is Reid is every now and again a case comes along that is complex, technical and highly circumstantial. This gives the defence and ex rugby players the chance to play the “what if game” and the “perhaps” game. You play it long enough and you pick up disciples, you know what I’m talking about Reid, just like birthers,just like 911, anyhooooo the disciples make enough noise and all of a sudden we have a major over a domestic homicide.

    One question I would love to know the answer to is what percentage of the compo ,if any is granted, is Karem going to clip, sharpies like our Joseph don’t do anything for free

    Scott Watson will be the next one and that fat arsehole from Palmerston North the next one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (329 comments) says:

    Kea – Bain is a creepy psycho and social misfit, who butchered his entire family. He is a way bigger threat to society than Wilson, yet where is the hysteria from the usual suspects ?
    __________

    As has been observed on kiwiblog in the past :
    Bain is unlikely to ever offend as Kea suggests – Karam would surely kill him dead on the spot

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    I don’t need to make the running on innocence

    But don’t let that stop you. What was your take when you sat through the evidence in the re-trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Whether or not we think it is correct, most of us have known this day would come, for years.

    Really? I’ve always thought that David and his team would have had the good sense not to apply for compensation. Now that he has, they ought to get used to being disappointed. After his retrial he should’ve bought a lotto ticket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    eastbay

    Were you just being grumpy or is there actually a hole in the evidence against the high speed bucketguts of Palmerston North?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    How much did we pay this asshole Binnie? I why did we chose him in the first place?

    I know it’s going to be hard to find a judge with common sense somewhere in the Commonwealth, but we could have done better that that guy. He obviously had an agenda pretty soon into his landing here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    I know it’s going to be hard to find a judge with common sense somewhere in the Commonwealth

    Actually, the UK has plenty of them, unlike our little rock. Which is precisely why Klerkula got rid of the Privy Council.

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

    DVA
    No I was just saying his is one of those type of cases where the “what if” game can be played and the drive gives the disciples the chance.

    I am opposed to the death penalty but if it was here Mark Lundy would be the one concert I would go to in person.

    Again the drive is circumstantial but if you did that drive a thousand times you might never replicate the conditions he had that night

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Reid (15,513 comments) says:

    This gives the defence and ex rugby players the chance to play the “what if game” and the “perhaps” game. You play it long enough and you pick up disciples, you know what I’m talking about Reid, just like birthers,just like 911, anyhooooo the disciples make enough noise and all of a sudden we have a major over a domestic homicide.

    Personally I think the issue in this case is not the guilt or innocence of Bain. I don’t really care about it and I’ve never looked at the evidence, it doesn’t interest me for to me, it’s irrelevant.

    See my view is, the entire system of justice has been minutely examining every single aspect of this entire thing for simply ages so what perspicacity could I possibly add by getting to know it. I simply assume every single full stop in this whole episode has been minutely examined by at least ten different people all with masters or doctorates not to mention others as well, so who cares about it, is my view. I simply assume everything that could be argued about has been and that’s it really. And the truth has emerged.

    I was personally first concerned when I saw a Sunday doco on his first trial and his under representation with a counsel that frankly seemed less than competent to deal with the gravity of what he was charged with, and in particular the fact a witness to testify about Lani’s allegation on Robin absconded and was captured a day and a half after he was subpoened to appear, but whom the Judge didn’t allow to testify. I’ve been following the case since then.

    I think the tipping point happened in the public’s mind when he was acquitted in the second trial. At that point, no appeal should have been made. That’s the point where it was possible to maintain public respect in the system and not damage it. The justice system was wrong, it apologises and shows it with money, we all move on. But no. That’s when it all went wrong for the general public. That’s when they started losing respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > The justice system was wrong, it apologises and shows it with money, we all move on.

    I don’t see how compensating a potential mass murderer is fair. David has quite a few questions to answer if he wants compensation. I’m not aware he has answered those questions. The first question is: what did he do in the 15-20 minutes after he found his parents’ bodies and before he called police?

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

    what did he do in the 15-20 minutes after he found his parents’ bodies and before he called police?

    He jerked off.

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

    Reid

    the justice system was not wrong, like any system, what buggers them up is human involvement.

    On another day another jury would have found him guilty and he would hopefully still be doing a lag.

    In a perfect world the compensation claim will end like the defamation case in Leon Uris’s ‘QB VII”. ” Mr blah blah has been defamed and we the jury award him 6 pence compensation ( now piss off)”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Reid (15,513 comments) says:

    I don’t see how compensating a potential mass murderer is fair.

    ross guilt or innocence is irrelevant, in that this is not about whether or not he did it. It’s about whether he’s capable of being prosecuted for it and apparently our system can’t do that, so he’s not guilty even if he in fact did it and based on the system’s own rules, deserves money.

    It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not, that’s the simple reality.

    what buggers them up is human involvement.

    That’s what buggers everything up Paul. The species has a lot to answer for, by crikey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    eastbay

    My impression is that this tends to become an issue where the Police had a shocker. eg Thomas. That’s what allows the disciples in the door.

    My impression based upon what I read of the last Bain trial is that they didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory there in terms of the way they dealt with the scene and the evidence. And even though it appeared at the time that Watson was a creep of the first order, the out of hand dismissal of evidence (eg the water taxi guy) never seemed to get adequately addressed in the dizzy adulation for former Deputy Commissioner Pope. Just as nobody seemd to mind him retiring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    reid,

    You obviously know nothing about the rules. Under the Cabinet guidelines, Bain doesn’t qualify for compensation. He is entitled to nothing.

    Rickards, Schollum and Shipton were each found not guilty. Do you think they’re entitled to compensation for the ordeal and trials they went through?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    He jerked off.

    Classy. One of the hazards of the electronic age is the Enter key. But at least here you get an edit opportunity.

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

    DVA

    Theres merit to what you say but again the Crown has the final say and they should be getting things totally in order prior to trial.

    I’m missing FES

    As I’ve always said , if you want an investigation run properly, run it from Auckland Central, Vincent Street, Auckland City, its that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    eastbay

    I didn’t know you said that, but with some quick 20/20 hindsight, I can understand what you mean.

    Probably also having a state prosecution function independent of the bar would be a good thing up to a point, recognising that we are too small to achieve adequate quality control to remain completely independent of the bar.

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

    DVA

    I think it would be brilliant to have a National Crown office rather than tendering it out to every town.

    It would probably still have local offices but a general oversight from one firm would be ideal, parochial I know but the Auckland Crown are bloody good and through sheer volume and experience they would lead the way for the smaller centres who don’t do any where as much serious stuff.

    But we DO NOT need a National Prosecution Service, thats just another Government department and would struggle with political interference. Keep the Crown private, there are really exceptional people involved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    If Binnies report was founded on logical reasoned conclusions based on a careful analysis of the facts, you can guarantee that Collins would have accepted it regardless of the result, the political fall out and public condemnation would be far too great otherwise. Not to mention a complete loss of credibility when it comes to further cases.

    The only explanation is that the report is horribly deficient or contains recommendations far beyond it’s scope and will itself create another injustice if adopted.

    Anyone who suggest that they are Judge shopping is horribly deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    eastbay

    One of the problems with the current system is that it relies upon decisions of people who have a vested interest in going to trial. That observation isn’t intended as a slur upon those presently making those decisions but it is a reality. Given the size of this country, any sort of full-blown DPP type system is not that practical if we want to be in a position to access the best brains to take prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. There may well be adequate tensions in the current arrangements to ensure monitoring of performance and the quality of decision-making, but if there are, they aren’t transparent. Your point about national oversight is reflective of experience and expertise. My point about letting disciples in the door is really about ensuring quality of decision-making at the very outset eg Thomas, Bain. I think that we are talkng about the same thing, but not necessarily the same timing. From what I can recall of your comments re the McDonald case, then in comparison with Thomas and Bain, the difference is timing. I suppose another option is a centre of excellence approach (Vincent St for want of another alternative) and requiring rotation of investigation heads through it. For all I know, they already do it but it isn’t self evident in cases attracting the attention that this thread is directed at.

    I take your point re political interference, but at the same time, there’s a lot of stuff that goes on that doesn’t invite political interference. We are seeing some of that on this thread. We can’t always remove that threat entirely but I think that there is more that can be done in terms of minimising the risk of it. There is of course another risk that we wind up with the type of individual who previously headed the SFO and seemed somewhat attracted to headlines and champagne that didn’t belong to him.

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

    The SFO is exactly why we do not need a govt “Crown”.

    We have 50 odd murder trails a year a “Bain” only pops up a couple of time a decade so there is no need to over react either

    Hind sight is marvellous but we make our decisions in the present because we know no different. Decisions you and I make today may appear foolish and ignorant 20 years down the track but you have to work with what you’ve got at the time just like the investigators and proecutorsb have to

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    We have 50 odd murder trails a year a “Bain” only pops up a couple of time a decade so there is no need to over react either

    Is that a reason to have a degree of nationalisation within Police then? This is a small country – we can get people anywhere quickly – by air charter if necessary. Or does it already happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    ‘The only explanation.’

    The fulsome view of another disciple that nothing is wrong, there were just mistakes made. Paul’s 2IC.

    How about the mistake of expecting the son to explain how his father’s blood got on the towel, all hunky dory. Throwing out samples without testing them no problem – just another little mistake. How about finding a lens day’s after earlier grid searches – perfectly okay, even though it wasn’t the officer’s job and he was there after hours. Little things really. And the grand finale, a concession by the Crown that the son wasn’t home when the computer wasn’t turned on, hardly worth mentioning. In trouble with the lounge scene, fine – just switch to Stephen’s bedroom. How about a little criticism about the skull cap? Wait a minute that was a Crown exhibit…oh well.

    Hard not to get the impression that Ms Collins purchased a headache. Lesson 101 don’t exercise politics whilst trying to be ‘impartial.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. UglyTruth (3,002 comments) says:

    what buggers them up is human involvement.

    That’s what buggers everything up Paul. The species has a lot to answer for, by crikey.

    Homo sapiens is the name of the species species. Homo humanus (i.e. humans) is Cicero’s name for a group of people under Rome. Humans were contrasted against barbarians, with humans being more “civilised” that barbarians. (My irony meter just broke)

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

    The ESR travel, the local police run the investigation, I’m talking more regards the Prosecution, its the Crown who lay the indictment for a trial not the police, they are ones that make the decision that there is sufficent fuel in the tank to run the trial

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    “The fulsome view of another disciple that nothing is wrong, there were just mistakes made. Paul’s 2IC.”

    Try sticking to the facts rather than launching childish personal attacks and going off on some ludicrous tangent.

    The reality is that if Binnies report is now released is convincing and without fault, Collins stands to lose far more face and credibility and the political damage to National will be significant. And that is far more important to any politician than any deeply held personal opinion as to what constitutes ‘justice’ in this matter. So yes, it is the only explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > How about the mistake of expecting the son to explain how his father’s blood got on the towel?

    How dare David be asked any questions, like what he did in the 15-20 minutes before he called police. It’s worth noting that there was so much David couldn’t explain, like how he got blood on his clothes and how blood got on his duvet. All he had to do was say he didn’t know and that was a convincing explanation for the cultists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    That’s your view Dexter, hardly reality at this point. But thanks for the lecture. Do you feel that you’re actually doing the press release for Ms Collins? At some point you might realise that the decision is not meant to be political, something I hope is not amiss in the Minister’s mind even though it appears to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    What was it about that blood on the towel you thought was so important anyway ross?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Personally I suspect this is a rear-guard action by the MoJ against giving Bain compensation, and one that is simply sour grapes.  The government was perfectly within its rights to say that Bain did not qualify for compensation (and he doesn’t, regardless of Binnie’s findings, except under the ‘special circumstances’ category) and that would have been the end of it. 

    By commissioning Binnie the Government was, I am sure, expecting a Fisher job similar to the Haig case (the rape matter he reported on was very different) and therefore a way to say “Bain got lucky and he should be satisfied with that”.  That appears to have backfired, which I find quite amusing.  Having received an unexpected outcome, the Govt should suck it up and give Bain some money, not commission an alternative report from a friendly report writer looking to get his Knighthood by trying to make everyone forget the porn on the computer episode.

    Now, I wasn’t going to comment on this topic, but I had to in order to reply to this from PEB:

    I think it would be brilliant to have a National Crown office rather than tendering it out to every town.

    It would probably still have local offices but a general oversight from one firm would be ideal, parochial I know but the Auckland Crown are bloody good and through sheer volume and experience they would lead the way for the smaller centres who don’t do any where as much serious stuff.

    But we DO NOT need a National Prosecution Service, thats just another Government department and would struggle with political interference. Keep the Crown private, there are really exceptional people involve

    I, of course, completely and utterly disagree.  I think that prosecutions should not be in the hands of private firms and that they should all be in the hands of a DPP/CPS type department.  At the same time, I think the PDS should be dis-established and defence work be only in the hands of private lawyers.  

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. weizguy (116 comments) says:

    Dexter:
    “If Binnies report was founded on logical reasoned conclusions based on a careful analysis of the facts, you can guarantee that Collins would have accepted it regardless of the result”

    Oh please, Collins is a populist pure and simple. She’s driven primarily by what the papers have to say. She knows that compensation would be an unpopular outcome, so she’s looking for a way to get out of it. Most of the population won’t read the report, so they won’t be in any position to decide whether it’s reasoned or not.

    I was shocked to hear that the report recommended compensation – the bar is simply too high (and in my opinion, wrong), and I suspect that Collins was just as shocked.

    My guess is that she will have found someone to provide a counter to the report and won’t pay anything.

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

    Personally I think the issue in this case is not the guilt or innocence of Bain. I don’t really care about it and I’ve never looked at the evidence, it doesn’t interest me for to me, it’s irrelevant.

    But that is the whole point of our justice system – to determine guilt. If all it is doing is following due process and ticking boxes, but not addressing what really happened on that fateful morning, then that is no justice at all.

    You should stop wasting readers’ time here and start reading up on this case properly if you want to have an informed opinion. Otherwise you are just spouting drivel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (3,002 comments) says:

    My guess is that she will have found someone to provide a counter to the report and won’t pay anything.

    She could simply repeat her stated position that she can’t comment on matters that have been before the courts. LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    None of this would have happened if Horatio Caine had been on duty that day!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > What was it about that blood on the towel you thought was so important anyway ross?

    It’s just another thing that David cannot explain…which is hardly surprising as there is so much he can’t explain. There was also blood found on items in the shower. Are you suggesting that Robin went into the bathroom and had a shower before he supposedly topped himself? Strange that he didn’t also go to the toilet…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    At the retrial:

    “Detective Mark Lodge, an officer who helped in the bathroom-laundry scene investigation, told the court about finding blood traces on a handbasin, on a door, a towel. He also described discovering a facemask, shower curtain, and shower cap, all with blood on them, on a shelf.”

    Why would there be blood on a facemask, shower curtain and shower cap? Presumably someone had a shower and was trying to wash blood off them. That seems a reasonable assumption. So who would have done that and why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    So who would have done that and why?

    Colonel Mustard, paper cut (in the library).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    ross,
    Robin Bain,after he shot himself,went down to the laundry and wiped some of his blood off himself with that towel. Then he had a shower and changed his clothes to meet his maker. Somehow he managed to leave a smear of blood on his left hand.
    Then he went back upstairs and fell down dead in the lounge,but not before typing that message on the computer.
    You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Makes perfect sense to a Karam cult-member Muggins…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Paulus (2,293 comments) says:

    Binnie should have recommended $1 in compensation then all would be happy/unhappy whatever.

    “Get over it – move on” (unquote H1).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. flipper (3,269 comments) says:

    Apart from F E Smith’s and Nostalgia’s very useful contributions, many of the points made above were also made in similar form on another DPF re Bain post yesterday.

    Time to let it go. Time to “keep it zipped, sweetie”, as Paula would say.

    But one final point: When it can be shown that police are like Caesar’s wife, let us then accord them the deference they seek.
    Quite a few sworn police tend to think of themselves as “The Sword and Shield” (to paraphrase the KGB motto) of the nation. They are not. They comprise some 9000 odd humans. Humans are not perfect robots. But some police tend to think and act as though they should be the investigators, the prosecutors, the Judges and the Juries. In other words, they know best and any disagreement is fundamentally flawed. Such folk “never get it wrong”. :)

    I, and others, have mentioned the A A Thomas case.
    The Williams (along with Johnston and Gordon) Royal Commission reserved it’s most condemnatory conclusion/statement for Hutton.

    The original source of the words? The former Archbishop of New Zealand.
    My source? Peter Gordon personally told me when the compensation hearings were underway in West Plaza, Auckland. Gordon said Johnston personally penned the words and they were then adopted, without reservation, by himself and Williams.

    I repeat: It is now time to wait and see what Binnie and the “porno judge” (as he is known in the profession) say.

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

    Nostalgia: During your extensive reading and research into suicide by rifle, have you come across any statistics/percentages for the numbers of victims who have worn gloves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Then he went back upstairs and fell down dead in the lounge

    To be fair, he was trying to balance on a chair while apparently shooting himself – was it one leg or two?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > It is now time to wait and see what Binnie and the “porno judge” (as he is known in the profession) say

    There’s nothing to stop David Bain from talking. For an “innocent” person, he’s been remarkably quiet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    And so it degenerates as always, flippant comment, a bit of snorting. Explaining with mirth that Robin walked about dead to wipe blood off his hands when the obvious is that he ‘cleaned up’ before despatching himself, bleeding profusely from the nose (she morgue photos of blood weep from his nose) but yet unable to clean all the blood from his hands and thereby leaving diluted blood smears on his palms. There is only one way those smears could become diluted, and wasn’t by brushing against already diluted blood. ross was unable to explain that bloody towel just as they Crown were unable to once they finally tested the blood and discovered that it didn’t fit their scenario that it was David’s blood – even though he had no signs of bleeding but was still expected to explain things he simply didn’t know about.

    Very interesting comment by flipper as to the actual dynamics of the origin of the words that formed the damnation of Hutton but which went no further with a reluctant police force. My speculation remains that the recalcitrance at this point is from within the authorities who broke the law. Susan Couch, to her great credit, was able to break such obstructions open in what may prove to be one of the most significant ‘settlements’ in our time in terms of duty of care.

    In the meantime I agree with flipper; now is the time to wait and see rather than guess what is in the first report and the one to come. Unfortunately our Government might ‘prefer’ to be sued, settle quietly over the Bain issue with restrictions of silence. I hope not and I doubt that would satisfy the applicant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    anyone got that link to Nosalgia_NZ’s infamous webpage? I want to brush up on his past links to the law……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > the obvious is that he ‘cleaned up’ before despatching himself

    He was a considerate bugger, using a sliencer so he wouldn’t wake the neighbours, bringing the newspaper in for David, washing himself and putting on his Sunday best (including beanie) to meet his maker. Has there ever been a more considerate mass murderer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > ross was unable to explain that bloody towel

    Let’s see – David wiped his hands on the towel? He admitted washing his hands. So yes he would’ve known how Robin’s blood got on the towel, but he obviously didn’t want to admit it. So how did David get blood on his socks, t-shirt and shorts? Did he have a nose bleed too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I get it. Robin Bain managed to punch himself in the nose after he died. He sure hasn’t got any blood weep from his nose when those photos were taken of him lying in the lounge. I don’t see any mention of that blood weep in Karam’s latest book.
    As a person who has ,in the past,been subject to nose bleeds ,I can say that one your nose stops bleeding,it stops bleeding. It doesn’t start weeping blood an hour or so later.
    We don’t know how Robin Bain’s blood got on to that towel. David Bain might know,but he isn’t telling us. He may have used that towel in the lounge after his father died.
    As for those blood smears on Robin Bain’s left hand,they would be caused by him raising his left hand to his face as he was about to be shot. He would have got some blood spatter on his hand which would have smeared when his hand hit his clothing. Note there were no blood smears on his right hand.
    But what I want to know is why David Bain’s supporters just won’t accept that he was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    What I want to know is how David Bain got those scratches on his chest,if they weren’t caused by his brother.
    What I want to know is how David Bain got those bruises on his head because they certainly were not caused from him falling backwards from a sitting position. He said he fainted but the ambulance officer who was there said he reckoned he was faking it.
    What I want to know is how he got his brother’s blood on his shorts. Could he have gotten it on the crotch of his shorts by touching his brother on the shoulder? I don’t think so.
    What about that stain on his Gondolier’s T- shirt. David Bain said it wasn’t there when he put it in the washbasket the previous night. Did Robin Bain take that T-shirt out of the wash and wear it under that green jersey.? I don’t think so.
    Why did David Bain say that green jersey belonged to Arawa [twice] and then when he took the stand said it belonged to his father?
    How did David Bain get his brother’s blood on his Queen’s baton relay T-shirt? Was it really “old” blood? I mean he must have washed that T-shirt quite often. We know that green jersey had blood on it . We know at least one of those socks that was in the washing machine had blood on it. But after they were washed no blood was found on them. So just one wash did the trick.
    Why did David Bain say he seperated the whites from the coloureds when he obviously didn’t ?
    Why did he put that hand-knitted green jersey in the washing machine when his mother had told everyone that hand knitted clothing was always to be washed by hand?
    Why did it take David Bain around twenty minutes to phone 111 after finding the bodies?
    Why did he tell the operator that all his family was dead and then,not long afterwards,tell a police officer he only saw his mother and father?
    Why did he leave to go on his paper round earlier than usual that morning? He told his aunt that when she was at the Police Station with him.
    Why did he not bring the paper in when he normally brought it in when he ran his paper round as he did that morning.
    Why did he say that the board with five targets on it that was found in his room was used to sight the rifle in,when it obviously wasn’t. I mean 29 shots to sight a rifle in? Pull the other one. Besides,he said his father drew rabbits’ ears on the target that was used to sight the rifle in. There were no rabbits ears on that target.
    A pristine set of his fingerprints were found on his rifle. The firearms expert said[and still says] that his fingers had blood on them when he placed them on the rifle. How did they get there?
    And then we have Laniet telling acqauintances she met up with on the Sunday prior that David had called a family meeting for that night that she didn’t want to go to because he was acting freaky,but he had said if she didn’t go he would take her to it “kicking and screaming” if he had to. David Bain didn’t mention any family meeting. Was Laniet lying to all those people? I don’t think so. When his aunt asked asked David why Laniet was at home that weekend because she thought she was staying at Taieri Beach David said he had asked her to come home. So why did he want her to come home?
    I applaud Judith Collins for appointing Robert Fisher to review Binnie’s report. Fisher has considerable experience in that field,whereas Binnie has none and in hindsight probably should never have been chosen to do the job in the first place.

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

    I believe Bain is guilty. But, supposedly, better legal minds than mine disagree. On that basis he should be compensated.

    We can continue to speculate on his actual guilt, but if the system finds he was wronged, then the system must pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Muggins- I eagerly await Nostalgia and any other salivating Bain fan’s responses to each of your pertinent questions- Though I strongly suspect we will just get some more obscure references to AA Thomas and the usual ‘Anti-Police’ conspiracy theories and propaganda…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    “We can continue to speculate on his actual guilt, but if the system finds he was wronged, then the system must pay.”

    But the system was clearly faulty Kea- Starry-eyed dodgy Jurors attending the Bain ‘After Party’ is wrong on so many fucking counts and stinks to high heaven. I suspect this is why Collins is reluctant to throw wads of taxpayer cash at this homicidal maniac…The whole thing was a media-driven debacle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > if the system finds he was wronged, then the system must pay.

    Bain’s claim falls outside Cabinet guidelines. In other words, he is entitled to nothing. If he is to receive any compensation, he will have to prove that he is likely innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Longknives, Bain supporters only ever want to talk about why they believe Robin Bain is guilty. They vary rarely respond to my questions. But that doesn’t stop me asking them.
    I did get a response to my question re those glasses from a David Bain supporter. She accepted that David Bain was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend but said they weren’t the ones that were found in his room.
    And someone once said those scratches on David’s chest were caused by Kaycee the dog,trying to get him to come round after he fainted after seeing all those dead bodies [or just his mother's and father's ,take your pick].

    Re those jurors. Well at least one juror has come forward and said David Bain should not receive any compensation,and you have to give her credit for that. But I reckon she bent over backwards in giving David Bain the benefit of the doubt,as did the rest of them.

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

    But the system was clearly faulty Kea- Starry-eyed dodgy Jurors attending the Bain ‘After Party’ is wrong on so many fucking counts…

    I agree. But that only reinforces my point. The system was faulty and the system must pay the price.

    If we do not compensate Bain, then we are setting a troubling precedent for others who may have been wronged by the Justice system. Further wrongs will not make this situation right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Dean Papa (614 comments) says:

    putting aside evidence that is ambiguous, or debatable, such as the blood, timing of computer, glasses, gloves, laundry, hearsay concerning motives for David and Robin, etc, there are three pieces of evidence, which for me, seem to point at David’s guilt, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, then certainly on the balance of probabilities. Muggins has touched on these in his posts.

    1. Injuries observed on David. Bruising on temple, on cheek, and above eye, bruising and scratches on chest, scrape to knee. Consistent with involvement in violent struggle, as must have occurred between the killer and Stephen. David offered no explanation as to source of these injuries

    2. Crime scene in vicinity of Robin. The presence of a rifle magazine sitting on its edge next to Robins hand. Given the chance it would have landed there on its own accord is exceedingly slight, either it was David who placed it there, or someone else planted it, for some reason. Also the presence of an empty shell in alcove, consistent with a rifle having been fired from cover of curtains. If rifle were to have been fired from the front room, then the ejected shell casing would have been required to fly through a four inch gap in the curtains to end up where it did. This strongly suggests that Robin did not commit suicide, but was murdered.

    3. Blood on David’s clothing belonging to Stephen, on his shorts and the back of his T-shirt, in locations that would be unlikely to have resulted from transfer if David had only kneeled over Stephen in order to check if he was alive or dead.

    together, these would seem to point to David’s guilt, at least on balance of probabilities. Can anyone provide a similar list implicating Robin as the guilty one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Your first problem Dean Papa is the evidence of Ambulance Officer Wombell who was the first to examine David, shining a torch in his eyes didn’t see any injuries to his face. If you can overcome that problem then you’ll need to deal with Ambulance Officer Anderson who also gave David a once over, brushing his eyes with his fingers to see if he was conscious. He also did not notice any injuries.

    Of course that is an impossible task to circumvent and then we reach that ‘scratch.’ Dr Pryde listing a full examination of David, after he had consented to a strip search, didn’t note any injury to the chest in notes or in evidence at the mistrial. He was dead by the time of the re-trial and so his evidence was read out. Attending he and David that morning had been DS Dunne and Constable Van Turnhout they gave no evidence of seeing any injury to David’s chest either and no diary notes or records record the same.

    I think you need to read a transcript because like other cut and pasters here you really have nothing to debate about that is actually true – only fantasy old son.

    That’s why we are better to wait. Half of those arguing here have not sourced their ‘facts’ from reality but rather from some source of deliberate misinformation. Just like the Minister’s decision, no one here knows her reasons for apparently prevaricating, and any assumption including mine doesn’t account for anything nor do attacks on Binnie because we have’t read his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    This from the retrial:

    “The jury was shown photos of a bruised David Bain taken after his family were found dead. Former police photographer Daniel Batchelor took photos of a bruise on Mr Bain’s head and a scratch on his leg.”

    Clearly Bain did have injuries…alas like much else, he is unable – or unwilling – to help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Read the evidence ross. Don’t cherry pick to suit. Read the evidence. Refute what Wombell and Anderson testified if you can, nobody else has been able to including the Crown who accepted what both their witnesses said. Don’t rely on photos taken after the men’s examination – do you think they are lying about it but only you and others that weren’t there know the truth. Sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    That bruise above David Bain’s right eye doesn’t stand out like a sore thumb. Bain had acne on his face so it is not surprising that the ambulance officer who shone the torch in his eyes didn’t see it. And I again make the point that the ambulance officer who checked Bain after he “fainted” said he was faking it. His testimony can be seen on youtube.
    David Bain could not have got that injury from falling backward when he was sitting down. The police officer who was with him at the time said he did not see him hit his head but that if he did hit his head it would have been the back of his head.
    Was David Bain strip-searched on the morning of the murders.? There is no proof that he was. Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched Bain. He did note that bruise on his head,the nick on his knee and his tattoo on a diagram,but that does not prove that he actually asked Bain to remove his T-shirt. It is interesting to note then when the police officers who had been questioning Bain on the day of his arrest asked if he would agree to a strip-search he declined. He knew they would have seen those scratches and would have asked him how he got them. Neither David Bain or any of his supporters have ever been able to explain how he got those scratches on his chest which were described by a prison officer who saw them as being consistent with clawing or grappling through clothing.
    At that conference in Perth David Bain said he was medically strip-searched and every orifice was examined. Dr Pryde never mentioned examining David Bain’s rectum.
    So far as DS Dunne and Constable Van Turnhout are concerned, they were not asked if Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain,quite possibly because they just didn’t know. He may have been examined behind a screen. Would Dr Pryde have asked David Bain to bend over in front of them so he could examine his rectum? I think that is unlikely.
    Just on the subject of that tattoo that Dr Pryde noted. David Bain had that tattoo done the week before the murders,yet he told his aunt he had it done the previous year. He told police officers that he had no tattoos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    It is also worth reminding readers that David Bain said he could be the killer, quite a bizarre thing for an “innocent” person to say.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10569482

    And then there are the gloves worn by the killer. Why on earth would Robin wear gloves? Surely the killer would wear gloves in the expectation that no fingerprints would be left behind…but why would Robin worry about leaving fingerprints? After all, he presumably wanted the whole world to know he was the killer…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Read the evidence ross

    So the photograph showing David with a bruise on his forehead has been photoshopped?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Funny how no David Bain supporter will admit to the fact that David Bain was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    Either David Bain lied to both his aunt and his lawyer when he told them he had been wearing his mother’s glasses or he lied when he took the stand. Now I can’t see any reason why he would lie to his aunt. I can’t see any reason why he would lie to his lawyer.
    But I can see that he would have a good reason to lie when he took the stand. How would he have been able to explain why those glasses were damaged. How would he have been able to explain why that lens was found in his brother’s room?
    Even the Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him was certainly a tenable one based on the evidence. They went on to say that in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s room where he was killed,the Crown thesis was a strong one. And there was no other explanation.
    Just as well for David Bain that he excersised his right to silence at the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Perhaps your brain has been photoshopped ross. Either that or the obvious answer that the Crown accepted that the injury happened after Ambulance Officers Wombell and Anderson examined him. So yes read the evidence, not paper clippings that have no time context attached. If I could be bothered I’d find out what time the photo was taken, but there is no need because the evidence of Wombell and Anderson stands as do the times of their examinations.

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

    did those injuries happen when David was pretending to have a fit, or did the police rough him up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Re those bruises on David Bain’s head. The Crown certainly did not accept that Bain got those bruises after Wombell and Anderson examined him. As I have already said,those bruises were not all that obvious-look at those photos in Karam’s books. But Dr Pryde noticed them. He said it looked like David Bain had received a whack.
    It would appear that he did receive a whack when he was struggling with Stephen and that is how those glasses came to be damaged. You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I find it interesting that David Bain’s lawyer spent quite some time cross-examining a witness about those bruises on David Bain’s head,suggesting he might have banged into walls and/or doors when he came home. So it would appear that his own lawyer thought he could have gotten those bruises before he was examined by Wombell and Anderson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > suggesting he might have banged into walls and/or doors when he came home

    The trouble is that David couldn’t account for those bruises…or the scratches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    This witness testified that David had scratches on his chest because he showed her the scratches. This witness’s evidence supports the evidence of Thomas Samuel. Why is it that David cannot account for so many things?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I note that the ambulance officer Anderson referred to by a previous poster said that David Bain was not unconscious and that he called out to a dog barking outside. So obviously he didn’t faint when he fell backwards. He just fell backwards of his own accord. I don’t know why he felt the need to do that. Perhaps some David Bain supporter might like to attempt to answer that question on David Bain’s behalf,seeing as he exercised his right to silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    ross,maybe that police officer who brought David Bain up into the recovery position after he fell backwards scratched him on his chest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    muggins

    I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent explanation for those scratches.

    Joe Karam and David Bain are out playing golf. After David has made a putt, Joe asks him what his score was. David says a 5. Oh, says, Joe, I thought you’d shot par. Nah, says David, he shot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    ross69 That witness evidence was worth nothing in respect to the morning in question. She saw scratches (she claims) days after the events. I seem to recall a prison officer also claimed he saw scratches days after as well – he also had a ‘recovered’ memory after 15 years that he took to ‘remember,’ but his work partner and others saw none – funny that, they must have all been lying. Pryde, accompanied by the two cops,, examined David before lunch on the day in question – no scratches. No injuries noted by ambulance officers specific to David’s head. Try whistling. Or in fact read the evidence with an open mind instead of picking things out of context, but most of all deal with those bloody smeared hands, and that towel you’ve since retired from and one of you apparently senile friends thinks Robin wiped his hands and bleeding face on after he was dead. That sums up the impossibility of the failed case and those that continue to try push crap up hill. Get modern and try using a pump and a laxative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    David Bain was examined by Dr Pryde before lunch on the morning of the murders. There is no proof he strip-searched David Bain. One police officer who was there at the time said Dr Pryde asked David Bain if he had any other bruises[apart from those on his head] . Now he wouldn’t have asked that question if David Bain was standing in front of him with no clothes on.
    David Bain showed those scratches to a female companion on the Wednesday evening after the murders. He said he didn’t know how he got them but referred to that “missing” twenty minutes that he couldn’t account for when he arrived home.
    The next day David Bain was asked if he would agree to a medical examination. His lawyer advised him not to do so and David Bain declined to be examined. It is obvious he did not want the police to see those scratches.
    After he was arrested he was strip-searched by a prison officer who said he saw scratch marks and bruising on David Bain’s upper body. He said the spacing of the scratches was consistent with fingers and the bruising looked like it was made by someone pushing. When he asked David Bain how he got those injuries he received no explanation.
    Re those bruises on David Bain’s head. As I have already pointed out David Bain’s lawyer spent considerable time cross-examining one witness re those bruises. He suggested he could have got them banging into walls and/or doors when he arrived home. Obviously that lawyer thought David Bain had those bruises before he was examined by those ambulance officers.
    I see a David Bain supporter is now saying both Robin Bains hands were smeared with blood. I guess that is because I have pointed out to him the reason why he had blood smears on his left hand. So now he is going to try for the right hand instead.
    Re the blood on that towel. No-one knows how Robin Bain’s blood came to be on that towel. A David Bain supporter referres to a fictitious nose bleed. Try whistling. I wonder if David Bain had that towel in the lounge when he shot his father and that is how his father’s blood got on to it. Some people have suggested that perhaps Robin Bain’s hands had some blood on them after he had repaired the spouting that weekend and he wiped that blood off them using that towel. Who knows how it got there? David might know,but if he does he isn’t saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > funny that, they must have all been lying

    Yeah, every witness who testified for the prosecution perjured themselves, while everyone who testified for the defence was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Have you got any other gems of wisdom you’d like to share?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > She saw scratches (she claims) days after the events.

    Therefore David would know how he got those scratches seeing as they apparently occurred days after the murders and not long before the witness spoke to him. Hmmm so why is David unable – or unwilling – to explain how he got those scratches?

    Out of interest, if David admitted to murdering his family, would you accept such an admission?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Talking about witnesses committing perjury,what about that defence witness who said he saw Robin Bain coming out of the back door of his van when there was no access in or out of the back door of that van?
    In his book Trial by Ambush Karam says what that witness meant by the back of the van was not the actual back door ,but the sliding door in the rear section of the van.
    There is a photo of that van in that book . For the life of me I cannot see any sliding door. There is a hinged door just behind the passenger door,but no sliding door.
    But if Robin Bain had come out of that hinged door that witness would have been able to see into the van. He would have known there was no-one else in that van,no female as he assumed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    “Talking about witnesses committing perjury,what about that defence witness who said he saw Robin Bain coming out of the back door of his van”

    I’m pretty sure that particular witness has been comprehensively discredited (as an out and out liar)…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Re that strip-search that Dr Pryde supposedly carried out.
    Van Turnhout said that when Dr Pryde asked David Bain if he had any other bruises [apart from those on his head] David Bain replied “no”.
    Van Turnhout was then comprehensively cross-examined by one of David Bain’s lawyers. But never once during that cross-examination did that lawyer ask Van Turnhout if he saw Dr Pryde strip-search David Bain.
    I wonder why he omitted to do that? If Van Turnhout had replied in the affirmative then there would be the proof that David Bain was strip-searched by Dr Pryde. Why didn’t Bain’s lawyer ask that question and save us all this speculation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    I get it because the Crown have offered absolutely no evidence there were scratches on the morning of the killings then it is the defence’s fault.

    As for witnesses lying I know that no charges are pending against the salesman, and that action has been taken against other parties over claims made about him. Leaving that aside until it is resolved in the Courts, it would be some kind of idiot that would interpret getting out of the back of the van as through a rear door that didn’t exist, getting out of the back of the van could only be through the door that existed. Anyway it’s long way from the heart of the case and offers safety for the disaffected, as is expecting The Crown witnesses to hold silent on any injuries they noticed that a Doctor didn’t, or record. Fantasy really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/untruthful-evidence-in-bain-case-police-4199328
    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I reckon the reason why that defence lawyer did not ask Constable Van Turnhout if he saw Dr Pryde strip search David Bain was because he knew that Van Turnhout would reply in the negative. The Crown didn’t have to prove David Bain wasn’t strip-searched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Of course I am always open to suggestions from David Bain supporters as to how Bain got those scratches on his torso, but please don’t blame the dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see a David Bain supporter reckons that only an idiot would interpret getting out of the back the van as through a rear door than didn’t exist. It would appear that supporter doesn’t realise that a back door did exist. The trouble is that it couldn’t be used. I wonder what that supporter thinks about someone saying that Robin Bain came out of a sliding door that didn’t exist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Back to those scratches that David Bain has no idea how he came to get. I could suggest to David that it just might be possible that his brother might have caused them when he clawed at that green jersey David says he wasn’t wearing,but I won’t.
    The thing is,another one of David Bain’s lawyers did cross examine a police officer about whether or not Bain was strip-searched. Trouble is,that police officer wasn’t in the room when Bain was being examined by Dr Pryde, so what was the pont of asking him?
    All rather strange. Bain’s lawyers don’t ask the police officer who was there, but instead they ask a police officer who wasn’t there. I wonder if they somehow got confused and asked the wrong person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    ” but please don’t blame the dog.”

    I’m pretty sure the cat became involved also- Wasn’t puss responsible for the blood/brain on David’s clothing?
    Fido and Puss both playing key roles- What are the chances??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Idiots in full flight. The evidence of the late Dr Pryde on the strip search was read by consent, and remains in evidence in the mistrial. So of course The Crown didn’t have to prove that David wasn’t strip searched, because evidence was read that he was right down to invasive swabs – moonbeams at midday. You can’t have scratches from a fight if you weren’t home and if the police Doctor conducting an examination a few hours later finds there were none to record.

    What blood/brain on David’s clothing longknives? You were graduating kindergarten about then weren’t you. I’ve read about the samples one of which was aged, but no blood/brain. Getting your info from divine intervention?

    Who gives a stuff about the doors on a commer van that became the highlight of a TV show and a law suit. What about the full blood wash on Robin’s hands, and his blood on the towel that ross so helpfully pointed out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    I suggest you have another read of your beloved Mr Karam’s book Nostalgia. You clearly actually know very little about this case…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10569799

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    And yes the defence did blame this unfortunate coincidence (another one! God David is unlucky…) on the pussycat..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Here’s proof of the reason why The Crown ‘didn’t have to prove’ there wasn’t a strip search – because there was one and it was in their evidence. This is a reason why this case is so conflicted because a bunch of people perpetually lie about it. Note that it is a standard procedure in homicide investigations of suspects as attested by the 2IC. The cults know about this evidence but deny it by way of mantra, that goes along with the ‘bruises’ ‘fingerprints in blood’ and other discredited crap about van doors still going on years later. A ch ch reporter failed to report all this evidence including the blood smears on Robin’s hands, his blood on the towel and his dna deep inside the barrel that could only have arrived their from a contact upward temple shot. Suicide over and over. Our press are adamant they don’t have controlled by legislation yet, as in this case omit critical facts thereby misinforming the public. The reason the Jury took so little time is because the evidence was clear and The Crown had all but conceded with acknowledgements that David hadn’t been home when the computer was turned on and failing to be able to explain the blood spatter which indicated suicide. Reporters claim the case in complex, however it is simple and straight forward.

    Doyle’s evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn’t do the GSR tests on David – Doyle’s answer was that it would have been insensitive.

    Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
    A. He was examined by a doctor.
    Q. When was that done?
    A. Later that day.
    Q. On that same day?
    A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
    Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
    A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
    Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
    A. Oh I’m sure it is.
    Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
    A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
    Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
    A. That is correct.
    Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
    A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
    Q. All of those are done?
    A. Yes.

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

    Longknives @ 5.44pm
    That was an interesting link, thank you. Strange that they made particular mention about there being no blood on Robin’s socks and shoes. I have a copy of a photo from the evidence given in court, it clearly shows blood on Robin’s shoe. Try this link to hear about it. That is, if you want the truth, rather than bumper sticker mantras.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Blood-on-Robin-Bains-shoe-supports-suicide-theory—Forensic/tabid/423/articleID/105182/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see a David Bain supporter is quoting part of Doyle’s cross-examination. But he missed a couple of lines.
    Q.And I am putting it to you,you could’ve politely asked to test his hands and arms ,couldn’t you?
    A Well,the simple matter was that at that stage he was not considered to be a suspect so there would be no reason for him to take that test.

    So Doyle is saying David Bain wasn’t being treated as a suspect,so Dr Pryde wouldn’t have to follow police procedure for a homicide.
    Also,as I have already mentioned at least twice,Doyle didn’t know what Dr Pryde did or did not do. He wasn’t there. He didn’t even know when the examination was carried out. He said around midday,half past twelve. In fact it was carried out in the morning.
    The person the defence should have asked was Van Turnhout,who was there. But for some reason they didn’t ask him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,I certainly was aware of those three small spots of blood on Robin Bain’s right shoe.
    As I have already said
    It would be unusual for a right-handed man to commit suicide by shooting himself in the left temple. I wonder if this has ever been done before in New Zealand.
    It would be more unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached.
    I wonder if this has ever been done by anyone else in the world.
    And it would be even more unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with on foot on a chair. I very much doubt if anyone has ever accomplished that feat.
    BTW,Kanz. Any ideas on how David Bain got those scratches on his torso?
    And I take it you now accept that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gonzales-sef.htm
    An interesting case which I have just watched on the CI Channel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    So we seamlessly go from denying the strip search, then faced with the evidence of it go to the CI Channel. Classic senility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    You just cannot get through to some of David Bain’s supporters.
    How many times do I have to say it.
    There is no proof that David Bain was strip-searched. I don’t believe that he was ,otherwise Dr Pryde would have seen those scratches that David Bain himself implied he may have gotten during that “missing” twenty minutes he says he can’t account for when he arrived home. So obviously he thought he had them before he was examined by Dr Pryde.
    Now the defence asked DSS Doyle if David Bain was strip-searched. But Doyle wouldn’t know ,because he wasn’t in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.
    Doyle didn’t even know when that examination was carried out. He didn’t even know that Dr Pryde had tested David Bain’s hands and arms for gun shot residue. In fact Doyle said there would be no reason for David Bain to take that test.
    The police officers who would have probably known if Bain was strip-searched or not because they were in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain were Constable Van Turnhout and DS Dunne. They were both cross-examined by Bain’s lawyers, but neither of them were asked that question.
    I find this quite strange. Why ask a person who wasn’t in the room when David Bain was examined by Dr Pryde and yet not ask the people who were in the room?
    And I again point out that Dr Pryde asked David Bain if he had any other bruises [apart from those on his head] to which he replied “No”. Dr Pryde would not have needed to ask that question had David Bain been standing in front of him with no clothes on.
    When you ask David Bain’s supporters how they think David Bain could have got those scratches none of them can give you an answer [well,to be fair,one supporter did say the dog might have scratched David Bain].
    I would suggest there is a simple answer,sitting right in front of their respective noses. Stephen Bain had fibres from that green jersey the killer wore under his fingernails which means he “clawed” at the person wearing that jersey.
    David Bain had scratch marks on his chest that were desribed as being consistent with “clawing or grappling through clothing”.
    You don’t have to be a Sherlock Holmes to figure out how David Bain got those scratches on his torso
    “Elementary,my dear Watson” Holmes would have said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I wonder if David Bain’s lawyer’s saw ex DSS Doyle as a bit of a patsy?
    Early in his cross-examination he was asked if David Bain had always said that the green jersey the killer wore belonged to his father to which he replied “Yes”.
    Now we all know that up until the trial David Bain had always said that jersey belonged to Arawa. When he took the stand he said it was his father’s jersey,but that Arawa wore it sometimes,as if to cover himself for why he said it was Arawa’s in the first place. He would have known by then that the police knew that the killer wore that jersey and obviously the killer could not have been Arawa.
    I was surprised that Doyle was asked that question. Was it just a “tester” to check how good his memory was?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,647) Says:
    December 8th, 2012 at 8:34 am

    So we seamlessly go from denying the strip search, then faced with the evidence of it go to the CI Channel. Classic senility.”

    Incredible.
    The PC ruled “a gross miscarriage of justice”
    The Jury verdict was “not guilty on all 5 counts”.
    Ian Binnie has apparently found “innocent on BOP”

    Yet some, whose total training has been watching the CI channel, wish to repeat over and over shonky ‘evidence’ that has been discredited by all three above.
    Who are these few trying to convince? Is it themselves, as they see their prejudices being shot down so many times?

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

    Nostalgia; I remain hopeful that someone can explain why Robin Bain bothered to wear gloves when he intended to commit suicide. And, in one of your recent posts you comment that “you can’t have scratches from a fight if you weren’t home.” That would make perfect sense if the murders were committed while David Bain was on his paper round. But really, that hasn’t been proved-so when David Bain says ” I wasn’t there,” it’s meaningless. You also make frequent mention of Robin Bain’s having blood on his hands, on his palms, but in all the evidence presented it’s been noted that there was no blood on Robin Bain’s right hand/palm, (other that a splash on the second right fingernail.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    The Privy Council also had this to say.
    “The Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses [the ones the were found in his room] when engaged with a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is certainly a tenable one based on the evidence. Indeed,in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s room where he was killed,the Crown thesis is a strong one.”
    So,Kanz,my question to you is do you agree with the Law Lords of the Privy Council so far as those glasses are concerned? Do you accept that David Bain had been wearing them that weekend?
    Re the jury verdict. Yes,the jury did find David Bain not guilty. But as a jury member has pointed out they did not find him innocent. They thought there was reasonable doubt. That jury member does not want David Bain to receive compensation just because the jury found David Bain not guilty.
    Kanz,my question to you is do you accept what that jury member is telling us?
    Justice Binnie has apparently found David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities. Yes,it appears he has.
    However it also appears that the Minister of Justice believes his report is deficient in some way or other,so she has asked Robert Fisher,a judge with considerable experience in compensation claims to review Binnie’s report.
    Binnie had no prior experience in compensation claims and it would appear he has come to the incorrect conclusion.
    No doubt with hindsight the Government have realised that they ,or should I say Simon Power, chose the wrong man for the job.
    Kanz,it is not people the likes of me that are prejudiced. It is people the likes of you.
    Basically what we are saying is that David Bain is not innocent so therefore he should not receive any compensation.
    Of course we all believe his is guilty,because most of the evidence points to him as being the perpetrator.
    I think it would be fair to say that in any court anywhere else in the Western world David Bain would probably have been found guilty.
    In my opinion the jury at the retrial bent over backwards in giving him the benefit of the doubt.
    In my opinion it wasn’t a whodunnit,it was a hedunnit,and by he I mean David Bain.
    And one last question,Kanz. Have you been able to work out how David Bain got those scratches on his torso?
    I will give you a clue. Stephen Bain clawed at the person who killed him. Who had claw type scratches on his torso?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    How much plainer than this can it be? Next we’ll require single syllables and comprehension lessons.

    Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
    A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
    Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
    A. Oh I’m sure it is.

    All I can suggest Maxine that you acquaint yourself with some reading on similar cases. The one I mentioned in America in another thread from early last century saw a farmer buy his family new clothes before despatching them. As bizarre as some might sound they can’t necessarily be reasoned by someone sane. With the gloves, blood soaked as they were, they were consistent with the blood smears on Robin’s hands where he failed to remove all the blood, but inconsistent with David’s hands being absolutely blood free. Anyway your attempts at trying to place the onus on David Bain to explain the gloves is Irish. David Bain saying he wasn’t there isn’t meaningless, it’s supported in meaning by The Crown conceding the computer turn on happening before he arrived home. That’s something you should take up with The Crown, who only conceded on overwhelming evidence much of which had been hidden in the first trial including the ‘missing 2 minutes’ that a detective would have mentioned if he’d been ‘asked.’ Also the Crown computer ‘expert’ fixed one point for each calculations on an actual time and the other without a undetermined base – he was found out by science, so there was physical evidence by calculation, witness evidence, and previously ‘hidden’ evidence which forced them to make the concession.

    What you say is meaningless because it hasn’t been proved shows that you haven’t read the evidence. Read the evidence before speculating. I have photos of the blood on Robin’s palms. Just as above when I continued with the truth about the strip search I had the actual evidence. You say ‘ but in all the evidence presented it’s been noted’ in respect of the bloody palms – but what evidence are you talking about? The only evidence that matters is that considered during the trial, something a reasonable person would need to know before making accusations against an acquitted man.

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

    muggins @ 1.15pm

    Among the other nonsense you wrote there, you also said

    “Binnie had no prior experience in compensation claims and it would appear he has come to the incorrect conclusion.”

    Can I suggest, before you make such wild claims, and post them as fact, you do some research? It would not only prevent you from further making such a fool of yourself, but stop you from misleading others. Unless of course your intention is to mislead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Dean Papa (614 comments) says:

    “The Crown conceding the computer turn on happening before he arrived home. ”

    lol, mate, you’re a fantasist. The computer evidence is inconclusive. What is not in question is

    1. David had injuries consistent with being in a struggle.

    2. David had Stephen’s blood on his clothes, most likely blood that seeped through the green jersey he was wearing at the time he committed the murders.

    3. In his panic while setting up Robin’s death scene David placed a rifle magazine on its edge, and neglected to reposition the empty shell casing from where it landed in the computer alcove after he had shot Robin from the cover of the curtains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    All you’ve got left Dean Papa, insults and discredited cliché’s, what a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    The research has been done on Binnie. He has no experience on individual compensation claims such as David Bain’s.
    If you believe he has,then you show me.
    So far as my comment re him appearing to have come to the incorrect conclusion is concerned, well.if he hasn’t then why would Judith Collins be asking Robert Fisher to review his report?
    And Kanz,have you been able to come up with a suggestion as to how David Bain got those scratches on his chest.?
    I thought I gave you a pretty good clue.
    Also,do you now accept that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I am still puzzled as to why David Bain’s lawyers asked Doyle questions about what Dr Pryde did or didn’t do when he wasn’t in the room when Dr Pryde carried out his examination. I see a David Bain supporter keeps referring to the cross-examination of Doyle which means absolutely nothing. As I keep explaining to him the people who should have been asked were Van Turnhout and Dunne who were in the room when that examination was carried out.
    So my question would be to him “Why did Bain’s lawyers question someone who wasn’t there when they could have questioned someone who was?” There is no evidence that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. The fact that he noted those bruises and a tattoo on a diagram is not evidence that David Bain was strip-searched. David Bain’s lawyers had the chance to prove that he was strip-searched that morning but they chose not to take that opportunity, which I am sure they would have done if they knew a strip-search had been carried out.
    I mean what was the point of asking Doyle? They might just as well have asked me.
    I daresay that if that supporter replies he will insult me as does Kanz.
    I see that supporter says that David Bain’s hands had no blood on them. Of course they didn’t. David Bain told a police officer that his hands had no blood on them because he had washed them,meaning he had washed off the blood that was on them. And we all know they had blood on them anyway,because of that bloody print on the washing machine.
    As for that blood on Robin Bain’s left hand . I am looking at blow-up photos of Robin Bain’s hands which can be seen on the counterspin.com website. The amount of blood on either of his hands is insignificant.
    Re the computer turn-on time. It has never been established when the computer was turned on. A Crown computer expert said it could have been turned on anywhere between 6.39 and 6.49. Another expert using less up to date technology said it might have been turned on at 6.42.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Re that magazine that was upright about a millimetre away from Robin Bain’s outstretched right hand. I find it very hard to believe that if that magazine was there before Robin Bain fell to the floor that the downforce of his hand hitting the floor would not have caused that magazine to fall over on to it’s side.
    There is a photo of Robin Bain’s hand with that magazine right beside it on the counterspin.co.nz website. It looks very much like that magazine was placed there after Robin Bain fell to the floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    “The one I mentioned in America in another thread from early last century saw a farmer buy his family new clothes before despatching them.”

    Yeah and I know someone who won First Division Lotto. Does that mean if I buy a ticket, I’ve got a good chance of winning? I suggest you acquaint yourself with the meaning of “reasonable doubt”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > The only evidence that matters is that considered during the trial

    Yes, and at least 2 witnesses confirmed that David had scratches on his chest. But you don’t like that evidence. Why not? What difference does it make to you if David slaughtered his family?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    You make unfounded allegations about this case all the time ross. Do you yet understand that David Bain had no facial injuries when examined by Wombell and Anderson, and that the strip search examination by Pryde did not reveal any injuries to his chest. Have you no common sense and are unable to digest actual evidence compared to rumour from secret sites? If you are unable to research incidents of suicidee’s doing such things as changing clothes, ‘dressing up’ their victims and so forth after killing them you have no right to criticise. The psychotic father (can’t remember his name at the moment, he is still serving life imprisonment – Raitima perhaps) who killed his children in the lower North Island placed bibles on their chests. Giving you people any information is pointless because you are unable to absorb anything, you just cackle and jump to another branch on the bs tree. We’ve got the crap about the magazine going again, yet if any of the CI experts spouting off about it had read the evidence they’d know the magazine and rifle were moved about as shown in a series of photos submitted in evidence. Probably taken at the same time as cops were spraying tomato sauce about the house in their copybook investigation while Dempster was kept outside. But as always the peripheral nonsense about van doors and glasses doesn’t overcome the evidence of suicide, nor get the blood wash off Robin’s palms – the Crown couldn’t deal with that and nor can you. I note you’ve given up on the towel that was part of your c@p, too embarrassed no doubt.

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

    Nostalgia, thank you for responding to my post. Did I put the onus on David Bain to explain about the gloves? No, I did not, but I still remain hopeful that someone can provide an explanation. From what you write, it seems that you are insightful, well-informed, and have done extensive research into the case, so I would have thought the dissonance of (Robin Bain’s) wearing gloves to prevent leaving identifying fingerprints on the rifle, and his committing suicide, would at least give you pause for consideration. As for David Bain’s having clean, blood-free hands, you’re right. When David Bain was interviewed by Detectives Croudis and Lowden i24.06.94, he told them “I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.” The thing is, David said he’d washed his hands BEFORE doing the laundry and that he hadn’t noticed any blood in several places in the laundry, or on any of the clothes he handled, loading up the washing machine. So did he have blood on his hands before he washed the printer’s ink off, or did he wash them a second time? I don’t believe my comment about David Bain’s statement ” I wasn’t there,” is meaningless, and I’m puzzled as to why you seem so opposed to any robust debate about the many confusing, and contradictory aspects of the case. The person who turned the computer might not have been the one who typed the message. In my opinion, as long as these elements remain, it’s imposssible to logically conclude that David is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Clear enough points Maxine. Not in order: only one of the two men had blood on their hands, some of which on Robin’s hands there had been an attempt to wash off. Along with that blood were cuts and bruises. Blood wash on palms can’t appear after death, particularly in this case where it could only be that David had attempted to wash the blood off his father’s hands – apparently to save him from blame. While he washed that blood off, he was of course somehow levitating because the blood spatter from Robin’s suicide was still complete on the floor. Why would he attempt to wipe the blood of his father’s hands Maxine. That’s so silly, it makes me feel like saying heck. From that situation I can’t really progress that David Bain was the killer, the one that fought with Stephen, because of his hands being washed or not. David’s clean hands don’t take the blood and bruising off his fathers, and that really is the comparison. Arguing that David may have washed his hands more than once is only speculation, yet it can’t be argued, unlike against Robin, that he had contusions as well as blood on his hands. The bruises and blood were found on his father’s hands.

    Following from that to the gloves. Blood had soaked through those gloves, a situation that doesn’t acquit Robin from blame. Nothing is gained from speculating why Robin chose to wear gloves because it doesn’t overcome the blood on hands evidence. David’s prints were on the rifle, so therefore he not only cleverly wore gloves but also put his fingerprints on the rifle despite wearing gloves not to do so earlier. After that he tried to wipe the blood of his father’s hands so that he wouldn’t be a suspect. Whew!

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

    Nostalgia, thank you again for responding to my post. Nowhere, did I make any such comment about David attempting to wash his father’s blood off his hands so I’m puzzled as to why you attribute that to me. I believe it’s reasonable, and not at all silly to wonder where the blood came from that David Bain washed off his hands before he did the laundry . Maybe there is nothing to be gained by speculating on a good deal of the evidence because of the myriad inconsistencies and contradictions that render it impossible to conclude innocence on the balance of probabilites. It’s good to have these public forums where everyone has the right to hold and express differing opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Of course you didn’t claim that David attempted to wash his father’s blood off his hands. However somebody clearly did and as the prosecution was against David, and the Court said that it had to be either man who was the killer, I was pointing out the absurdity of the Prosecution case of trying to get around the blood wash on Robin’s hands – possibly the strongest indication of his involvement, along with the damage to his hands in the deaths of the others. The case actually failed very early, then a series of mistakes and omissions were placed on top of the premature decision to charge David – for example before whose blood was determined to be on the laundry towel. What the ‘red matter’ was under Robin’s nails and so it goes on.

    Probably nothing wrong with informed debate, however there has been little ‘informed’ debate really. When I first started to follow this I was told that David’s clothes were ‘blood soaked’ for example. Lot’s of misinformation entered the public arena, deliberately in my view and has continued on. I’ve read purported ‘confessions’ that a child could have written better, I’ve heard about lifers (including David) in prison ‘fessing up’ to their crimes so that they might be in some kind of ‘exclusive’ club. I’ve heard about ‘photos’ of David’s injuries which no one in the world has seen and which were not part of the evidence. I’ve heard claims of the autopsy on Laniet ‘proving’ that she hadn’t had a child and it goes on with lists of some of the stuff above. By all means debate may be helpful but only when each of the participants are sure of their facts and have proof of them. The case continues to evolve, the blood wash was discovered many years after the first trial in morgue photos. More recently the evidence of a nose bleed on Robin has become apparent, indicating the amount of blood on that towel, and like his hands – the fight with Stephen.

    The word blood gets tossed around a lot. What doesn’t however is the various types, such as wash, wipe, smear, droplet, spatter, contact and so on, but each of those forms is important to consider but you won’t see much of that in the debate just simply the seizure on blood or anything not fully understood becomes the ‘golden’ bullet in this case for those with an agenda. Along with that comes the ‘elevation’ for people to continue to attack David Bain, the Jury etc and most recently Binnie who has attracted much criticism from those that earlier had ‘confidence’ in him. It’s worth noting that Michael Reed is a defamation expert yet he had no trouble understanding the failed case, or defending it, which he said he became involved on the basis that it was an injustice. I was told he needed this case like he needed a hole in the head, and he admits being criticised as too old and not up to it – something which invariably drove him on. To this point the Bain case has overcome every obstacle said before it as a injustice, the current situation will not prove any more formidable than the barriers, hurdles and walls that have already been overcome. I’d bet on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    The word “blood” gets tossed around a lot. Yes it does.
    David Bain did have blood on his hands at some point of time because he left a bloody print on the washing machine.
    He said he didn’t have blood on his hands because he had washed them ,clearly implying that he had had blood on his hands.
    He had his brother’s blood on his t-shirt and shorts.
    His gloves were saturated with blood. Ok,no-one was able to prove that he wore them but it would be most unlikely that his father would have been wearing those gloves because
    [1] He had his own gloves
    [2] Why would he bother to wear gloves if he was going to commit suicide?
    There was also a stain that looked like blood on David Bain’s Gondolier T-shirt. Ok,it didn’t test positive for blood or anything else,but David Bain said it wasn’t there the previous night when he put that T-shirt in the wash basket.
    It was in the same area as the blood on the green jersey was thought to be. So it would appear that whoever was wearing that jersey was wearing that Gondolier’s t-shirt underneath it.
    The police fingerprint expert said that those prints of David Bain’s were in pristine condition. He also said they were positive prints ,meaning that David Bain’s fingers had blood on them when they were placed on the rifle. Despite rigorous cross-examination by David Bain’s lawyers he still believes those prints were positive prints.
    Robin Bain had light smears of blood on his left hand. There was a small splash of blood on his left index fingernail.
    Whose blood was it,and how did it get there?
    As all the blood on Robin Bain’s clothing was tested and found to be his own blood I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the blood on his left hand was his blood also. One explanation for that blood would be that Robin Bain raised his left hand to his head when he was about to be shot and got some blood spatter on it.
    The defence thesis that Robin Bain was wearing those bloody gloves and then only rinsed his hands after removing them verges on the ridiculous,in my opinion.
    Both gloves were equally bloody. So why did Robin Bain only have smears of blood on his left hand,if he only rinsed his hands?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    We have read a great deal about those abrasions on Robert Bain’s hands. The defence have put forward a few theories as to how they might have gotten there.
    The pathologist who saw Robin Bain’s hands said those abrasions were insignificant. At the first trial he said he believed they were over 18 hours old.At the retrial he said it was impossible to age them accurately . He said they could be anywhere between 1 and 24 hours old.
    Robin Bain was replacing some of the spouting on his house that weekend. He had also been thinning and felling trees in the vicinity of the house because a demolition order for the back of the house was being applied for and this work was being carried out in preparation for that demolition.
    Either or both those activities could have caused those abrasions on his hands.
    And let me repeat. Those abrasions were insignificant. Blow-up photos of Robin Bain’s hands can be seen on the counterspin.co.nz website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stone
    The above is a case that Justice Binnie was involved in. Five Supreme court judges reviewed the case. Binnie was the dissenting judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1705/index.do
    The full case.
    A correction to my previous post. There were nine judges and Binnie was one of the dissenting judges.
    But you do have to wonder. Here is a bloke who stabbed his wife 47 times yet he was only convicted of manslaughter and he stll thought he was treated unfairly.
    Shades of Clayton Weatherston.

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

    Nostalgia: your comment that “More recently the evidence of a nose-bleed on Robin has become apparent,” is interesting. You also say that “Debate may be helpful, but only when each of the participants is sure of the facts and has proof of them.” When and where did evidence for Robin’s nose bleed become apparent? I take it you are sure of this fact, and have proof of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Yes,I would like to know more about that nosebleed. In sounds like a invention to me. Mind you,if Robin Bain did have a nose bleed that could be the reason why he had blood on his hand.
    And I see that same poster is saying that when Dr Pryde’s evidence was read in court he said that he strip-searched David Bain. Funny how Karam has never mentioned that.
    I get the feeling that poster is making things up again. Like it was Robin’s DNA in the rifle barrel when in fact that blood was never tested. You have to keep your eye on him.
    He has a fertile imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Who turned the computer on.? In the absence of David Bain telling us we will just have to guess. It could have been David Bain or it could have been Robin Bain.
    I believe it was more likely David Bain at either 6.42 or 6.45.
    This is one scenario.
    David Bain left to go on his paper run earlier than usual that Monday morning,so he told his aunt,and he said he ran all the way. Why would he have done that? I believe it was because he wanted to be home by the time his father came into the house,which he said was around 6.40. I don’t quite know how he knew that seeing as he was always out on his paper round at that time,but it appears he did know somehow.
    Now he wouldn’t want his father alone in the house with all those dead bodies for too long. What say he happened to find one of them? He would be phoning the emergency services straight away,he wouldn’t be waiting twenty minutes.
    So David wanted to be home by 6.40am. And I find it interesting that when he was first asked when he arrived home he said “twenty to seven”. Later he was to say he looked at his watch just after passing through Heath Street and it read 6.40 exactly. I believe it did because that time corresponds fairly closely to the time that a witness estimated she saw him passing through Heath Street. She said she was at work no later than 6.41 and it would have taken her just over a minute to get to work from Heath Street.
    David Bain said it would have taken him 2/3 minutes to get home from where he looked at his watch and that seems a pretty fair estimate. One police officer walked that distance in 2m15s and another took half a minute longer. I believe the second police officer took longer because he had run the paper round up to Heath Street whereas the other police office only walked from Heath Street to 65 Every Street.
    Of course David Bain could have broken into a run after looking at his watch,in which case he would have been home by around 6.42. Now a witness saw him at the gate. Because he was earlier than usual she looked at her car clock and it read 6.50 and she knew it was around five minutes fast. I believe it was because the police checked her clock the next week and it was five minutes fast. I don’t understand why David Bain was at the gate at 6.45 when he should have been home 2/3 minutes earlier. Did he go inside and come back out again? Did he wait at the gate for some reason?
    Was he puzzled by the fact the there were no lights on in the house? His father should have been in the lounge praying and/or meditating.
    Why wasn’t his father in the house.? Possibly because he had no need to get up so early that morning. He had an appointment that morning with an Education Board official,so he would be going in to see her before going to school.
    That meant David had to wait until his father came into the house at around 7am. Then he confronted him, and shot him,causing the dog to bark for a few minutes,something a witness said the dog had never done before.
    This would account for those ‘missing” twenty minutes. It would also account for the fact that Robin Bain was wearing the same clothes as he was wearing the night before. According to David he was usually wearing his work clothes when he went into the lounge,but that morning he had no need to get dressed up before breakfast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    About Robin Bain’s blood on that towel.
    Here’s a likely scenario.
    Robin Bain is pleading for his life. David punches him on the nose to shut him up ,causing it to bleed. Then he shoots him,goes down to the laundry and gets that towel and uses it to staunch the blood flow. After a couple of minutes Robin Bain’s nose will have stopped bleeding,as he is now dead. David returns that towel to the laundry and washes his hands ,leaving a drop of his father’s blood in the hand basin.
    You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    About Robin Bain’s blood on that towel.
    Here’s a likely scenario.
    Robin Bain is pleading for his life. David punches him on the nose to shut him up ,causing it to bleed. Then he shoots him,goes down to the laundry and gets that towel and uses it to staunch the blood flow. After a couple of minutes Robin Bain’s nose will have stopped bleeding,as he is now dead. David returns that towel to the laundry and washes his hands ,leaving a drop of his father’s blood in the hand basin. I have often wondered how that drop of Robin Bain’s blood came to be in the hand basin after David Bain had used it to wash the printers ink off his hands. Mystery solved.
    My thanks to that David Bain supporter for pointing me in the right direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    This below, will be equally hard to understand for the senile who think low blood pressure proves they’re actually ‘right’ in the head.

    Just a snippet. Confirming blood in the rifle followed, for the dim-witted, by a brief explanation as to how a bore is cleaned out following each shot. The soft lead is actually oversized to the bore, preventing exhausting around the bullet head thus as the scientist says the dna arrived there after the final shot and the final person who killed themselves. You have to watch CI experts, mostly they fall asleep during shows because they’re exhausted by senility then when they wake up they simply start farting and making things up.

    The vacuum effect as mentioned is one of the reason that prove why the rifle wasn’t fired from behind the curtain, another is the pattern of spatter on the curtain giving an indication of the height the spatter reached before descending. The ‘tailing’ on spatter denotes direction of travel also speed and ‘exhaustion’ of motion. The upper trajectory shot also removed the curtain from the picture.

    If you read this Maxine you might now see why I suggested that a moron would say that David was cleaning up the blood so that Robin wouldn’t look guilty. Right on cue…..

    Peter Ross, p3653-3654
    Q. You were also asked questions about whether blood would be found on the gun in the case of a hard contact wound and the vacuum effect, do you remember that series of questions?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Have you seen Mr Hentschel’s case notes in this matter?
    A. I have some of his case notes from the page numbering, it’s quite obvious I do not have all of the case notes.
    Q. Do you have page 22?
    A. They’re in the original order they were provided to me, but that order doesn’t follow page numbers, so if you bear with me.
    Q. Perhaps to save time, I’ll put this to you and ask you to comment on it.
    A. I don’t believe, no I don’t have it.
    Q. You don’t have it with you today?
    A. It wasn’t provided to me, so it’s something which I haven’t seen.
    Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
    A. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.
    questions from the court:

    Q. One of those Mr Ross, I take it that if there’s blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle that it was vacuumed in?
    A. It is far more likely sir because of the movement of the gases, the bullet is designed that it fits very, very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed, so it really comes down to the final shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see a David Bain supporter is trying to make amends in a roundabout way for saying Robin Bain’s DNA was found in the barrel.
    If he would like to read what he wrote then he should have realised that the judge wouldn’t have asked Ross that last question if that blood had been DNA tested because if it had he would have known whose blood it was.
    I have never said the blood in the barrel wasn’t Robin’s . I have said that it wasn’t DNA tested. Unfortunately that poster doesn’t seem to know the difference. Why am I not surprised.
    So far as Ross saying that blood would far more likely to have been from the last firing,I don’t have a problem with that.
    But I don’t know about Ross. He got the order of shots to Laniet’s head completely back to front. And one of those shots was a hard contact shot ,so at some point of time her blood would have been in the barrel because it had nowhere else to go and she certainly did not commit suicide.
    I seem to remember there was a case in the US of A where three test shots were fired from what was believed to be the murder weapon to check if those bullets could be matched to one found at the scene. Unfortunately they could not be matched because that bullet was too damaged. But then they checked the barrel again and found there was some blood in it and lo and behold it was from the deceased. So there is a case where three bullets were fired after that bullet that killed the deceased and his blood was still in the barrel.
    That poster also seems to be confused as to the reason I gave as to why Robin Bain’s blood was on that towel.
    I will repeat it,something I usually have to do for that particular poster,don’t quite know why,maybe he is smoking a bit too much of the happy weed.
    I suggested that David Bain could have punched his father in the nose and made it bleed. He would have needed to clean that blood off his father’s face,I mean it would have been too bleedin’ obvious if his father had a bleeding nose when he was shot ,wouldn’t it. I mean who would believe Robin Bain would have punched himself in the face and made his nose bleed before shooting himself.? Surely even a David Bain supporter wouldn’t believe that. But there again……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    ‘I seem to remember’ that’s a positive start.

    Why do we need scientists when we have people who can say that they ‘seem to remember.’

    Yet the blood wiped off the face was still there. Might be time for a blood pressure pill. We even have Robin punching himself in the face, there must be something in the tea at the rest home. Couldn’t be the blood from the fight with Stephen of course because that will only explain the blood on the towel, and the blood wash on the palms. Of course much has been made of the strength of Stephen yet he was 17 kilos lighter than his father and didn’t have the advantage of the rifle and had already been shot, a scalp wound that one pathologist at least said would have been fatal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    When you look at the photos of Robin Bain lying in the lounge after he was shot there is no blood coming from his nose. But a David Bain supporter reckons he has seen a later photo where there is blood coming from Robin Bain’s nose.
    So it follows that if Robin Bain did have a nosebleed then someone must have wiped his face. I suggest that someone was David,using that green towel . And then David washed his hands in the wash basin,hence that spot of Robin’s blood in that basin.
    I mean how did that spot of blood get in the hand basin after David Bain washed the printer’s ink off his hand?
    Perhaps David Bain’s supporter could try to answer that question.
    I don’t know what Stephen being 17 kilos lighter than his father has to do with the price of fish. All the evidence points to David shooting his brother.
    [1] That bruise on David Bain’s head.
    [2]. Those scratches on his chest.
    [3]That blood from Stephen on his clothes.
    [4] Those damaged glasses that David Bain said he was wearing that were found in his room.
    [5] The lens from those glasses that was found in Stephen’s room.
    There is absolutely no evidence that points to Robin Bain having been anywhere near Stephen Bain that morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see David Bain’s supporter has had a sleepness night,no doubt trying to think up a few logical answers to some questions he has been asked.

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

    I see muggins has the same disease as Judith Collins appears to have. It causes them to keep asking the same questions until they get the answer they want. Well it is not going to happen because the answers they want are lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    All I am asking for is logical answers to a few questions.
    How do you believe David Bain got those scratches on his chest?
    Why do you think he waited 20 minutes to phone 111?
    Why did he say on the phone that all his family were dead,then shortly afterwards say he only saw his mother and father?
    Why did he want Laniet to go home that Sunday night? She said he told her he had called a family meeting ,but he never mentioned that meeting when he gave evidence.
    Why did he leave to go on his paper round earlier than usual?
    Why didn’t he bring the paper in when he said he normally brought it in when he ran his paper round,which is what he did that morning?
    Why did he lie to people about when he had that tattoo done?
    Do you accept he was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend,seeing as he told his lawyer and his aunt that he was?
    That will do for starters.
    Re Judith Collins. I have to tell you common sense is not a disease. Judith Collins wasn’t asking Justice Binnie any questions.She looked at his report and apparently thought there were some discrepancies in it. So she wants it checked out.
    And Robert Fisher does have considerable experience so far as compensation claims are concerned whereas Ian Binnie has none.

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

    David Bain has asked himself the same questions many times over the last eighteen years and still doesn’t seem to have come up with the answers he wants. He does come tantalisingly close to the truth though- so in a multiple choice format: Question: Did I murder my family? (A) I’ve done a lot of soul-searching to see if I could have done this during a blackout but I know I didn’t. (B) I gave my statement to the Police, and I’m sticking to it. (C) I come back to my core belief that I’m innocent. (D) It could have been me. (E) IF my father did this I’ll hate him. (F) I’ll be glad when this is over and I can get on with my life. (G) I wasn’t there. (H) I have only partial recall of those events of that morning (I) Joe Karam said I didnt, so I’ll go with him on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Who turned the computer on?
    Earlier I suggested that David Bain could have turned it on at around 6.42 or at around 6.45.
    But it could have been Robin Bain who turned it on.
    According to David his father usually came into the house at around 6.40am. Now I don’t know how David would have known that seeing as he was always out on his paper run at that time,but I have a suspicion that David might have gone up to 65 Every Street a couple of times during his earlier paper rounds at around 6.30 and waited to see when his father came into the house.
    All part of the plan.
    So if Robin Bain came into the house at 6.40am he could have turned the computer on in preparation for typing up a report he was going to present to an Education Board official later that morning.
    David Bain said his father was usually dressed in his work clothes but that morning he was wearing the same clothes as he was wearing the night before.
    The reason why he hadn’t changed was because he wasn’t going to school first thing,he was going to see that Education Board official so he wouldn’t be in any hurry to put his work clothes on.
    He then prays/meditates until around 7am,then goes out and gets the paper which for some reason David hasn’t brought in as he usually does. He doesn’t know David is home because
    [1] The paper hasn’t been brought in
    [2] There is no light on in David’s room.
    What happens after Robin Bain comes back into the house with the paper is anybody’s guess. Does David confront him and march him into the lounge at gunpoint? Is David already in the lounge and does he call out to his father to get his attention.
    The dog started barking at around 7am . That could be when a confrontation took place.
    It has been suggested by a David Bain supporter that Robin Bain had a nosebleed. I havn’t seen any signs of that,but I guess it is possible that David punched his father in the nose,causing it to bleed.
    That could be how Robin’s blood came to be on that towel in the laundry. David used it to stop that nosebleed,and then washed his hands in the same washbasin as he had washed his hands in previously to remove the printers ink,and in so doing left a drop of his father’s blood in that washbasin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Looks like David Bain’s supporters have given up trying to find logical answers to my first set of questions, so there would appear to be no point in asking them any more.
    So I guess I will just have to wait for a while until David Bain becomes headline news again. They might have worked out some answers by then,but I won’t be holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Muggins- I am still waiting for a Bain supporter to answer any of your very pertinent questions.
    I suspect we will be waiting a very long time…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    3 Law Lords + 3 QCs (approx 180 – 200 years of law experience) v inane questions from compulsive repeaters and cut and pasters….zzzzzzzzzzzzh. Wake me up when we get to what Mrs Laney said, again and again and again..zzzzzzzzzzzzzh. Or the van door, the main piece of evidence for the vanquished daddy supporters and they heard about it on TV!

    But due credit we have one of the best of all emerging. David wiping the nose bleed, (after punching Robin apparently so that he would be quiet while he got shot, oh goodness – how silly the children get after CSI shows, but maybe on such shows people are quieter when they’re alive than when they’re dead) small thing that the blood was still there, hardly worth mentioning. Anything to get the blood in the basin and on the towel, but it was also on Robin’s hands – forget about that, no one is perfect, just keep repeating it. Someone might soon discover if Mrs Laney was a Crown or defence witness, maybe 17 years was too long to work it out without special help.

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

    Oh dear Nostalgia-NZ, muggins just may be right for once. Did you not notice that Robin’s face was smeared with blood from David having wiped his nose? or the mass of blood on the lounge carpet from Robin’s nose bleed? How sad that the Police missed all of that, it may have gotten them the conviction that they so dearly wanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (4,685 comments) says:

    It’s certainly not what the today’s police need Kanz, misinformed and speculative obsessive s trying to turn chaff into gold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,ever had a nose bleed? There usually isn’t a lot of blood. Anyway,it was a David Bain supporter who said he had a nose bleed. I don’t think he had one,but if he did it probably was because David Bain punched him before he shot him.
    And that would account for that drop of Robin’s blood in the washbasin that you can’t explain.
    But as I say,I don’t believe Robin Bain had a nose bleed. That is probably a myth perpetrated by a well known myth perpetrator.
    He can’t answer any questions I ask him, so he makes up stories as he goes along.
    You can’t answer my questions either,but at least you are not a myth perpetrator.

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

    muggins, do you also think David may have gone out to the caravan and dripped Robin’s fresh blood, including clots, on Robin’s jeans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Wake me up when we get to what Mrs Laney said

    Isn’t she the woman who Joe Karam hung up on because she didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear? What a nice guy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Joe Karam said I didnt [do it], so I’ll go with him on this one.

    Joe Karam has said a lot of things. Anyone would think he was there that fateful morning…what’s significant is that he thought Bain was innocent before he (Karam) had looked at any of the evidence. What does that say about him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Karam hates the Police with a passion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see a David Bain supporter is rabbitting on about those Law Lords. Those same Law Lords had this to say about those glasses that David Bain told people he had been wearing that weekend.

    “The Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is certainly a tenable one based on the evidence. Indeed,in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s room where he was killed,the Crown thesis is a strong one.”.

    Just as well David Bain exercised his right to silence at the retrial. he would never had stood up to cross-examination regarding those glasses. The jury would have found him guilty,and that would have been the end of the matter.
    Of course I have no doubt that that David Bain supporter will still bury his head ostrich-like in the sand and continue to perpetrate the myth that David Bain wasn’t wearing those glasses that weekend.
    What can one expect from someone who went on for years insisting those blood spots on Robin Bain’s shoe came from one of his children. And now he is saying Robin Bain had a nosebleed. Whatever myth will he come up with next?

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

    and if the point that Karem is a dick needs any further proving, he played football for Glenora, conclusive I’d say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,make up your mind. Did Robin Bain put his clothes in the washbasket before he changed them to meet his maker,or did he put them in the caravan?
    And after me saying you were not a myth perpetrator you start talking about blood clots in the caravan.
    Dear oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    It’s pretty obvious that Bain is a liar. He told the International Justice Conference earlier this year that there was no rift between Robin and himself. That contradicted other testimony that he hated his father. If Justice Binnie fell for Bain’s lies – and it seems he did – then it is only fair that Binnie’s report be corrected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    “Just as well David Bain exercised his right to silence at the retrial. he would never had stood up to cross-examination regarding those glasses. The jury would have found him guilty,”

    Muggins- For the first time I disagree with you. That ‘Jury’ would NEVER have found their beloved David guilty under any circumstance. The fact that members of the jury were partying with Karam and Bain after the trial confirms this. The Prosecution presented a case packed with overwhelming evidence against Bain and this starry-eyed bunch of Woman’s Day reading morons ignored every piece of it. The Crown stood no chance against media-driven brainwash stupidity….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    3 Law Lords + 3 QCs (approx 180 – 200 years of law experience) v inane questions from compulsive repeaters and cut and pasters

    Pretty well sums up this so-called “debate” really.

    One of the great advantages of the Privy Council is that it remained, self-evidently, outside the sphere of social and political influence and was able to look at issues and evidence completely dispassionately. For example, how could they be influenced by armchair experts in NZ who didn’t sit through the trial and see the evidence presented.

    On the other hand, we could save squillions on the justice system if we simply implemented a process whereby the Sunday Star Times summarised its version of events here and guilt or innocence was determined by way of popular vote of our resident legal experts. Alternatively we could just alter the burden of proof to “yeah, kind of looks about right. I think he’s a bit of a creep anyway”. That way we wouldn’t have to suffer being confronted with cases such as that of Arthur Thomas who was framed by the police who were complicit at the top level. After all, ya can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > One of the great advantages of the Privy Council…

    You’re missing the point, deliberately I suspect. The Privy Council never said Bain was innocent. Indeed, it said there was sufficient evidence for him to be tried for slaughtering his family. I’m genuinely surprised that some people believe he’s an angel. Then again, it never ceases to amaze me that some people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and that their belief is so strong and convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    No ross69, you are missing the point and you are being silly.

    I’m genuinely surprised that some people believe he’s an angel. Then again, it never ceases to amaze me that some people claim to have been abducted by aliens, and that their belief is so strong and convincing.

    Would you care to explain how those comments are in any way relevant to the point I was making. Are also inferring that I am a Bain supporter or was that just gratuitous drivel? Care to cite any comment that I have ever made on this issue that evidences my support for Bain?

    Unlike you and others here who ought to know better, I’m not prepared to express an opinion about Bain’s guilt or innocence because I didn’t sit through any of the trials or hear any of the evidence. But then the rule of law or the integrity of the judicial system is hardly likely to sit close to the bosom of someone such as yourself is it ross? Given your propensity to deal with people on the basis of that they all represent the lowest common denominator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    thedavincimode- How do you know that Ross didn’t sit through the trial?? Kiwiblog has Anonymity…Shit he could be Crown Prosecutor.

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

    3 Law Lords + 3 QCs (approx 180 – 200 years of law experience)

    The Law Lords are experienced in Law, not justice. The Law may, or may not, fit with the public perception of justice.

    There are two different approaches taken on this topic. One is the legal approach, which attempts to be objective. The other is our subjective view of what is justice.

    I consider him guilty. But legally this is not proven, so I think he should be compensated. It is not my idea of “justice”, but it is consistent with the Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > inferring that I am a Bain supporter

    You were defending the Privy Council while ignoring what it said. That doesn’t seem terribly helpful. It’s like saying that Binnie is an independent high falutin former judge so must know what he is talking about. Appealing to a higher authority doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    thedavincimode-let me assure you that I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the Bain murders,so I reckon I definitely am qualified to express an opinion.
    If you would like an answer to any question regarding the retrial,the PCA Report,the Court of Appeal hearings,the Privy Council report,David Bain’s testimony at the first trial, the cross-examination by the Crown prosecutor at the first trial re those glasses feel to ask.

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

    muggins@9.19am

    That explains your mistakes, then.
    All that you have studied is old information, such as the PCA report, when was that written again?
    What you really need to study is the fresh information as given in the retrial. You really need to read the retrial transcripts and see the photos presented to the jury. If you could do that, you would know better than to scoff at , for example, that there was fresh blood including clots found on jeans in Robin’s caravan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    I see that David Bain’s supporters still havn’t come up with an answer to even one of my questions,why am I not surprised.
    I am intrigued by that so-called nose bleed that Robin Bain is supposed to have had.
    I believe that is a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator, but if Robin Bain did have a nose bleed it could solve a couple of puzzles.
    Only one person could have punched Robin Bain on the nose and that person is David Bain. It couldn’t have been Stephen Bain because none of Robin’s blood was found on Stephen’s clothes. Stephen was virtually strangled with his T-shirt,so if the person who did that had a nose bleed there would have been some of his blood on that T-shirt and/or his body.
    So if David Bain did punch his father on the nose,causing it to bleed,that could account for Robin Bain’s blood on that towel in the laundry. David Bain could have used that towel to clean the blood from around his father’s nose. And that could also account for that drop of Robin Bain’s blood in the handbasin. If David Bain washed the printers ink off his hands using that handbasin,as he said he did, then how could Robin Bain’s blood get in that basin after he did that.? One way it could have gotten there was because David Bain washed his hands after cleaning up after that nosebleed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8063237/Bain-report-based-on-assumptions-wrong-facts
    What have I been saying all along? Of course that report had to based on assumptions and the incorrect facts,no way Binnie could have found Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities if it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    Kanz,that blood only appeared to be fresh blood,just like the blood on that T-shirt that David Bain was wearing appeared to be old blood.
    How did it get there? I have no idea. Perhaps David Bain put it there. But if it wasn’t fresh blood it could have been there for quite some time.
    Now,seeing as I have at least tried to answer your question,how about you trying to answer some of mine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. thedavincimode (6,103 comments) says:

    muggins

    let me assure you that I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the Bain murders,so I reckon I definitely am qualified to express an opinion.

    I imagine that invite to the House of Lords is in the mail as I type.

    ross69

    One of the points I was making is that you feel eminently more qualified to express a view on this than the people who are in fact more eminently qualified than you. The PC said the case against Bain was a fuckup and that evidence before them didn’t warrant a guilty verdict or words to that effect. That is not equivalent to saying that he was not guilty. It is in fact only saying it was a fuckup. The final not guilty verdict does not mean he didn’t do it. It means that the case was not proven to the requisite burden of proof. Whatever Binnie has said has clearly not come up to scratch, which does not surprise me because my impression is that the Canadian judiciary can be a bit flighty and tends to sit outside the Comonwealth mainstream. Binnie was a very odd choice by Power – Lord only knows what possessed him to go there. The Aussie judges are all pinkos and like to give others’ money away so in the circs, the only sensible place to go once it decided to go overseas was the UK where their population base and legal tradition has produced jurists of far superior quality than anywhere else in the Commonwealth.

    This obsession of unqualified couch potatoes in debating this issue ad nauseum might be a bit of sport but is ultimately a bit pointless – like the so-called AGW debates here or me playing with Redbaiter. Interesting it might be for some, even those who haven’t been in the trial, but it is laughable to go on to assert a point of view contrary to those that have been part of the process and who are eminently more qualified to express a view about these things or, through networks arising from previous employment might know things that we may not. This is a judicial process that has rules. Those rules are there to protect each of us. Whatever decision is reached, it is decided in accordance with the rules. The compensation issue however, IMO, ought to deviate from the trial rules in that there ought to be some basis upon which credible evidence found inadmissable at trial can be included in any consideration. I don’t know if that is the case, but the fact that Binnie read Karam’s book, which incidentally, I find extraordinary, suggests that he at least felt able to caste his evidenciary net wider. Talking to Bain without the benefit of cross-examination doesn’t meet what I would regard as an evidentiary threshold. However, he did it so it remains to be seen what happens to his report. Collins is clearly unimpressed by it and his re-submission of it seems almost bizarre but nevertheless indicative that it wasn’t done properly in the first place. However, enjoy yourselves by all means and if it makes you feel good by disagreeing with more competent people than yourselves by all means be my guest. I’ve at least got the courage to say I don’t have a clue whether he did it or not and that I’m not prepared to put myself above those who have far more expertise than me – oops, that would be all of you guys wouldn’t it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. muggins (2,900 comments) says:

    thedavincimode
    An excellent post. But I don’t expect to receive an invite to the House of Lords.
    If you like to have a look at counterspin.co.nz you will see a heading on the left hand side “The Bain killings. Whodunnit?”
    You might like to have a quick read of that. A number of politicians have received a copy,whether they have bothered to read it or not is another matter.

    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.